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 brin-l@mccmedia.com 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 brin-l@mccmedia.com 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
Re: Just for the record...
On 18/05/2005, at 10:49 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: How disappointing! Julia started a whining thread just tailor-made to draw the nonsense-spouting whiners, like flies to shit. It sure worked. Here you are! Hey, so am I. :( or :) Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record...
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! Are we having a bad day Erik? You know, some bathroom time and a Playboy magazine (or a Playgirl, depending on your personal preferences) will probably take care of some of that pent up frustration, and if not, then try switching to decaf and getting out and exercising more than just your left middle finger. And by the way genius, if you are going to insult all of us cry-baby, posturing pudding heads, use your damn spell checker... you spelled exercise wrong. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 18, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: You know, some bathroom time and a Playboy magazine (or a Playgirl, depending on your personal preferences) will probably take care of some of that pent up frustration Playgirl's draw is more for women, I think. Most of the men featured in it are flaccid, which seems to appeal to a woman's sense of the erotic more than a man's. Given an evident digital fixation, I don't think Playgirl (or even Inches) would appeal in this case anyway. (Ironic, ain't it, that the greatest complainant about s:n ratios is the greatest contributor to noise...) -- 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: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/17/05, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did not ban late term abortion. It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) Leaving aside the actual details, those so inconvenient facts, lets see what this poll does show. A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to this. Why wasn't this the bill? The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence this was not so. JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a child is bad for their health. This argument is wrong on its face. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:41:30 -0400, JDG wrote ... 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. Am I correct in believing that by restrictions, you mean government regulation exclusively, not any other kind of restrictions? And that by defend, you mean something like fails to support criminalization? It is true that the Democratic Party has failed to support government regulation of abortion. It has also eagerly supported domestic and global family planning, counseling and services for crisis pregancies and other compassion-based ways to support, heal and nurture women who face this choice. I think that is a far better investment in our future than creation of an FBI abortion task force and loading our courts and prisons with prosecution and punishment of doctors, not to mention further traumatizing women who would have already gone through a terrible trauma. For me, this issue presents one of life's challenges to live with conflict, by regarding abortion as a terribly sad thing, yet also support those who fight to prevent it from being criminalized. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 The discussions I was referring to occurred long before the last election. 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. If right-wing news is your definition of 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 I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that since the GOP has adopted a position it is far easier to disagree with and you get elected officials considered moderates with wider disagreement this means that Democrats are the one with the problem? 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 provide cites that don't exist? However, I could find similar copies of the bill. This exception suffers from several flaws. It is limited to situations where the woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury. This language excludes some life-threatening situations by enumerating others. However, the government may not choose among life-threatening circumstances and still preserve women's lives as the Casey decision requires. This was a political bill. Based on many other bills ruled unconstitutional it was known that this bill also would be declared unconstitutional which it was very shortly by three judges in three states. 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 a conservative pro-life judge held extensive hearings on just that matter and ruled it did. What is your basis for disagreeing with that decision? But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? Because this is a matter between a woman and her doctor? The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. Should a government threaten you with prosecution if it determines you may be wasting sperm in unsanctioned ways? - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Citgo gasoline
Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott! by Jeff Cohen Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations. And tell your friends. Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him the Anti-Bush. Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/ StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans. Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez. So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word. Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars. So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela. Jeff Cohen is an author and media critic (www.jeffcohen.org) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I disagree here. I think that would be illegal under Roe v. Wade which is more sophisticated than you think. But of course you would not get any doctor and any hospital to commit such a murder. Am I defining abortion as murder? Killing viable infants unless a finding has been made that the women's life is endangered is murder, it is not abortion. 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. You are wrong and this is another false argument. The decision could not be made on the mental health of the mother but actual endangerment of the mother. It would also have to be an affirmative decision that the baby is endangering her life and it has come down to one or another. JDG -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: snip 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 think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. 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. True, but one side is arguing about the lines just to get support for outlawing it entirely. Stating The Bloody Obvious Maru -- Ronn! :) Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
That was a very nice post Dave. It cleared up this very confusing thread. I think I wouldn't mind seeing it start over from a more objective viewpoint. The real problem, as I see it, is that folks get way too excited over these concepts; as if they really mean something. The plain truth is that, I'm a political couch potatoe with a strong neo-anarchistic streak, who is deeply devoted to the persuit of my own tiny (read here reasonable) personal pleasures and doing tiny bits of good where I can. I believe that I am in the American mainstream, (if by chance, one looked at it TRULLY objectively) The reliance of polling on peoples biased opinion of the themselves is a fatal flaw in the method. Truth is what people ACTUALLY do with their lives and (more importantly) what they spend their money on; Truth often has little to do with what people THINK of themselves. Leonard Matusik *Student of ChaosNursing -Lenoir, NC USA Dan M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Land To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today Gautam, et al, I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject your categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. Moreover, I found your message a little short on what I'll call intellectual honesty. First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of your ... um ... head, whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers from a poll that has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research Center. Guess which ones I consider to have more weight? Second, your four groups of 20% are skewed to the right. Why didn't you have five groups: Very Conservative 20% Conservative 20% Moderate 20% Liberal 20% Very Liberal 20% -- Source: My Ass Using the above categories, which at least provide a centered spectrum, feel free to provide your own numbers. Third, I don't understand why your four categories only added up to 80%, leaving out 20% of the population. Do you think that the opinions of 20% of Americans don't count, or that 20% don't have any opinions? That is certainly heading in the direction of at least one finding in the Pew report: 63% of respondents feel that Most elected officials don't care what people like me think. Perhaps your story would be better served with these groupings (with no bullshit numbers): Extremely Conservative, Very Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Mildly Conservative, Lunatic Fringe. Returning to meaningful results of an actual poll, the categories and percentages under discussion are: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. For the three general groupings that the Pewsters created, the percentages are: Right-leaning 29% Centrist/Neither 30% Left-leaning 41% Well, that is very curious, since self-identification has long given different results. For example, the Harris poll asks people to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The results have been: Year C M L 2003 33 40 18 2002 35 40 17 2001 36 40 19 2000 35 40 18 1999 37 39 18 1998 37 40 19 1997 37 40 19 1996 38 41 19 1995 40 40 16 1992 36 42 18 1991 37 41 18 1990 38 41 18 1989 37 42 17 1988 38 39 18 1987 37 39 19 1986 37 39 18 1985 37 40 17 1984 35 39 18 1983 36 40 18 1982 36 40 18 1981 38 40 17 1980 35 41 18 1979 35 39 20 1978 34 39 17 1977 30 42 17 1976 31 40 18 1975 30 38 18 1974 30 43 15 1972 31 36 20 1968 37 31 17 Among other things, it's a amazing to lump folks who call themselves conservatives among liberals. The questions sound kinda funny. It doesn't add to 100% because everyone doesn't self-identify. