Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:19:58 -0400, JDG wrote > Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced > position here? No. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:23:42 -0400, JDG wrote > We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded > conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without > restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples > of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I > even made the question multiple choice! To use the language I used about war... there are plenty of liberals who have a moral presumption against abortion. There are plenty of liberals who know that it is a terrible and sad thing. There are plenty who are doing a great deal to make abortion rare. I believe those things. They are part of having a consistent ethic of life. I support all sorts of restrictions against abortion, just as I support all sorts of restrictions against the use of military power. Both issue have had profound impacts on my family. Now, hobgoblins, that's the conservatives' cue to tell me I'm living in a fantasy land if I think that abortion can be made rare. Pink unicorns and all that. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:09:46 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > In the absence of the > ability to enforce such a law fairly, it is merely words on paper, > as WWII showed. In my view, that's a reason not to make abortion a crime. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:26 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded >> conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without >> restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples >> of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I >> even made the question multiple choice! > >To use the language I used about war... there are plenty of liberals who have >a moral presumption against abortion. There are plenty of liberals who know >that it is a terrible and sad thing. There are plenty who are doing a great >deal to make abortion rare. I believe those things. They are part of having >a consistent ethic of life. Fine then, Nick, then answer the challenge!Name one type of abortion that Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to defend from restriction! Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -"partial-birth"/"dilation and extraction" abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability outside the womb should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited If you cannot come up with one, then I think that you owe Dan M. an apology for your completely over-the-top reaction to his statement that "The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question." Either the standard liberal Democratic position has been to defend all abortions against restriction, or else it has been to support at least one restriction on abortion. By rights, Dan M. and I are giving you a gift by defining the "standard liberal Democratic position" in such extremist, absolutist, terms. To disprove this thesis, you need only provide one, single, example - so how about it?If this proposition is such "extremist, strawman, hogwash", surely the one, measely example you need to demonstrate it as such is readily available to you, is it not? >Now, hobgoblins, that's the conservatives' cue to tell me I'm living in a >fantasy land if I think that abortion can be made rare. Pink unicorns and all >that. What utter mularkey Nick. Or to use your language: "Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the conservative position, nor much of anybody in within the conservative movement." What do you think that I and so many other pro-lifers are working for if not to make abortion rare???The central motivating ideal of pro-life conservatives is precisely that abortion can made rare! At 07:16 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced >> position here? > >No. Nice cheap-shot taken by stripping all of the relevant quotations out of your reply.Shall we review the parts you conveniently snipped? >>> If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one >>> of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are >>> defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? >> >>I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from "defending abortion." Your message appears to make a fine distinction between "defending all abortions" vs. "defending abortion." If that isn't nunaced - something along the lines of "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" - then you have a very peculiar definition of "nuanced." JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:12:00 -0400, JDG wrote > Fine then, Nick, then answer the challenge!Name one type of abortion > that Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to defend from > restriction! I named *all* types. You're still failing to make a distinction between defending abortion and defending the legality of abortion. > Nice cheap-shot taken by stripping all of the relevant quotations > out of your reply. No, it wasn't. For me, the difference between defending abortion and defending the legality of abortion is far, far from a nuance. It is an enormous difference. You may regard it as a nuance if you wish, but please don't insist that I agree. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures. The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say "human". (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward. The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise. Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer. What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world "really" is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species. Some indeed would argue with the word "other" in that sentence as assuming facts not supported by the evidence. :P It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, su
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:23:42 -0400, JDG wrote > Now, hobgoblins, that's the conservatives' cue to > tell me I'm living in a > fantasy land if I think that abortion can be made > rare. Pink unicorns and all > that. > > Nick No, the pink unicorns are because you think domestic politics, where the rule of law is a real thing, are the same thing as international politics, which are consulted in anarchy. The pink unicorns are there, but they're associated with the other part of the comparison. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > No, the pink unicorns are because you think Gautam, if you want to know what I think, I'd be grateful if you would choose to ask me, rather than telling me -- even though I often do the same thing that I'm complaining about. I'm trying to do better. I think the root of this is thinking that I'm smart in all ways, rather than a few. Also, I tend to live in a state of constant alertness, which includes trying to anticipate what's going to happen next, which serves me well in some ways, but not so much in dialog, where it leads me to assume I understand more than I do. I'm smart in some ways, but I'm quite dense in others, such as when I jump to conclusions about what other people are saying or thinking. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Just for the record...
