South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts? - by fett
jprobs on 24/2/2006 at 16:00
And.. As for religion and the US government:
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Quote from George Washington's farewell address.
(
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm) http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
Howard A Treesong on 24/2/2006 at 16:33
So you think the US education system hasn't changed since 1983 and that what Washington said is still being followed in full spirit by the current government now, despite me pointing out the changes in funding? :rolleyes:
Quote:
You can find all the statistical data you want, being reported in an agenda driven press.
I presented two studies, there are many others which provide fairly similar results which can be found with a quick search.
Quote:
Also, ask if he has has the REQUIRED sex ed course.
According to the Washington Post article several million have been through it since 1999. So more people than before are going through this with government backing.
By the way, the whole fuss about stickers reading "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things" and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things." being inserted into textbooks was quite widely reported at the time. So whether or not it's appearing in the San francisco Chronicle now is somewhat beside the point, the story is factually the same.
But if your counter argument is to ignore the evidence and offer nothing in return, well carry on.
Jennie&Tim on 24/2/2006 at 16:34
Quote Posted by scumble
I can well believe that may be the case, but I think the causal issues have some importance. The fact that one may not be killing a sentient being does not negate the fact that a fetus will become a sentient human, and no-one knows how their lives will turn out. I suppose it's a call I wouldn't be willing to make, unless there were some severe birth defects involved (like you say with the downs issue). The mere fact that the future cannot be seen is enough for me.
When you are weighing separate interests though, the actual real person (the mother) must be given preference over a potential person. And the possible futures of the potential person are an even more foggy value, in either direction (probable criminal because single mothers make criminal children [eek]; or the arguments from Beethoven).
The argument that the baby is a separate person because they have separate DNA is a common one; however, distinct DNA doesn't make a person in my view. You still need a functional cortex to be a person. The mother can then make the choice as to whether she wishes to use her body to support this potential person until it actually is one. Given that you cannot force a mother to donate blood or kidneys for a live breathing child, it doesn't make sense to force her to donate complete life support for a fetus either.
jprobs--your anecdote about your sex education is old enough to be irrelevant to today's sex education classes. We are not progressing towards giving students better information as time passes. See this article:
(
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1109/p12s01-legn.html)
Where Texas official sex ed textbooks, as of 2004, would have no mention of contraceptives; such information would be provided as optional flyers, that might or might not be used. And Texas isn't the only state to support abstinence only programs. Remember the US is a big place, and practices vary over states.
Most abstinence only programs also give out false data:
(
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf)
So, even if the kids have access to accurate data, they could be very confused as to whom they should believe.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/2/2006 at 16:47
demagogue did a better job than I would have done (I always get sloppy and take shortcuts on Griswold as though it were just part of Roe itself ;)).
I agree that this particular law shouldn't have a chance in hell of surviving, and, as far as I can tell, it is so far beyond the pale that it shouldn't even make it to SCotUS in the first place, but I guess I'm a little bit more pessimistic about the long term future.
The string of cases which eventually leads to severely limiting and possibly even overturning Roe, (or even the right privacy itself?) has to begin somewhere. I doubt it will be here that it happens (I mean hell, they're practically thumbing their noses and saying "THIS IS A VIOLATION OF ROE V. WADE"), but for all of their lipservice to stare decisis, I can't help but see them whittle away at it.
But this issue is political as much as it is legal, and because of that it will probably play out by its own rules as it always has. One of the things with Roe is that the flaws which demagogue points out were almost a product of design - compromises made in the opinion in order to get a strong majority, rather than just a plurality opinion with a couple of weak concurring ones. That's a decision which was strategic, rather than legal.
While Roe's failure to truly crystallize the arguments for its support serve to leave it open to attack now, it's even quite possible that that is what enabled it to deflect opposition long enough to entrench itself in the legal landscape and get this far.
So the ballgame isn't to just overturn Roe, it's to come along with a bunch of different cases which the court can (disingenuously or not) say "This doesn't quite fall under Roe, or the Right to privacy in general" until they've created a viable loophole. Will it happen? Logic says it shouldn't, but stranger things have.