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l - Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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] On 5/17/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Answered elsewhere but that is not the Roe v. Wade decision. 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. :-) Here was my original: 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 I take it you believe that a law restricting abortion will reduce abortions measurably even if it doesn't eliminate abortions? Or are you also disagreeing that illegal abortions will rise, the cost will go up, and women's lives would be endangered? I would think a women's journal for health advocates would be more objective even on issues that concern them than a political organ but I may be naive that way. I think your link confirms it is a reputable science journal. Another link has: *Reproductive* *Health* *Matters* is a twice yearly peer-reviewed *...* Each issue of *Reproductive* *Health* *Matters*concentrates on a specific theme. *. * Can we determine which is which: The evidence shows that restrictive legislation is associated with higher rates of unsafe abortion and correspondingly high mortality. In Romania, for example, abortion-related deaths increased sharply when the law became very restrictive in 1966 and fell after 1990 with a return to the less restrictive legislation.17 Contrary to common belief, legalisation of abortion does not necessarily increase abortion rates. The Netherlands, for example, has a non-restrictive abortion law, widely accessible contraceptives and free abortion services, and the lowest abortion rate in the world 5.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age per year.16 Barbados, Canada, Tunisia and Turkey have all changed abortion laws to allow for greater access to legal abortion without increasing abortion rates.16 Or this: I support abortion, just as long as we can retroactively abort Hillary, Maureen, Nancy, etc. This is a push-poll as sure as the sky is blue. The number of people I've run into willing to defend abortion publicly has plummetted within the last 10 years. I'd say my anecdotal evidence has about as much authority as this bozo old media poll. These people stop just short of holding a mother-to-be against her will, don't they? There was a thread recently about how the feticide *business*has gotten so competitive in Michigan (my home state) that some clinics offer perks. The impression I got was a sort of Aromatherapy and Vaccuum Deluxe package. I believe it, too, living so close to MSU. A slaughterhouse on every corner. Looks like Michael Savage got this one right. Bush is inexplicably doing everything in his power to elect Hillary Clinton president 2008. One of these is from a health organization. One from a GOP site. Dan M. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com
Re: Abortion and Appeals to Emotion
I'm going to summarize here because in the flurry of cross quoting I think I'd have to snip so much that I'd end up with a Burroughs style cut-paste note once it was all done. Dan, you seem to be of the sense that almost any excuse can be developed for a late-term abortion; it appears that Gary is of the opinion that this is not a correct interpretation of current abortion legislation. Since there isn't (TTBOMK) a real national touchstone, it seems that individual states are left to decide what to do about late-term terminations. (BTW, you seem to feel that a national standard might be unfair; I can think of at least one other unfair national standard that certain right-wingers are trying to foist on the country, so beware the strange bedfellow tendency.) Okay, that aside, Dan -- I'm having a hard time understanding what it is you're after. If your objection to the mother's health allowance is that pretty much any hack shrink could come up with *something*, do you have a better proposal in mind, or are you instead in favor of banning all late-term procedures on the argument that *some* *may* take place under false pretenses? Also, it's arguable that a woman who would go to a hack shrink to get a trumped-up excuse to have a late term abortion is, by definition, already pretty damned unhealthy and probably should not be allowed to have a child, or even be within 1000 yards of one. John -- you seem to be objecting to the possibility of a fetus being aborted near or at its due date; yet you seem to have overlooked the stats posted by Gary, which suggest that late-term abortions comprise one in every 25,000 current abortion procedures (0.004%, which is four in one hundred thousand, 4:100,000). That extreme rarity suggests to *me* that those procedures are genuinely undertaken in medical necessity, or else we'd have dithering mothers-to-be all waiting until the last minute to decide whether they really want to keep [the] baby, as Madonna so self-righteously put it. If these few procedures genuinely are medical-need ones, what exactly is it you're objecting to in others' defending the legality of abortions? -- 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
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Budget Anxiety and No Action
One of the best reporters at the Washington Post caught an infromative panel as leaders of Conservative and Liberal think tanks attacked both parties. Posted for those not wanting to register. *Almost Unnoticed, Bipartisan Budget Anxiety* By Dana Milbank Post Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04 The timing could not have been more apt. On the eve of a titanic partisan clash in the Senate, eggheads of the left and right got together yesterday to warn both parties that they are ignoring the country's most pressing problem: that the United States is turning into Argentina. While Washington plunged into a procedural fight over a pair of judicial nominees, Stuart Butler, head of domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Isabel Sawhill, director of the left-leaning Brookings Institution's economic studies program, sat down with Comptroller General David M. Walker to bemoan what they jointly called the budget nightmare. There were no cameras, not a single microphone, and no evidence of a lawmaker or Bush administration official in the room -- just some hungry congressional staffers and boxes of sandwiches from Corner Bakery. But what the three spoke about will have greater consequences than the current fuss over filibusters and Tom DeLay's travel. With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago. The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt, Walker said. The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina. All true, Sawhill, a budget official in the Clinton administration, concurred. To do nothing, Butler added, would lead to deficits of the scale we've never seen in this country or any major in industrialized country. We've seen them in Argentina. That's a chilling thought, but it would mean that. Each of the three had a separate slide show, but the numbers and forecasts were interchangeable. Walker put U.S. debt and obligations at $45 trillion in current dollars -- almost as much as the total net worth of all Americans, or $150,000 per person. Balancing the budget in 2040, he said, could require cutting total federal spending as much as 60 percent or raising taxes to 2 1/2 times today's levels. Butler pointed out that without changes to Social Security and Medicare, in 25 years either a quarter of discretionary spending would need to be cut or U.S. tax rates would have to approach European levels. Putting it slightly differently, Sawhill posed a choice of 10 percent cuts in spending and much larger cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or a 40 percent increase in government spending relative to the size of the economy, and equivalent tax increases. The unity of the bespectacled presenters was impressive -- and it made their conclusion all the more depressing. As Ron Haskins, a former Bush White House official and current Brookings scholar, said when introducing the thinkers: If Heritage and Brookings agree on something, there must be something to it. Yet that is not how leaders of either party talk. Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill recounted how Vice President Cheney told him that deficits don't matter. President Bush projects deficit reductions in the coming few years but ignores projections that show them exploding after that. And Democrats, fighting Bush's call for cutting Social Security benefits through indexing changes, are suggesting that only tinkering with the program is indicated. The congressional staffers, accustomed to sitting on opposite sides of the room in such events, seemed flummoxed by yesterday's unusual session in the Rayburn House Office Building. One questioner suggested Republicans are to blame for multiple tax cuts; another implied the problem is a Democratic appetite for spending. The bipartisan panel would not be goaded. I'm willing to talk about taxes if you're willing to talk about entitlements, Butler offered. Not surprisingly, the Heritage and Brookings crowds don't agree on an exact solution to the budget problem, but they seem to accept that, as Sawhill put it, you can't do it with either spending or taxes. Eventually, you're going to need a mix of the two. Butler wants taxes, now at 17 percent of GDP, not to exceed 20 percent. Sawhill prefers 24 or 25 percent. But such haggling seems premature when both parties still deny the problem. I don't think we're there yet, Walker said. The American people have to understand where we are and where we're headed. And where is that? No republic in the history of the world lasted more than 300 years, Walker said. Eventually, the crunch comes. He wasn't talking about filibusters.