All the posts I read that have someone dismissing someone else's words/arguments as "malarkey" or "hogwash", I'm automatically discounting some. So if you are trying to persuade *me* of anything, me being a particular spectator of debate here, that tactic is costing you. Just FYI. Julia p.s. I also consider it to be extremely rude to publicly announce who's in a killfile, so if you want my continued respect at the same level, I'd appreciate you not informing me of that on-list. (And if it's someone else's killfile, that might be touching on my biggest pet peeve regarding legitimate e-mail, that of passing along what was in a private e-mail without the original sender's consent.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
On May 17, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? That's more of the same kind of problem, yeah. It's hard to find a bottom to this kind of thinking, yet we still have to behave as though we know what we're doing most of the time. [What's going to follow here is going to come off as very abstract in some ways, possibly even foolish. That's okay with me.] This morning I had the universe for breakfast. What it "was" was an IHOP breakfast skillet, but the potatoes, onions, peppers and cheese all derived from terrestrial organic sources, and they were produced through the labors of other humans. Rain, water and sunlight as well as soil went into that skillet. So did the remnants of many long-dead long-ago-exploded suns. All of which came from that first cosmic expansion. It was pretty tasty. I realized a few years back that nouns don't really exist. We put names on things but I think those names are really descriptions of ourselves. The suchness of a thing is untouched by what we call it, and furthermore the thing itself is impermanent. Suppose you buy an axe from Home Depot and use it for a few years ... and then the handle breaks. You replace the handle and use the axe for a few more years ... and then the head chips and you replace that. It's still your axe, but is it the same axe any more? When did its axehood change? We eat and excrete, we drop millions of cells each day and replace them with millions more, and yet we possess the idea of self-consistency. But where is that self actually located? Where is the "I" in anyone? This suggests that the concept of self is an abstraction, just as the concept of "my" axe is, and that the big bang that led to stellar formation that led to supernovae that led to heavy elements that led to an accretion disk that led to Earth that led to lava that led to mountains that led to rocks that led to sand that led to mud that was clumped and made into bricks that got turned into "my" house is simply a concept that I hold, not any kind of reflection of permanence or immutability. Is human -- I mean the definition -- a little like an electron's state? (Particle or wave? Both? Something other?) Do we determine the humanness of something in a completely subjective way, by deciding at the outset how we're going to conclude, and then only observing the things that support our conclusions? *Can* there be an objective definition of human? Or are we stuck with something that has fuzzy edges forever? So I think that when labels get stuck onto things, we're heading into trouble. They're reflections of what we think, not what the labeled thing is. At the very least it doesn't hurt to remember that labels should be treated as subjective and consensual rather than objective, hard truths. That said, a rock is still a rock and when it hits me on the head it hurts. Hard truth, indeed. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives Yeah, again, more of that bottomless reasoning. We very often behave as though there is no doubt about our conclusions. We have politicians who on one hand utter homilies about "erring on the side of life" but on the other hand are apparently quite sanguine about erring on the side of mass slaugh
Re: Just for the record...
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > All the posts I read that have someone dismissing someone else's > words/arguments as "malarkey" or "hogwash", I'm automatically > discounting some. > > So if you are trying to persuade *me* of anything, me being a > particular spectator of debate here, that tactic is costing you. Well, this statement is costing you. Since there are a number (which has increased lately) of people here who ARE posting a heck of a lot of baloney, some people are correct when they point it out. Since you are apparently discounting people who are correctly pointing out nonsense, as well as those who may not be, you are painting with too broad a brush. So you lose points with me. Just for the record. > p.s. I also consider it to be extremely rude to publicly announce > who's in a killfile, so if you want my continued respect at the same > level, I'd appreciate you not informing me of that on-list. (And if If I did not consider it annoying to whine about things like this, I might point out how annoying the above sort of whining is. By the way, I have been deleting unread a number of whiners and nonsense spouters' emails (not automated kill file, at least not yet). Guys (you know who you are) feel free to pile on here and whine and exchange nonsense. Maybe it will occupy you enough to stop distracting the few remaining people who are interested in reasonable discussion. But probably not. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when > >>there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting > I > >>attended? > > I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the > Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it > in large part to the issue of "moral values." This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the vote of the "moral values" voters. I also cast a moral vote against Bush. Despite the poor wording the moral values question had been used before and it was down from previous elections. Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. > > >>I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life > >>people > >>can't be heard in the Democratic party. > > I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor > Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in > the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. And the fact that: > a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a "pro-life" Senator in the > Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. > "pro-choice" Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) > b) Harry Reid is about the only "pro-life" speaker at a Democratic > Convention in a long, long time > > At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >>The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of > >>abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place > >according > >>to the AMA. > > Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even > restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? > That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also snipped. Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oh dear...
> Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > *There might, I say might be a rare variant in > which > > Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses" > > sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook. > ;) > Please pay attention. They're not teal (that color > is a trademark of the > San Jose Sharks), they're not "dusty rose" (that > color is SO '80s), they're PUCE. Boy, I say - Boy! - you are fixin' to be chickinhauk, I say *chickinhawk* feed! Whut kindav a color is _puce_!!? Sounds like whut comes outta a li'l un's end -- take yer pick as ta _which_ end. Debbi Forever In Blue Jeans Maru `;} __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant >women? I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's a legal abortion. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
5/16/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: > abortion. > >> The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions > without > >> question. > > > >Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much > of > >anybody in it. > > Oh really, NIck > > Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to > disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of > sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such > restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats OK, it wasn't clear and from the tone I assumed the word "liberal" was used as a perjorative. Instead you have made a steeper test - that "liberal Democrats", not Democrats as a whole but a subset of them, must have opposed all these measures. Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: > -no public funds should be used to fund abortions > -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions > -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before > getting an abortion > -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion > -"partial-birth"/"dilation and extraction" abortions should be prohibited > -abortions after viability should be prohibited > -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of argument in a slightly different context Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior? Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a woman and her doctor on sexual matters? Can you point me to positions where these are not consistently supported by conservative Republicans? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Dan Minette wrote: > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be > illegal > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all > abortions, even for development beyond viability. > Most Democrats /are/ Americans. I think your phrasing here is a bit misleading. Are you speaking of Democrat polititians..activists.PACs Or are Democrats not Americans? xponent The Frailty Of Communication Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day
> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >JDG wrote: > >> Deborah wrote: > >>I was > >>disappointed by the recent unimpressive voting > >>turnout by women. War, even necessary war, is > >>antithetical to what "we" are taught as girls. > > Are you suggesting that there are inherent > differences among the sexes? >There are certainly differences *between* the sexes >imposed by the culture, which is where we are taught. Bob C wrote "...she said `taught'. In ordinary language, 'taught' implies something other than `inherent'. Perhaps Deborah does have opinions about inherent differences... Culturally (at least in the US) girls are taught to consider others' feelings as a major factor in their own behavior; I even catch myself using that in my teaching (...how would *you* feel if...?) to girls vs. boys (If you treat them meanly, they won't do what you want and might even buck you off...). I do give a logical/practical reason as well to the girls, and drive home the fact that horses have feelings to boys, but -- there is my own cultural bias, suddenly lit. I've stated before that I do think there are inherent differences, hard-wired by our biology, but these are at least somewhat modifiable. Unless you're a vole: monogamous if of the plains variety, polygamous if of the mountain species. Really. Debbi Only Sometimes The Gentler Sex Maru ;) __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:02 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be > > illegal > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all > > abortions, even for development beyond viability. > > > > Most Democrats /are/ Americans. Right, but must Americans aren't Democrats and most Americans aren't Republicans. > I think your phrasing here is a bit misleading. > Are you speaking of Democrat polititians..activists.PACs Politicians, party leaders, and activists. The statement is probably not true for all Democrats, but such things do exista position is a majority position in a party, but a minority position overall. > Or are Democrats not Americans? > Very funny, since I'm a Democrat. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American > PoliticalLandscape Today > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger > pregnant > >women? > > I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure > and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be > dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally > tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. > >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus > until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. > > So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the > waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical > factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the > fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's > a legal abortion. > Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too controversial. In the case I know about the d&e had a 4% complication rate, inducing a later birth and the procedure they used has a 29% complication rate. So banning partial birth abortions even applies to the unalive even with the law struck down. BTW, three separate judges have ruled the partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional because it provides no exception for the woman's health. "According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point," Judge Kopf wrote. "No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion." In his 474 page judgement he went through the entire argument of both sides and concluded: "In summary, examined from the perspective of the trial record, substantial evidence is lacking to support Congress' Findings that there is "no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures," and that the banned procedure is "never necessary to preserve the health of a woman." On the contrary, the trial record establishes that there is a significant