----------------------------------------------------
I've reached the point where I'm just about ready to say fuck it. There are rational arguments on both sides of all of the issues intertwined here, whether it be abortion itself, government legislation thereof, the validity of Roe, or even the extent of the right to privacy itself (sorry, but not the VALIDITY of the right to privacy - while the basis may not have delineated well by Griswold/Roe/etc, only a closet fascist or masochistic tard would question the validity - there's just no way to have a rational opinion on that side of that issue).
The thing is that the states, and people, who are most irrationally for overturning Roe and restricting abortion in all of its forms are essentially our nation's trailer park. I'm of half a mind to say "let them get what they want" so that A) They'll shut the fuck up about it, B) no longer have the power to drive the debate, and C) can't get traction for their other fucktarded ideas about running the country. They can have their abstinence education and no abortions and limited social programs, and see where that leads them in a couple of decades.
Hopefully it will open enough eyes that in 50 years we can reach a rational conclusion on the issue. Because right now, there are a whole bunch of moderate people who disagree with abortion, but are supporting the wackjobs, and they're the ones whose hearts and minds have to be changed.
Convict on 24/2/2006 at 16:58
America - love it or leave it! :mad:
Howard A Treesong you quoted some surveys showing that a lot of people in America don't want evolutionary theory to be taught in schools. Are people not entitled to their opinions? Or are you trying to muddy the waters and pretend that there is an epidemic of anti-evolutionary teachings by it? Oh and if there were maybe a dozen schools in America then quoting half a dozen schools stopping anti-evolution teaching, then and only then would you be showing that anti-evolutionary teaching was sweeping across America. I really don't know if you are just confused or deliberately muddying the waters.
Jennie, you seem to be defining a person as having homo sapiens DNA and a "functional cortex". Do you wish to keep this definition of a person?
Jennie, you also argue that a mother should not have to give life support to unborn offspring by reasoning that a mother does not do something similar to a born offspring. My impression is that throughout human history the mother has, in fact, given life support to born offspring. Therefore by your reasoning that what applies to born offspring should apply to unborn offspring, a mother should provide life support to unborn offspring (the foetus).
SD on 24/2/2006 at 17:06
Quote Posted by Convict
Howard A Treesong you quoted some surveys showing that a lot of people in America don't want evolutionary theory to be taught in schools. Are people not entitled to their opinions?
Okay, this
is the same Convict who keeps going off at the deep end about Muslims who want to install sharia law, right?
Jennie&Tim on 24/2/2006 at 17:12
I'd go with that definition of human to start with, if there are difficulties with it I'm open to having my mind changed.
You are confusing life support with providing food, shelter, and care. You are also confusing history with legal requirements.
Howard A Treesong on 24/2/2006 at 17:12
Quote Posted by Convict
Howard A Treesong you quoted some surveys showing that a lot of people in America don't want evolutionary theory to be taught in schools. Are people not entitled to their opinions?
People can have their opinions...but opinions can be based in ignorance and I have to point out that people using those opinions to influence education is where the danger lies.
Quote:
Or are you trying to muddy the waters and pretend that there is an epidemic of anti-evolutionary teachings by it?
What is being seen now is the tip of a nasty iceberg, creationism or 'intelligent design' has no place in UK schools, it's almost a non-issue, but in America reports are appearing more frequently of situations where scientists and science staff have to fight to keep it out of the classroom because people with vested interests are in a position of power to get it on the agenda. It may not be widespread, but it happens, and appears to be increasing.
Agent Monkeysee on 24/2/2006 at 17:14
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The thing is that the states, and people, who are most
irrationally for overturning Roe and restricting abortion in all of its forms are essentially our nation's trailer park. I'm of half a mind to say "let them get what they want" so that A) They'll shut the fuck up about it, B) no longer have the power to drive the debate, and C) can't get traction for their other fucktarded ideas about running the country. They can have their abstinence education and no abortions and limited social programs, and see where that leads them in a couple of decades.
That's really where I'm getting too as well, which kinda makes me sad but there you have it. The social conservatives have driven the national agenda for the last 25 years now. Let's give them what they want. Let them pass whatever fucktarded laws they want, abolish labor protection, social welfare, anything approaching a progressive program. I live in a liberal state, we can handle ourselves. Let them kick every facet of government out of their economy and drag every government agency into their bedroom and we'll check back in 30 years.
I realize that's not a realistic solution but I'm just... so... tired of it. The progressive movement has been befuddled by this country since Woodstock. Let the race to the bottom begin.