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: snip 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 think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: quote (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered end quote Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Leonard Matusik wrote ... I'm a political couch potatoe Good to hear a new voice! But there's something here that reminds me of a certain former vice president... ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Citizen Cyborg looks at Pew Report
The libertarian author of Citizen Cyborg analyzes the Pew report and finds the economic and social axis dividing the parties. The principal message of the 2005 Report Red vs. Blue from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press is that the Democratic and Republican party blocs are riven internally by significant ideological divisions. The Republicans are divided over the role of government, with hard-right Enterprisers and Social Conservatives united in opposition to the welfare state, taxation and environmental regulation, but alienated from the working class social conservatives, especially women, who are more positive about government. The Democratic bloc includes the relatively socially conservative Disadvantaged and Conservative Democrats, who are uneasy with the secularism of the Liberals. The biggest change since 2000, however, is that Liberals have doubled from 10% to 19% of the electorate, in a reaction to the Christian Right and the Iraq war. Nationalism and militarism, says Pew, is currently the strongest determinant of partisan identification, with the Democrats more likely to favor multilateral solutions to world problems and the Republicans backing Bush's Pax Americana. But support for nationalist militarism is tightly coupled with other socially conservative views. Proportion in the 2004/2005 Electorate Republicans 11% Enterprisers - hard right pro-business social conservatives 13% Social Conservatives - Christian evangelicals 10% Pro-government Conservatives - economically struggling social conservatives Swing 13% Upbeats - economically comfortable, optimistic 10% Disaffecteds - discouraged, alienated working class Democrats 15% Conservative Democrats - economically populist, socially conservative 10% Disadvantaged Democrats - poor economic liberals 19% Liberals - secular, anti-war, economic and social liberals I don't guess I can attach his libertarian diagram of the groups that split out neatly on the two-axis frame libertarians use. It and his other charts are at the Yahho group for CyberDems. In Citizen Cyborg I make the argument that the 20th century political terrain was structured by an economic axis and a cultural axis. (More like he repeated common arguments.) In Citizen Cyborg, I also suggest that a new biopolitical axis of transhumanism vs. bioLuddism is emerging. There aren't many biopolitical questions in the Pew report, but there were questions about embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights and gay marriage. Support for all three pretty much track directly from opposition in the lower left New Right corner to support in the upper right Social Democratic corner. Although the secular Liberals stand out in their support for all three, the Democratic base is more united by support for stem cells and abortion, but divided by gay marriage. The Republican hard right and center-right groups are divided about stem cells and abortion rights, while united against gay marriage. The most appalling fact in the report I think is that a majority of Americans, and even half of the Liberals, want Creationism taught alongside Evolution. But there are also some surprisingly positive results. A majority of Americans have a positive impression of the United Nations for instance, including a majority of the pro-government, pro-Iraq War conservatives (in other words they like the UN, also they also like aggressive global interventionism). And two thirds of the electorate supports Government health insurance for all even if taxes increase, with only the hard right Enterprisers opposed. So a politics based on - an aggressive pursuit of medical progress - personhood ethics instead of Christian ensoulment ethics - defense of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights - universal health care - political globalization in other words, cyborg democrat politics, could unite the American electorate. At the last I think he is blowing smoke, an interesting fruit smelling smoke. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: [...] (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. How do you figure? The proviso includes appropriate medical judgment, which leaves psychologists right out, as only psychiatrists are also MDs, and only psychiatrists would be (implicitly) entitled to render *medical* judgment regarding a woman's health. A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera can't just waltz in, say Hi everybody, and prescribe an abortion based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely with a bribable private practitioner? Have you taken a breath or two, stepped back and really looked at what you're suggesting, then compared it to the actual figures for abortions? I think you might be a little too emotionally involved in this to see that some of what you're suggesting here really doesn't make a lot of sense. -- 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: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/18/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: quote (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered end quote Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Thank you for that quote. That is very close to my summary except life or health. So are we splitting hairs over how much the health of the mother be endangered? Is it a bigger threat to not allow abortion at all, allow it in some cases of phyical health of the mother, or to allow it if both a doctor and a clinic decide the mother's health is endangered? Dan M. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Citizen Cyborg looks at Pew Report
On 5/18/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The libertarian author of Citizen Cyborg analyzes the Pew report and finds the economic and social axis dividing the parties. I don't guess I can attach his libertarian diagram of the groups that split out neatly on the two-axis frame libertarians use. It and his other charts are at the Yahho group for CyberDems. The chart is at http://cyborgdemocracy.net/images/politicalmap.jpg -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On May 18, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: [...] (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. How do you figure? The proviso includes appropriate medical judgment, which leaves psychologists right out, as only psychiatrists are also MDs, and only psychiatrists would be (implicitly) entitled to render *medical* judgment regarding a woman's health. A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera can't just waltz in, say Hi everybody, and prescribe an abortion based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. That's not true. A non-psychiatrist MD certainly can make a diagnosis and write a perscription for mental health reasons. I know that as a fact. My point is not that the MD can pull something out of his tush, it's that it is a _legetimate_ mental health diagnosis. If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. What's trumped up or faked? You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely with a bribable private practitioner? Because they don't believe it's trumped up. Since the fetus isn't human, the mental health of the mother is all that's needed to justify an abortion. Becasue they are true believers in reproductive rights. If the numbers are less than 1000/year, and some are needed to protect the life of the mother, why not specify that third term abortions are legally acceptable only when they are to protect the life of the mother. Most Americans are in favor of this. Why do the promoters of reproductive rights consider this such an affront to human rights? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