body of medical opinion that contradicts Congress. No reasonable person could come to a contrary decision." I am thinking these arguments never go anywhere. I worry about the health of the mother and what happens if abortion is outlawed. We know it doesn't stop. Opponents argue about unborn babies or pre-babies, their souls, and the slippery slope. .As well as just spread lies, I think every community has activists spreading their facts about this "never necessary procedure." Another Judge was able to turn the trial into a show trial against the D&X abortion procedure - even though it's not clear that the D&X procedure is what the PBA ban actually bans. (The court in California ruled that the definition was too broad, contradicted medical definitions and was too vague. This third court in New York with a conservative judge found the procedure revolting but the law unconstitutional.) Legal background here: http://www.federalabortionban.org/in_the_news.asp Poland also recently restricted abortions. A study is out, it says what you would expect. Reproductive Health Matters volume 10, issue 19 (not online, sorry), has a report on the results of Poland's abortion ban (Poland banned abortion in 1993, except in cases of rape, a threat to the health or life of the mother, or a severely damaged fetus). The Polish abortion ban is fairly similar to what pro-lifers in the USA have proposed, except that American pro-lifers are opposed to health exemptions. The law didn't measurably reduce the number of Polish abortions; it did, however, force hundreds of thousands of women to obtain illegal abortions (and it drove the price of abortions way up). However, some women who need abortions for health reasons don't have the money or connections to obtain an illegal abortion, or cannot safely have an abortion outside of a legal hospital setting. The result, of course, is that women are hurt. Alicja became pregnant for the third time aged 31; her eyesight had deteriorated with each of her two previous pregnancies. A number of ophthalmologists agreed that another pregnancy could irremediably damage her eyesight, but they refused to write a letter to that effect. One finally did write the requisite letter, but Alicja was turned away from the public hospital where she sought an abortion. The obstetrician-gynecol
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Gary Denton wrote: > > You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives > but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising > to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together > like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in > the park in DeLay's district. > Where was this at Gary? Was it on our side of town? xponent Nassau Bay Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:02 PM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be > > > illegal > > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all > > > abortions, even for development beyond viability. I have never heard that position offered**. Roe v. Wade doesn't support that position. Democratic platforms which I have read don't support that position. * OK, I do recall a conversation with one person at a church who I thought was crazy. She got into questioning at what point infants had fully formed reasoning ability or even a sensory network and should be classified as human. I didn't want to be debating infanticide particularly as I was going up to ride herd on some rowdy teens. I wonder if the rowdy teens provoked her comments? -- Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
At 03:24 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 17, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? That's more of the same kind of problem, yeah. It's hard to find a bottom to this kind of thinking, yet we still have to behave as though we know what we're doing most of the time. [What's going to follow here is going to come off as very abstract in some ways, possibly even foolish. That's okay with me.] This morning I had the universe for breakfast. What it "was" was an IHOP breakfast skillet, but the potatoes, onions, peppers and cheese all derived from terrestrial organic sources, and they were produced through the labors of other humans. Rain, water and sunlight as well as soil went into that skillet. So did the remnants of many long-dead long-ago-exploded suns. All of which came from that first cosmic expansion. It was pretty tasty. I realized a few years back that nouns don't really exist. We put names on things but I think those names are really descriptions of ourselves. The suchness of a thing is untouched by what we call it, and furthermore the thing itself is impermanent. Suppose you buy an axe from Home Depot and use it for a few years ... and then the handle breaks. You replace the handle and use the axe for a few more years ... and then the head chips and you replace that. It's still your axe, but is it the same axe any more? When did its axehood change? We eat and excrete, we drop millions of cells each day and replace them with millions more, and yet we possess the idea of self-consistency. But where is that self actually located? Where is the "I" in anyone? This suggests that the concept of self is an abstraction, just as the concept of "my" axe is, and that the big bang that led to stellar formation that led to supernovae that led to heavy elements that led to an accretion disk that led to Earth that led to lava that led to mountains that led to rocks that led to sand that led to mud that was clumped and made into bricks that got turned into "my" house is simply a concept that I hold, not any kind of reflection of permanence or immutability. Is human -- I mean the definition -- a little like an electron's state? (Particle or wave? Both? Something other?) Do we determine the humanness of something in a completely subjective way, by deciding at the outset how we're going to conclude, and then only observing the things that support our conclusions? *Can* there be an objective definition of human? Or are we stuck with something that has fuzzy edges forever? So I think that when labels get stuck onto things, we're heading into trouble. They're reflections of what we think, not what the labeled thing is. At the very least it doesn't hurt to remember that labels should be treated as subjective and consensual rather than objective, hard truths. That said, a rock is still a rock and when it hits me on the head it hurts. Hard truth, indeed. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives Yeah, again, more of that bottomless reasoning. We very often behave as though there is no doubt about our conclusions. We have politicians who on one hand utter homilies about "erring on the side of life" but on the other hand are apparently quite sa
Re: Just for the record...