Back on 11 May 2005, Warren Ockrassa repeated a question: ... why ... was Afghanistan not democratized and stabilized entirely? He said: Assuming that: 1. The US is interested in spreading the idea/blessing/gift/[whatever] of democracy to the other nations of the world; and 2. The US's security is better served by reducing, rather than increasing, places where terrorists can train; and 3. In 2001 and 2002, the REAL purpose of the US was to find and prosecute OBL and his cabal of lunatics; and 4. A good US presence in the middle east would be a way to see goals 2 and 3 successfully met, ...why was #1 not enacted in a nation that we know had terrorist camps, ties to OBL, and an oppressed people yearning for freedom? Indeed, even if you do not presume #1, * but agree with #2, that US security is helped by reducing, rather than increasing, places where terrorists can train, * and think a major US goal, agreed upon by most of the US government, congress, and military, was to frighten various dictatorships into greater efforts supporting the US, stabilizing and democratizing Afghanistan would have made good military (as well as other) sense. The action would have been difficult and expensive, since Afghanistan is land locked. For example, it would have meant even more US money going into Pakistan as harbors and roads were improved, rather than or in competition with Chinese spending. Warren asked another question, too: Why leave Afghanistan an unresolved mess -- which it still is -- to go and make another unresolved mess? There is short term gain. Moreover, from their point of view, the current administration has been successful: the events of Iraq have not bitten them; government borrowing has continued, non-military government spending has increased, tax cuts have continued; people have been distracted by social security debates from bothersome issues like the current government deficit. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ 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 brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today Thank you for that quote. That is very close to my summary except life or health. So are we splitting hairs over how much the health of the mother be endangered? Only if you think that a full term fetus has no humanity at all. Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? If you consider two humans, and one person ends the life of another to save their own, then that is much more justifyable than killing another for health reasons. Is it a bigger threat to not allow abortion at all, allow it in some cases of phyical health of the mother, or to allow it if both a doctor and a clinic decide the mother's health is endangered? It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera can't just waltz in, say Hi everybody, and prescribe an abortion based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. That's not true. A non-psychiatrist MD certainly can make a diagnosis and write a perscription for mental health reasons. I know that as a fact. Ah. Very well, so if a woman can convince her MD that there's a DSM entry for what she's experiencing, she can get a chit for a third-trimester abortion. And this disturbs you, apparently, but I still don't know why given the 1:25,000 number for late-term terminations. (Or even without that stat; that is, I don't know why this idea seems so distressing to you.) My point is not that the MD can pull something out of his tush, it's that it is a _legetimate_ mental health diagnosis. So the problem is not that something faked can be put forth as a reason for abortion? Then what is the problem, exactly? If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. What's trumped up or faked? Nothing, necessarily; you seem somewhat exercised over the idea that some DSM entries could conceivably be used to terminate a late fetus. Either you're concerned that such reasons would be faked or trumped-up, or you're concerned about something else, but you haven't named what it is (at least not that I've seen). You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. With a few weeks to go to the natural termination of the pregnancy, do you really believe a doctor will prescribe an abortion in the name of ending anxiety? Wouldn't that be imprudent? How much more anxious would the woman be after the abortion? All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely with a bribable private practitioner? Because they don't believe it's trumped up. Since the fetus isn't human, the mental health of the mother is all that's needed to justify an abortion. Not necessarily. Blackman's decision is pretty clear about *medical* judgment, particularly *reasonable* medical judgment. I'm upset so let's terminate this baby, due in three weeks is hardly a reasonable request. If the numbers are less than 1000/year, and some are needed to protect the life of the mother, why not specify that third term abortions are legally acceptable only when they are to protect the life of the mother. Most Americans are in favor of this. Why do the promoters of reproductive rights consider this such an affront to human rights? I personally don't. Do you have cites to show that promoters of reproductive rights are actively opposed to protecting life only clauses? Also, have you considered that the phrasing of the laws might still be in need of tuning by experience? After all there's a tenuous line between mental and physical health, and though I don't know of a case where a pregnancy might result in crippling a woman, if such a thing is possible I would be in favor of a termination, even in the third trimester, in the interest of protecting the woman's *health*. Or consider the woman who, a couple years back, murdered all her children in a fir of postpartum depression. Wouldn't it have been arguable that termination of her latest pregnancy might have been a better course? It would not have protected her physical health; it would have been about her mental condition ... the ones physically protected would have been her other children, it seems to me. Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. -- 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: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? Isn't that, rather, the thrust of *your* argument? A decision that a fetus past a certain number of days is human, full stop, and that's all there is to discuss? That's how it looks from this side. Is that what's bothering you, Dan? The idea that somewhere in that third trimester, the fetus is more human than not, and therefore abortion shouldn't be possible any longer, or at least not *casually* so? If so, well, let's talk about that for a while rather than getting worked up over hypotheticals and theoreticals. -- 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: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told me that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of yours and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to miss a problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by creative naivety that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a problem, but hasn't worked in that area. An example of this is assuming that X won't work because you've had bitter experiences with trying to get X to work 5 years ago. The reason for that has been addressed by new technology, so X is now a real solutionbut one that you dismiss instinctively due to your experience. (Not just you, of course, engineers/scientists I've worked with have talked about this negative part of experience). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and so on
On May 18, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told me that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. That's entirely conceivable (so to speak), sure. May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of yours and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to miss a problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by creative naivety that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a problem, but hasn't worked in that area. That's sensible and consistent with my experience as a programmer. I can't beta test my own software, because I know what it's supposed to do, so I don't deliberately do things to break it. Someone else has to do that. (This is true of proximally all programmers, FWIW.) Self-editing is similar. It's easy to overlook technical *and* narrative problems in one's own writing. New eyes are often necessary to catch the lacunae. (The work-around for self-editing is to let a finished story rest for a few weeks or months, then revisit it.) OK, so what in your view is the unspoken assumption at play here? -- 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: Abortion and so on
At 03:38 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told me that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. That's entirely conceivable (so to speak), sure. May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of yours and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to miss a problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by creative naivety that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a problem, but hasn't worked in that area. That's sensible and consistent with my experience as a programmer. I can't beta test my own software, because I know what it's supposed to do, so I don't deliberately do things to break it. Someone else has to do that. (This is true of proximally all programmers, FWIW.) Self-editing is similar. It's easy to overlook technical *and* narrative problems in one's own writing. New eyes are often necessary to catch the lacunae. Not to mention the big fat MISSSPELED WORDS TYOPS that everyone else inevitably sees . . . not to mention the logical, clear dialogue that everyone else reads as a double-entendre . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and so on
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:38 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and so on On May 18, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told me that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. That's entirely conceivable (so to speak), sure. May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of yours and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to miss a problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by creative naivety that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a problem, but hasn't worked in that area. That's sensible and consistent with my experience as a programmer. I can't beta test my own software, because I know what it's supposed to do, so I don't deliberately do things to break it. Someone else has to do that. (This is true of proximally all programmers, FWIW.) Self-editing is similar. It's easy to overlook technical *and* narrative problems in one's own writing. New eyes are often necessary to catch the lacunae. (The work-around for self-editing is to let a finished story rest for a few weeks or months, then revisit it.) OK, so what in your view is the unspoken assumption at play here? Thinking about it, I think the assumption is implicit with Gary, but more explicit with you. That one's humanness is not innate. That society has the right to declare the humanness of one individual and the non-humanness of another fairly arbitrarily. So, it was proper for Jackson to commit genocide against the native Americans because there was a consensus among American citizens that this was so. I think you have stated a consistent position on this...and I accept as valid the position that the definition of humanness is arbitrary, but your definition includes Jews, blacks, Native Americans, etc. I strongly differ with your presuppositions, and I think there are ramifications that you haven't considered, but that will be addressed in a reply to a long post of yours that I'm still thinking aboutand will be after I finish my analysis of economic data that will be rejected by JDG a priori. :-) We have significantly different beliefs on this matter, but I won't accuse you of being hypocritical; I acknowledge and respect your efforts at intellectual honesty. I guess what bothers me is that people that argue strongly against this sort of idea in other applications see no problem with accepting it here. Statements like there is no difference between the legality of terminating the life of a fetus that would do well on its own (if only it could be born) to save the life of the mother and terminating the life of a fetus that would do well on its own (if only it could be born) because of a health risk for the mother. The former is consistent with humanness being innate, and not arbitrary. The second isn't. The former is consistent with Christianity. I don't see how the second is. I think what frustrates me is that, for the most part, what I see as the source of the main difference in looking at things is ignored, and that one position on this is simply assumed to be true. In some ways, the explicit recognition that from my vantage point, that humanness in innate, not a bequeath of society, and that the abortion of fetuses that would be viable with normal care from any one of millions of adults is inherently problematic if one makes this assumption. It is only acceptable if one assumes that humanness is arbitrarily defined by society. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
National ID cards
How many ways will this administration have to betray conservatism before the nation's old-fashioned conservatives wake up and realize that they have been had? The obstinacy of symbolic allegiance means that the answer is probably never. Reducing deficit spending? Limiting the size and reach of government? Promoting small business? Stimulating creative interaction between universities of business? Patrolling and regulating our borders in order to emphasize legal rather than illegal immigration? Respecting separation of church and state? Appointing independent and reputable constructionalists to the courts? Use of our military judiciously, in cooperation with allies, and avoiding adventurism? Maintaining military readiness? Managing the government with minimum corruption and maximum efficiency? In all of these areas, the Clinton Administration was not only superior in effectiveness to the present one, but diametrically, toweringly and overwhelmingly so. And please note once again... ALL OF THESE ARE CLASSIC CONSERVATIVE DESIDERATA. I do not mention energy research, environmental protection and so many other areas that are of more universal interest. And now the following a topic area that would have given conservatives screaming snits if it had happened on Clinton's watch. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67471,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5 What will it take, in order for sincere american conservatives (not neocons) to start hearing that whirring sound from Arizona and Gettysburg... Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower spinning in their graves. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
trolling for trolls
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. It seems we have more nattering ninnies! But a new breed, cowardly whiners who only can whine when their victim can't read them! We have known for a while that Brin-L is full of passive-agressives who whine constantly while running sneaky attacks on people behind their backs. In case anyone missed it, David Brin himself pointed it out a while back. Incidentally, this thread is still missing a few countries from the Axis of Eggheads. My threaded email client is ready, and my left middle finger needs something to do! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: trolling for trolls
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:45:15 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. Posting a private e-mail to the public list, which I'm fairly certain was done without Julia's permission, is lousy netiquette. Here's another official warning, in public, since you've chosen to make this public -- my perception is that you've made a number of personal attacks lately, which are contrary to our list policies. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Citgo gasoline
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:12 AM Subject: Citgo gasoline So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela. There are a few other interesting factors about Chavez, 1) He did attempt a coup about 10 years before he was elected. That does not get democracy points with me. 2) He closed critical newspapers and TV stations. It was getting to the point where his official news was the only news. 3) Venezuela has been somewhat socialistic with government spending on housing for lower income workers for 30 years. I've been in some of those houses myself, 30 years ago. So, trying to do that is not new. Oil prices are high now, so Venezuela has a lot more money, so he's popularbut it remains to be seen if he actually does anything more for Venezuela's economy than Castro did for Cuba's. 4) Some of Chavez's political opponents were disappeared. Opposition parties were convinced Chavez had something to do with it. 5) Anti-Chavez demonstrations were attached just before he was forced out for a week. 6) He attacked Jewish schools because Mossel was trying to kill him. I'm not sure why you consider him a champion of democracy. He was voted back in, so he should remain in power, but he is not a South American Jefferson or Washington. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: trolling for trolls
At 05:52 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:45:15 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. Posting a private e-mail to the public list, which I'm fairly certain was done without Julia's permission, is lousy netiquette. On a couple of other lists I am a member of, doing that or its converse (forwarding an on-list message off-list) is grounds for immediate dismissal, regardless of who does it or how long they have been there or how well liked they are. That policy got started a year or two ago when someone (who was lurking under an assumed name, it seems) forwarded out-of-context excerpts from one list member's posts to that list members RL employer, which led to that person being forced into early retirement from the teaching job he had held for several decades. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: trolling for trolls