On May 17, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: All the posts I read that have someone dismissing someone else's words/arguments as "malarkey" or "hogwash", I'm automatically discounting some. So if you are trying to persuade *me* of anything, me being a particular spectator of debate here, that tactic is costing you. Well, this statement is costing you. Since there are a number (which has increased lately) of people here who ARE posting a heck of a lot of baloney, some people are correct when they point it out. Since you are apparently discounting people who are correctly pointing out nonsense, as well as those who may not be, you are painting with too broad a brush. So you lose points with me. Just for the record. Perhaps a price worth paying: some points are worth more than others. If I act in a way that causes someone that I and the list hold in high esteem me to discount, disregard or disrespect me, then I have lost valuable points. I try to learn. If I act in a way that causes someone that *I* discount, disregard or disrespect to tell me that I have lost points with them, so what? If I act in a way that causes someone that the list discounts, disregards or disrespects to tells me that I have lost points with them, then I consider that my overall list-worth has gone up. I consider that people who point out the nonsense *in-an-argument* do us all -- including themselves -- a favor, but that those who merely call names or dismiss others or their arguments as stupid, inattentive, low signal-to-noise, and so forth *** without addressing that which makes the critic find them so *** do nobody a favor. p.s. I also consider it to be extremely rude to publicly announce who's in a killfile, so if you want my continued respect at the same level, I'd appreciate you not informing me of that on-list. By the way, I have been deleting unread a number of whiners and nonsense spouters' emails (not automated kill file, at least not yet). Guys (you know who you are) feel free to pile on here and whine and exchange nonsense. Maybe it will occupy you enough to stop distracting the few remaining people who are interested in reasonable discussion. But probably not. Of course not. I mightn't agree with your definition of reasonable discussion, nor am I likely to classify the same things as whining and nonsense that you do. In fact, I wouldn't classify anything that is posted in earnest that way: It's just not how I think. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/17/05, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gary Denton wrote: > > > > You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives > > but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising > > to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together > > like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in > > the park in DeLay's district. > > > Where was this at Gary? > Was it on our side of town? Tom Bass Park #3 4-7pm last Saturday. 15108 Cullen Blvd, Houston, 77047. Made three evening TV newscasts, My ex-wife Pat was briefly in one of them. Save America Without DeLay Free Family Fun Festival Kids could smash a Delay Pinata, a beanbag toss at DeLay scandals, pin the tail on the elephant, a two-person sack race, poetry, limerick and song competition. giant blowup hammers. Lots of tables from Democratic groups, a number of candidates, a short training group about Democratic and GOP framing and messaging, good chili dogs and lots of desserts. I had fun helping to put up and take down canopies that weren't really needed. Gary Denton GOOD THINGS FROM DEMOCRATS: Women's Suffrage Amendment Social Security Agricultural Extension Service 40-Hour Work Week Workers Compensation Act Soil Conservation Act Unemployment Compensation Act Rural Electrification Act National Labor Relations Act Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Clayton Antitrust Act Securities & Exchange Act GI Bill of Rights School Lunch Program Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Full Employment Act Federal Home Loan Program Marshall Plan NATO Peace Corp & Vista Medicare Operation Head Start Older Americans Act Civil Rights Act of 1964 Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the renewal of which Bush knows nothing about, by his own admission) Guaranteed Student Loan Program First Man on the Moon Medicaid Water Quality Act Clean Air Act Family & Medical Leave Act Motor Voter Act 100,000 New Policemen on U.S. Streets ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
On May 17, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I think you need to find out what someone had added to the salt shaker at that IHOP . . . :D I rarely use salt. The syrup might have been spiked, though. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
At 07:30 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 17, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I think you need to find out what someone had added to the salt shaker at that IHOP . . . :D I rarely use salt. The syrup might have been spiked, though. Or maybe the sugar in it had fermented . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
How disappointing! Julia started a whining thread just tailor-made to draw the nonsense-spouting whiners, like flies to shit. My left middle finger is raring to go, it needs excercise. Come on, where are the cry-babies when you need them? What happened to the posturing pudding heads? Nick, Warren, Dave, Ronn, Gary, surely you have something to cry about or some nonsense to spout? Here's your chance. You might even be able to pull in Robert and JDG if you really get going! Come on, it will be healthy! My left-middle finger needs exercise! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
Erik Reuter wrote: > > Come on, it will be healthy! My left-middle finger needs exercise! > You know, this is the kind of sentence that _begs_ for the canonical reply: "Then why don't you stick it inside your ass?" But since I am polite, I will not write this obscenety O:-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 17, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: Nick, Warren, Dave, Ronn, Gary, surely you have something to cry about or some nonsense to spout? Hey, Erik: PAY ATTENTION! I already replied, at length, to your reply to Julia's message, not 30 minutes ago. If your manual killfile already killed it, you can read it here: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20050516/ 014993.html Happy whining, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
Erik Reuter wrote: > How disappointing! Julia started a whining thread just tailor-made > to > draw the nonsense-spouting whiners, like flies to shit. > > My left middle finger is raring to go, it needs excercise. Come on, > where are the cry-babies when you need them? What happened to the > posturing pudding heads? Nick, Warren, Dave, Ronn, Gary, surely you > have something to cry about or some nonsense to spout? Here's your > chance. You might even be able to pull in Robert and JDG if you > really > get going! > > Come on, it will be healthy! My left-middle finger needs exercise! > You don't mind if I cut ahead in line do you? xponent Razor Sharp Teeth Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American > PoliticalLandscape Today > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger > pregnant > >women? > > I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure > and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be > dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally > tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. > >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus > until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. > > So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the > waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical > factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the > fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's > a legal abortion. > >Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to >term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are >always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus >many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too >controversial. First, they could always induce labor...so I think there is a medical reason for carrying the dead fetus to term. I'm not sure why, once the woman is dilated, pushing is all that more dangerous than an extraction. There is the risk of the usual small complications for the woman that's associated with normal childbirth, but I don't see how the risk of death or serious harm is increased greatly by the extra time it takes for pushing a stillborn baby out. IIRC, delivery of even a dead fetus normally is considered safer than any intervention that could be tried. Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I saw your quote from "Reproductive Health Matters, and I don't find it intuitive. Since the abortions are illegal, it would be very interesting to see the methodogy of estimation. Looking back at US history, is it really likely that the number of abortions was roughly 40% of the number of births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a I googled for that term and got this self-definition: " The journal offers in-depth analysis of reproductive health matters from a women-centred perspective, written by and for women's health advocates, researchers, service providers, policymakers and those in related fields with an interest in women's health. Its aim is to promote laws, policies. research and services that meet women's reproductive health needs and support women's right to decide whether, when and how to have children. " at http://gort.ucsd.edu/newjour/r/msg02430.html It's an advocacy magazine, as I guessed. I would not consider it any more objective than the GOP website. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today > births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a ^^^ delete the next lines were the replacement thought after I got an understanding of the publication. > I googled for that term and got this self-definition: and so on Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Dan wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother?" ALL Democrats Independents Republicans Favor 57 53 56 65 Oppose 38 42 39 31 Don't know 5 5 5 4 Well down the page here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:52 PM 5/17/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >> The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal >> some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, >> even >> for development beyond viability. > >Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: > >Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. >MoE ± 3 (total sample). > >"Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a >specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's >pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to >save the life of the mother?" > > ALL Democrats IndependentsRepublicans > >Favor 57 53 56 65 > >Oppose 38 42 39 31 > >Don't know 5 5 5 4 > >Well down the page here: > >http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Which makes it all the more extraordinary that a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senatevoted against the above law. both the House and Senatevoted against the above law. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm ?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051 http://womensissues.about.com/od/ partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth.htm And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal Democrat" variety. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Dan wrote: > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, > > even > > for development beyond viability. > > Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: Sorry, Robert made me clarify this earlier...I wasn't referring to rank and file... I was refering to leaders, party activists, etc. Senate votes of Democrats, State party platforms, national platforms, etc. Your numbers are consistant with what I expect from self-identified Democrats, but strongly inconsistant with the leadership. "Reproductive rights" do seem to be defended at all costs by national leaders. > Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. > MoE ± 3 (total sample). > > "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to > save the life of the mother?" > > ALL Democrats Independents Republicans > > Favor 57 53 56 65 > > Oppose 38 42 39 31 > > Don't know 5 5 5 4 > > Well down the page here: > > http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm > > > -- > Doug > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
JDG wrote: And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal Democrat" variety. But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:25 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > JDG wrote: > > > And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal > > Democrat" variety. > > But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, > the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. > A reason that affects the health of the mother is a pretty easy thing to find. If it prevents the normal relatively minor damage associated with childbirth, then it can be said to be for the health of the mother. If it makes her feel better, it aids her mental health. Any therapist worth their salt could find numerous DSM-4 diagnosis to back this up. _I_ couldin one minute I got 300.02 General Anxiety Disorder. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 08:26 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> Fine then, Nick, then answer the challenge!Name one type of abortion >> that Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to defend from >> restriction! > >I named *all* types. You're still failing to make a distinction between >defending abortion and defending the legality of abortion. But Nick, I don't think you have provided any evidence that your characterization of liberal Democratic views on abortion is more accurate than Dan M.'s. For example, if the standard liberal Democratic position is *not* to, as Dan M. put it, to "defend all abortions" - then surely these liberal Democrats believe that some abortions should not occur. And if they believe that some abortions should not occur, one would expect them to support restrictions on these abortions that should not occur. Yet, do you have any evidence of this? At this point, I am going to presume that you have conceded that the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose all of the restrictions I identified, as you have repeatedly declined to identify one for which the standard liberal Democratic position is to support that restriction - even though such identification would constitute proof of your original argument. So, Nick, if the standard liberal Democratic position is as you described, and not as Dan M. describe, then: -why is there standard opposition to mandatory waiting periods? -why is there standard opposition to letting doctors and hospitals refuse to provide abortions based on their own conscience? -why is there standard opposition to having minors notify a parent, guardian, or judge? -why is there standard opposition to a prohibition on "partial birth"/"dilation and extraction" abortions? -why is there standard opposition to a prohibition on abortions after the fetus is viable outside the womb? -why is there standard opposition to a prohibition on gender-selection abortions? If there is no explanation for the above, then Dan M.'s description of the standard liberal Democratic position would seem far, far, more accurate than whatever you seem to be arguing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 08:25 PM 5/17/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >> And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal >> Democrat" variety. > >But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, >the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. You're pulling a bait-and-switch, Doug.The poll question was for the bill passed by Congress over Democratic opposition. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