On May 18, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:52 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:45:15 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. Posting a private e-mail to the public list, which I'm fairly certain was done without Julia's permission, is lousy netiquette. On a couple of other lists I am a member of, doing that or its converse (forwarding an on-list message off-list) is grounds for immediate dismissal, regardless of who does it or how long they have been there or how well liked they are. I had just discussed this kind of abuse in an off-list exchange with a manager of a list that I am on, in which I echoed Ronn!'s experience: there are plenty of lists on which the forwarding of off-list messages without permission is grounds for banning, if not heavy moderation. BUT: before we rush to judgment, I don't think we've heard from either Julia or Erik as to whether she'd given him permission. Also, the list's Etiquette Guidelines http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/etiquette.htm do not specifically address this issue, and not everyone has had Ronn!'s experience with other lists that observe it. It may simply be a matter of learning, like not top-posting. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: trolling for trolls
On 19 May 2005, at 1:32 am, Dave Land wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:52 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:45:15 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. Posting a private e-mail to the public list, which I'm fairly certain was done without Julia's permission, is lousy netiquette. On a couple of other lists I am a member of, doing that or its converse (forwarding an on-list message off-list) is grounds for immediate dismissal, regardless of who does it or how long they have been there or how well liked they are. I had just discussed this kind of abuse in an off-list exchange with a manager of a list that I am on, in which I echoed Ronn!'s experience: there are plenty of lists on which the forwarding of off-list messages without permission is grounds for banning, if not heavy moderation. BUT: before we rush to judgment, I don't think we've heard from either Julia or Erik as to whether she'd given him permission. Also, the list's Etiquette Guidelines http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/ etiquette.htm do not specifically address this issue, and not everyone has had Ronn!'s experience with other lists that observe it. It may simply be a matter of learning, like not top-posting. Since it looks like the Julia's message was in her capacity as a list- admin that muddies the waters a bit more it seems to me. Especially since one of the people involved is Nick who is the list owner. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: trolling for trolls
At 07:32 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:52 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:45:15 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. Posting a private e-mail to the public list, which I'm fairly certain was done without Julia's permission, is lousy netiquette. On a couple of other lists I am a member of, doing that or its converse (forwarding an on-list message off-list) is grounds for immediate dismissal, regardless of who does it or how long they have been there or how well liked they are. I had just discussed this kind of abuse in an off-list exchange with a manager of a list that I am on, in which I echoed Ronn!'s experience: there are plenty of lists on which the forwarding of off-list messages without permission is grounds for banning, if not heavy moderation. BUT: before we rush to judgment, I don't think we've heard from either Julia or Erik as to whether she'd given him permission. Also, the list's Etiquette Guidelines http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/etiquette.htm do not specifically address this issue, and not everyone has had Ronn!'s experience with other lists that observe it. It may simply be a matter of learning, like not top-posting. Just to be clear: I only mentioned the rules of that other list to show that some places it is justifiably considered more than just bad netiquette to do that I am not advocating any change in the list guidelines. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: trolling for trolls
William T Goodall wrote: On 19 May 2005, at 1:32 am, Dave Land wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:52 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:45:15 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've been asked to ask you to tone it down on personal attacks on-list. If you make many more personal attacks on-list, the probability of your being placed on moderation will be non-zero. Posting a private e-mail to the public list, which I'm fairly certain was done without Julia's permission, is lousy netiquette. On a couple of other lists I am a member of, doing that or its converse (forwarding an on-list message off-list) is grounds for immediate dismissal, regardless of who does it or how long they have been there or how well liked they are. I had just discussed this kind of abuse in an off-list exchange with a manager of a list that I am on, in which I echoed Ronn!'s experience: there are plenty of lists on which the forwarding of off-list messages without permission is grounds for banning, if not heavy moderation. BUT: before we rush to judgment, I don't think we've heard from either Julia or Erik as to whether she'd given him permission. Also, the list's Etiquette Guidelines http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/ etiquette.htm do not specifically address this issue, and not everyone has had Ronn!'s experience with other lists that observe it. It may simply be a matter of learning, like not top-posting. Since it looks like the Julia's message was in her capacity as a list- admin that muddies the waters a bit more it seems to me. Especially since one of the people involved is Nick who is the list owner. I agree with William. IMO, until there is some policy that specifically says otherwise, anything sent off-list by an admin in an administrative capacity is fair game for the list as a whole. I prefer to send such things off-list, as there is potential for public embarassment of the intended recipient if it's done publicly, but if the recipient wants to make it public, I personally don't have a problem with that. Non-administrative private e-mails, however, are a different matter, and I'd take a dim view of, say, Ronn! posting to the list something Dan M. had sent him off-list without first getting Dan's permission. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
In a message dated 5/16/2005 10:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Cleaver answer. But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout life. It is similar to the 19th century arguement about the origin of the species. Before Darwin species were thought as real distinct seperate entities. Darwin showed that while species are somewhat distinct they are not in fact seperate entities. They arise from prior species and the transiton form a prior species to a new species is a gradual (although often quite abrupt in geologic time) process. That is the way individual humans are. We are distinct but arise gradually. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. What Nick is pointing out is that many in the pro choice movement do not personally endorse abortion. They endorse - well duh - choice. This is precisely the core of the arguement. To not see the distinction between not endorsing abortion and not endorsing laws that limit access to abortion is disingenous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
In a message dated 5/18/2005 3:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? That is the wrong formulation. Humaness is innate in the sense that it apertains to any human fetus but it is also not present at inception. It develops progressivley over time. There is no threshold over which a fetus crosses to become human but clearlythere is a range of time over which it changes from something that is potentially human to something that is human ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and so on
On May 18, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Dan Minette wrote: OK, so what in your view is the unspoken assumption at play here? Thinking about it, I think the assumption is implicit with Gary, but more explicit with you. That one's humanness is not innate. That society has the right to declare the humanness of one individual and the non-humanness of another fairly arbitrarily. So, it was proper for Jackson to commit genocide against the native Americans because there was a consensus among American citizens that this was so. Hmm, that's not wholly where I think I'm coming from, as you've reached a conclusion that doesn't really represent my view on the topic (at least, as I read the conclusion). The attempted genocide (alleged, to be fair) of American aborigines in the 19th Century was possibly acceptable to many in the context of its time, but I wouldn't personally reach, from that understanding, the conclusion that it was proper, if we're talking about the judgment of history. That is, while I can understand -- I think -- why the native problem was at the time dealt with in the way it was, and while I wouldn't want to condemn the perpetrators of it in the context of their era, I am very much of the opinion that the attempts at eradicating the aborigines were grossly, outrageously incorrect conduct. But the only way I think I could possibly indict those responsible would be if I knew that they had the sense of distance and perspective I did -- that is, if they had the outlook of a spectator living 150 or so years later. IOW they did the best they could with the insights they had available to them at the time, in a way not too dissimilar from how alchemists in the 16th Century were doing the best they could to understand nature and its laws at the time. They simply did not have the knowledge, intellectual or physical tools necessary then to see that alchemy was a dead end. Were they foolish? Some, undoubtedly, were. Were they doing their best with what they had? I like to think so. If I were to say that Jackson, et. al. were heinous inhuman monsters, I would be guilty of judging their mores based on my own very different perspective, which to me would be unfair to them. Were they living today, however, and attempting genocide, I wouldn't hold back judgment at all. Looking at my views myself I think I have several discrete ideas about what human means, and that those ideas can be self-contradictory, but that they can also overlap in different ways. This is so because there are so many variables to behavior in our species, and because we are not eternal units (in my mind) forever fixed in time or forever endowed with a specific property that is given by any outside agency and which cannot be revoked. So when I read passages such as We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the message I get is that what I'm seeing is a definition, a decision to form a social structure based on a concept. The concept itself is rooted in the idea of a deity, of course, which is an unprovable (unfalsifiable too) hypothesis. However, that the concept is rooted in the idea of a deity does *not* necessarily invalidate it, as we could just as easily come up with a passage that reads every bit as altruistically but doesn't attribute granting of rights to a divine agency. So to me the rights afforded by US legal custom (and that of other nations) were arrived at by social consensus, and yes, they can be revoked at any time, also by social consensus. I know that opens another tin of bait, but that (as you suggest) is probably best considered in a separate missive. In practice, I think my view is more consistent with behavior in US (and other) societies than the view that people have a god-given right to anything. That is, I think my formulation is much closer to how people observably behave, *including some who declare they believe otherwise*. As for humanness and where ideas of mine bump into one another, maybe posing some dilemmas can help illustrate where I think I'm coming from there. Is an infant more human than a fetus? Not necessarily. Would I defend the rights of an infant over those of a fetus? Almost certainly. Is a murderer more human than an infant? Probably not. Would I defend the rights of the infant before those of the murderer? Almost certainly. Is a ten-year-old more human than an infant? Probably not. If I had to choose between saving the life of a ten-year-old *or* of an infant, but not both, I would probably elect to save the older child. There's a sense I might have of innate worth versus potential worth, of potential versus earned worth, and of the possibility of having earned worth revoked. All members of this species, I think, have innate potential worth, but
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today In a message dated 5/18/2005 3:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? That is the wrong formulation. Humaness is innate in the sense that it apertains to any human fetus but it is also not present at inception. It develops progressivley over time. There is no threshold over which a fetus crosses to become human but clearlythere is a range of time over which it changes from something that is potentially human to something that is human If you reread my example, I think you see that I allowed for that. My comparison was between a baby that was born two months premature and a fetus that is 3 days past due. The fetus 3 days past due is, typically, better developed than the baby born two months premature. I can understand you saying that at conception we don't have a human, at 21 we do, and somewhere in between we draw a line. But, that line should be based on the being itself, not what _we've_ done. If we can change the humanness by changing the order of actions slightly, then the humanness, or lack thereof, is not innate. So, I wasn't arguing, at this point, against all abortionsjust abortions after vivacity of the fetus. Roughly speaking...that's third trimester abortions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 12:21 PM, I wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? Isn't that, rather, the thrust of *your* argument? A decision that a fetus past a certain number of days is human, full stop, and that's all there is to discuss? That's how it looks from this side. I think I just glimmed it here. Is your position, Dan, that not specifically protecting the unborn (late term) is essentially a decision to *rob* them of their humanity, to strip them of their innate right to life (whether defined as a legal custom or something divinely granted)? That not specifically forbidding third-trimester abortions except in the case of mortal need is, in essence, a sin of omission? If so I think I might have a better sense of the source of your objection to supporting free-range abortion. How about laws that clearly define what health of the mother is meant to express? Would that help your discomfort? (If so, all we need to do is settle on that definition ... and 50,000 pages later we'd probably have a good start, knowing the legal system as I do. ;) -- 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: National ID cards
Hey DB, Long time ago I read the works of one T.Jefferson. I seem to remember him talking abou the same sorts of things as you. Perhaps the Old Fashion Democratics have the MOST to be ticked about. They've been sold some watered-on version of stal-cialist. While the acknowleged ruling elite have merely assented to compassionate capitalism. Myself, I'm just basking in the sunlight of chaos Leonard Matusik *Southern Institute for OverlySmug ChaosNursing* d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many ways will this administration have to betray conservatism before the nation's old-fashioned conservatives wake up and realize that they have been had? The obstinacy of symbolic allegiance means that the answer is probably never. Reducing deficit spending? Limiting the size and reach of government? Promoting small business? Stimulating creative interaction between universities of business? Patrolling and regulating our borders in order to emphasize legal rather than illegal immigration? Respecting separation of church and state? Appointing independent and reputable constructionalists to the courts? Use of our military judiciously, in cooperation with allies, and avoiding adventurism? Maintaining military readiness? Managing the government with minimum corruption and maximum efficiency? In all of these areas, the Clinton Administration was not only superior in effectiveness to the present one, but diametrically, toweringly and overwhelmingly so. And please note once again... ALL OF THESE ARE CLASSIC CONSERVATIVE DESIDERATA. I do not mention energy research, environmental protection and so many other areas that are of more universal interest. And now the following a topic area that would have given conservatives screaming snits if it had happened on Clinton's watch. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67471,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5 What will it take, in order for sincere american conservatives (not neocons) to start hearing that whirring sound from Arizona and Gettysburg... Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower spinning in their graves. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l - Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record...