> Behalf Of JDG > > Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: The problem with many of these is that they are clearly and transparently designed simply to make abortion *harder* to get so people will have no choice but to have the baby. Or so only rich people can have access to them. There is no sense of compassion for the unfortunate woman who has found herself in that position. > The central motivating ideal of pro-life conservatives is precisely that > abortion can made rare! Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted pregnancies. That's precisely what the pro-life conservatives seem to consistently miss. It doesn't matter if it is outlawed. > Your message appears to make a fine distinction between "defending all > abortions" vs. "defending abortion." If that isn't nunaced > - something > along the lines of "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" - > then you have > a very peculiar definition of "nuanced." I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Many people have moral qualms about abortion and serious doubts about whether or not they would have one themselves but see absolutely nothing wrong with defending the right of *others* to do so if they need to. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
> Behalf Of Gary Denton > > All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. > But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of > argument in a > slightly different context > > Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that > government belongs in > the bedroom regulating behavior? > Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a > woman and her > doctor on sexual matters? > > Can you point me to positions where these are not > consistently supported by > conservative Republicans? You could probably also put together a pretty good list when it comes to gun control and conservative Republicans... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 10:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: >Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted pregnancies. John, Before I respond to your other points, the above is clearly some kind of typo. I don't want to put words in your mouth - so would you care to make the correction you intend? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
> Behalf Of JDG > > At 10:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: > >Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted pregnancies. > > John, > > Before I respond to your other points, the above is clearly > some kind of > typo. I don't want to put words in your mouth - so would you > care to make > the correction you intend? No, that's what I meant to say. Where's the typo? It's late here but I don't think I'm *that* tired. Another way of saying it is: As long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be abortions. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality >of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician >that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus >that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is >yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. And so just to be clear, the baby would be three days overdue, labor would be induced, and the skull of the baby would be punctured just before it emerges from the mother. This is legal in any case in which the woman claims that *not* doing this would endanger her mental health. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscapeToday
At 11:03 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: >> >Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted >> >pregnancies. >> >> John, >> >> Before I respond to your other points, the above is clearly >> some kind of >> typo. I don't want to put words in your mouth - so would you >> care to make >> the correction you intend? > >No, that's what I meant to say. Where's the typo? It's late here >but I don't think I'm *that* tired. Another way of saying it is: As >long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be abortions. It's connecting "rare" to "no." To me it would be at least plausible to say, "Abortion will never be rare until unwanted pregnancies are rare." To me it seems completely implausible to say that Abortion can't be made rare until there are *no* unwanted pregnancies. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
John Horn wrote: Behalf Of JDG At 10:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: >Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted pregnancies. John, Before I respond to your other points, the above is clearly some kind of typo. I don't want to put words in your mouth - so would you care to make the correction you intend? No, that's what I meant to say. Where's the typo? It's late here but I don't think I'm *that* tired. Another way of saying it is: As long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be abortions. I don't see anything wrong with it either and I like the first statement better than the second because all abortions are not due to unwanted pregnancies. In fact I was just about to post sometning along those lines myself. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscapeToday
JDG wrote: It's connecting "rare" to "no." To me it would be at least plausible to say, "Abortion will never be rare until unwanted pregnancies are rare." To me it seems completely implausible to say that Abortion can't be made rare until there are *no* unwanted pregnancies. OK, I see where you're coming from, you're right, but I think we all understood his point. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:00 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >> >>Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when >> >>there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting >> I >> >>attended? >> >> I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the >> Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it >> in large part to the issue of "moral values." > > >This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the >vote of the "moral values" voters. For the record, I didn't say that the reason for Democrats having these discussions was right - just identifying the elements of Conventional Wisdom that cause Democrats to have these discussions, and not Republicans >>>Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. >>> >> >>I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life >> >>people >> >>can't be heard in the Democratic party. >> >> I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor >> Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in >> the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. > >You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing >to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to >stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be >president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party >is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. Again, not saying its right or wrong - but again identifying the CW. >And the fact that: >> a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a "pro-life" Senator in the >> Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. >> "pro-choice" Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) >> b) Harry Reid is about the only "pro-life" speaker at a Democratic >> Convention in a long, long time But I did notice that you didn't have a sharp rebuttal for the above. >> At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >> >>The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of >> >>abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place >> >according >> >>to the AMA. >> >> Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even >> restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? >> > >That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also >snipped. The bill passed by Congress contained an exception that the procedure may be used to save the life of the mother. In particular, it provides an exception for a partial-birth abortion "necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c1085WUrim:: >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant >women? As noted above, the law provided that government does *not* get involved in such decisions. But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 06:44 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >> > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be >> > > illegal >> > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all >> > > abortions, even for development beyond viability. > >I have never heard that position offered**. Roe v. Wade doesn't >support that position. Democratic platforms which I have read don't >support that position. That position was established through Doe vs. Bolton, which was decided at the same time as Roe vs. Wide, and reinforced in Casey vs. PA and Stenberg v. Carhart. In particular, these cases specify that any restriction on abortion must contain a broad-based exception for the health of the mother. Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. I checked the Democratic Platforms from 1992 through 2004. Most of them included language to the effect that abortions should not be made more difficult to get. No platform included language saying that certain types or kinds of abortions should be restricted or regulated, let alone prohibited. This seems consistent with the proposition that "Democrats support the legality of all abortions." This is especially true given that no restriction on abortion has ever garnered the support of a majority of Democrats in either house of Congress. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:19 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Garu wrote: >> >> I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: >> abortion. >> >> The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions >> without >> >> question. >> > >> >Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much >> of >> >anybody in it. >> >> Oh really, NIck >> >> Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to >> disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of >> sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such >> restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats > >Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: >> -no public funds should be used to fund abortions >> >-Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions >> >-minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before >> getting an abortion >> -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion >> -"partial-birth"/"dilation and extraction" abortions should be prohibited >> -abortions after viability should be prohibited >> -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited > > >All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. Yes, there do exist a handfull of pro-life Democrats, particularly at the State and Local level.The above restrictions, however, have never been supported by a majority of Democrats in either house of Congress. >But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of argument in a >slightly different context > >Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that government belongs in >the bedroom regulating behavior? Conservative Republicans clearly do not always feel that way. When was the last time conservative Republicans proposed a new regulation for a behavior that primarily occurs in the bedroom? Perhaps we could use the same test you have proposed by examining past party platforms? You have correctly made an analogy. By using the word "always", I merely need to find one example in which conservative Republicans have not felt that the government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior to disprove your thesis.In this case, conservative Republicans do not feel that the government belong in a bedroom regulating masturbation. We're still waiting for that one mere example needed to disprove Dan's thesis. >Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a woman and her >doctor on sexual matters? > >Can you point me to positions where these are not consistently supported by >conservative Republicans? I can think of no example in which conservative Republicans have proposed a law that states that the government knows more than a doctor and a woman regarding sex.So, not only is it not consistently supported, there is no single example of it being supported. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
JDG wrote: Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. Even one that could not get a doctor to back her claim up? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:49 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > JDG wrote: > > > > Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any > > woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. > > Even one that could not get a doctor to back her claim up? I think such a woman could theoretically exist, but she'd have very very poor networking skills. If she's pretty upset about the possibility of giving birth, how could you not associate DSM4 300.02 General Anxiety Disorder with that? If need be, I'll give the specifics, but the name alone should tell you how straightforward such a diagnosis would be. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
JDG wrote: > At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the >> legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital >> and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation >> and >> extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days >> overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. > > Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. > > And so just to be clear, the baby would be three days overdue, labor > would be induced, and the skull of the baby would be punctured just > before it emerges from the mother. This is legal in any case in > which the woman claims that *not* doing this would endanger her > mental health. > And you want such a person to raise a child? (I'm looking at the kind of person who would use mental health as an /excuse/ to evade the responsibility of parenthood) Perhaps you are thinking the child should be spared and the mother should be aborted? xponent Set Sarcasm For Zero Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American > PoliticalLandscape Today > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger > pregnant > >women? > > I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure > and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be > dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally > tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. > >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus > until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. > > So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the > waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical > factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the > fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's > a legal abortion. > >Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to >term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are >always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus >many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too >controversial. First, they could always induce labor...so I think there is a medical reason for carrying the dead fetus to term. Do any of the medical personnel on the list have any information or comments here? I'm not sure why, once the woman is dilated, pushing is all that more dangerous than an extraction. There is the risk of the usual small complications for the woman that's associated with normal childbirth, but I don't see how the risk of death or serious harm is increased greatly by the extra time it takes for pushing a stillborn baby out. IIRC, delivery of even a dead fetus normally is considered safer than any intervention that could be tried. Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. The short answer is that if a line has to be drawn, it has to be drawn somewhere. As I think we have shown already in this and previous discussions, no matter where the line is drawn, there are going to be cases which come near the line (on both sides) where following the rule is going to make some people unhappy. OTOH, if no line is drawn beforehand, and each case has to be decided individually, then the question becomes who makes that decision in each case, and again I can guarantee that there is going to be someone who is unhappy with every such decision made. Stating The Bloody Obvious Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