Warren Ockrassa wrote On May 18, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: You know, some bathroom time and a Playboy magazine (or a Playgirl, depending on your personal preferences) will probably take care of some of that pent up frustration Playgirl's draw is more for women, I think. Most of the men featured in it are flaccid, which seems to appeal to a woman's sense of the erotic more than a man's. Given an evident digital fixation, I don't think Playgirl (or even Inches) would appeal in this case anyway. (Ironic, ain't it, that the greatest complainant about s:n ratios is the greatest contributor to noise...) I think you are being unfair here Warren, surely Erik's left middle finger constitutes some sort of signal, as long as he is using it in the traditional manner. It's the noise I worry about Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 18, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: I think you are being unfair here Warren, surely Erik's left middle finger constitutes some sort of signal, as long as he is using it in the traditional manner. You know his later post made me think it's actually a reference to the letter d on the QWERTY keyboard, which would fall under the left middle finger of a touch typist, and which would possibly be programmed for delete. If so I have to say the subtlety of the reference was clever, especially if the other possible meaning was meant to be understood as well. Of course it was still noise. As is this. ;) -- 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: Just for the record...
Warren Ockrassa wrote: You know his later post made me think it's actually a reference to the letter d on the QWERTY keyboard, which would fall under the left middle finger of a touch typist, and which would possibly be programmed for delete. If so I have to say the subtlety of the reference was clever, especially if the other possible meaning was meant to be understood as well. I had an injury 8 years ago to one of my fingers. At the time, my job involved doing a lot of stuff with the keyboard (lots of e-mails, doing up stuff in QuickBooks, etc.) and I described the injury to someone as having been to my cde finger. That put it in the proper perspective, I thought. :) (Of course, one of the people I was reporting this to didn't touch-type) Wasn't the middle finger the one that was stiffened in the astronauts' gloves for pushing buttons, as well? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: snip 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 think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: quote (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered end quote Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, or are you simply engaging in supposition? xponent Hypothesis Vs. Reality Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Dan Minette wrote: What's trumped up or faked? You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. Dan, there is a very big difference between anxiety and suffering from an anxiety disorder. A disorder is a long term condition, not something that will pass in a short time when a situation changes. A woman may suffer anxiety because of a pregnancy. But if she has a disorder, the anxiety will not be relieved by an abortion or by having a child, but more likely by medication. (Per my ex-wifes pregnancy, a person suffering from a DSM listed disorder, SSRI drugs can be used during pregnancy.) I would agree that there is a non-zero chance of something like this occuring, but there is also a greater probability that this would be a serious violation of ethics for the health professional involved. Medicating a patient is a much more likely first step in such a diagnosis rather than the riskier proposition of a medical procedure. xponent More Noise Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, or are you simply engaging in supposition? To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or not particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, eventually it'll probably happen. It seems to me that a lot of Dan's concern is based in the extremes -- the fringes, the things which happen rarely if ever, but which (to him at the very least) seem to pose some serious ethical or moral questions. That an eighth-month abortion because of malaise has not yet (TTBOMK) happened doesn't necessarily mean it won't, and if (as I suspect is the case here) one feels an infant's soul is in peril or something like murder might be perpetrated, discussion of hypotheticals becomes crucial, if for no other reason than respect for the sensibilities of those involved in the discussion. In this light, overlooking the very rare late-trimester abortion circumstance on the grounds that it's very rare is a little like ignoring the Earth-orbit crossing asteroids on the grounds that they've only caused three or maybe as many as five mass extinctions in 500 million years. The costs of failure may be far too great to be careless about precautions; amortization of risk is literally impossible when the very uncommon eventually does happen, as it eventually will, and when the results are potentially so devastating. So Dan doesn't necessarily have to provide a cite to have a legitimate concern that is worth discussing, I think. If what we're really talking about is a subset of ethics or morality, one of the best ways to do so is to talk about philosophical posers rather than history (at least to exclusivity), or so it seems to me. It seems more prudent to discuss what if? than what happened?. -- 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: Abortion and so on
On May 18, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Not to mention the big fat MISSSPELED WORDS TYOPS that everyone else inevitably sees . . . not to mention the logical, clear dialogue that everyone else reads as a double-entendre . . . Damn, I left my Freudian slip in the other closet. -- 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: Just for the record...
On May 18, 2005, at 9:02 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Wasn't the middle finger the one that was stiffened in the astronauts' gloves for pushing buttons, as well? Was it? Wow. I never knew. I just figured they were responding to riding on spaceships built by the lowest bidder. ;) -- 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: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, or are you simply engaging in supposition? To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or not particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, eventually it'll probably happen. It seems to me that a lot of Dan's concern is based in the extremes -- the fringes, the things which happen rarely if ever, but which (to him at the very least) seem to pose some serious ethical or moral questions. If so, then I would agree that it is interesting territory to explore, but I am pretty sure that Dan is wrong in his estimation of how such a situation would actually work. I respond to this in another email. That an eighth-month abortion because of malaise has not yet (TTBOMK) happened doesn't necessarily mean it won't, and if (as I suspect is the case here) one feels an infant's soul is in peril or something like murder might be perpetrated, discussion of hypotheticals becomes crucial, if for no other reason than respect for the sensibilities of those involved in the discussion. I understand the kind of argument Dan is making. I want to know if there is some record of such an occurance actually happening. It is a simple and honest question, but not some debate ploy. Dan's example goes against my personal experience ( which is a bit tangetial to the subject, but still applicable AFAICT) In this light, overlooking the very rare late-trimester abortion circumstance on the grounds that it's very rare is a little like ignoring the Earth-orbit crossing asteroids on the grounds that they've only caused three or maybe as many as five mass extinctions in 500 million years. The costs of failure may be far too great to be careless about precautions; amortization of risk is literally impossible when the very uncommon eventually does happen, as it eventually will, and when the results are potentially so devastating. Ack!! An abortion of the type Dan describes might kill a few people, while an asteroid could kill millions and harm many more. I think your example is misleading when used to justify Dans example for that reason. So Dan doesn't necessarily have to provide a cite to have a legitimate concern that is worth discussing, I think. If what we're really talking about is a subset of ethics or morality, one of the best ways to do so is to talk about philosophical posers rather than history (at least to exclusivity), or so it seems to me. It seems more prudent to discuss what if? than what happened?. No, he does not have to. But I would like to know if the subject is purely hypothetical or if it is rooted in actual events. That does make a difference I'm sure you would agree. If it never happens, then it is as valid as discussing invisible puce unicorns. If it does happen and happen often then it is a subject that deserves discussion that would lead to actions. If it never happens then I would be against legislation regarding such a specific situation. If it does happen and happen frequently, I would be much more likely to support legislation to prevent the frivilous waste of human potential or at least not oppose it. (Pretty much depends on the frequency kenneth) I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. xponent I Am I Said Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
