Tiassa,

"We fight over abortion in this country; it's right to protect a woman's rights ... it's right to protect the unborn. And all the while neither side cares what factors contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country."

You have the podium...

------------------
It's all very large.

Education. Period.

As with the Kids & Violence thread ... this will take a while to fit in my head. But let me declare that there is nothing contributing to the problems of unplanned pregnancy and abortion in the industrialized world that cannot be solved with common sense and education.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Tiassa,

I understand that you are gathering your thoughts. It's a big one. Should I prep. my CD burner? I suspect that I might have to download this pup for later reading. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

Take your time.

------------------
It's all very large.

The lead comment is very very wrong. Comments have been made that it was a think tank in the Washington D.C. area that came up with "a womans right to choose" and started throwing the phrase around. I could believe that. Planned Parenthood spends my tax dollars finding ways to promote the cause. Tens of thousands of volunteers contribute time and money to Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country to help save children. Planned Parenthood tries to stay out of the newspapers unless they have a well thought plan in process. Manning a help line wired to your house at 2am for a crisis pregnacy center doesn't command a lot of news time.

Here are some things that contribute to the abortion crisis.

A. Boyfriends(selfserving) encourage abortion.
B. Some parents(selfserving) encourage abortion.
C. Planned Parenthood buying billboards that try to convince that abortion is healthcare and how they will be non judgemental about their healthcare.
D. Parents not teaching/showing kids to value life.
E. Educators pushing "safe sex" policies rather than abstanince policies.
F. Men in the playboy world learning to look at women as toys and not as future wives or some mans daughter.
G. Men not being trained to protect women from harm.
H. Men not learning to be effective leaders.
I. Increasing demand for human research material will cause megabucks to be spent keeping abortion legal. (I talked to my son about carrying a sign that said, "I could have been sold for parts!". He wouldn't do it.)
J. Hardened women that shout, "I can do what I want and needn't give a damn about anything else, Fuck you!"

K. Scared girls to afraid to admit to mom and dad that they screwed up and a grand child is on the way. (see value life.)

Is this what you meant? Am I on the right track?

[This message has been edited by Cable Man (edited September 30, 2000).]

CableMan,

"...(I talked to my son about carrying a sign that said, "I could have been sold for parts!". He wouldn't do it.)"

That is an interesting idea. I like it. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

In the end, however, it is the woman's burden. Most people I know would choose to carry that burden. I couldn't allow my wife to abort a child of ours, and she wouldn't want to anyway. On the larger scale, I wouldn't want to make that decision for all woman.

As for "what factors contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country?"

Procreation--a very powerful force and a dominant part of human nature.

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 30, 2000).]

In my opinion, abortion should be legal, but only as a last resort. Some people are thinking that abortion is a kind of birth control, which isn't right, as the killing of a human life isn't good, regardless. But there should still be exceptions. If a young girl is raped and gets pregnant, is it right to say that now she has to have this tremendous responsibility heaped up on the horrendous trauma just recieved? It wasn't her fault she got pregnant. But if a college student gets pregnant in a long-standing relationship, should she still have the right, despite that it was her fault? It's a tough topic.

------------------
I wish that for every dollar I spend, that I would gain another dollar, because then yippee! I'd get my money back.

Hi All,

I agree with Tiassa education is the answer.

When I was in high school our religion teacher made us have a debate about abortion, first he made us voice our belief I said that I was pro choice...i.e. the politicaly correct stance on the issue, so he made me argue the negative i.e. he wanted me to come up with an argument that said abortion was wrong....mean old bastard.

Anyway I didn't really have an opinion at that time and wasn't impressed that he made me argue something I wasn't convinced of. So the next day we all came in and watched a video....the most graphic uncensored video I've EVER seen. A day in the life of an abortion clininc in th U.S. somewhere. 300 abortions a day. They showed the procedures, then what they threw out as bio-hazard waste. I'm here to tell you that it IS murder in no uncertain terms. That bio-hazard waste hard little arms, legs, heads all torn to shit...and the very last shot of that video was a bin the size of a dumpster FULL, in fact overflowing with fully developed babies...aborted at a term that was just legal.....it was shocking and it made my mind up (and my stomach empty). I only wish more teens had to watch that video.

Did it stop me shagging???? hell no but contraception was a priority, and if it so happened that I'd had got a girl pregnent well I wouldn't be killing a baby for what I did.

my 2.2 cents.

Shadow...
There are alternatives to murder....a girl who gets raped and pregnant is a sensitive subject. Its not the girls fault but it isn't the babies fault either. Think about how many parents looking to adopt would be more then willing to love that baby, the baby and the adopted parents would never need to know, theres always alternatives.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited October 01, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited October 01, 2000).]

Good point, there still are many alternatives. But there still will be exeptions. What if her body can't take it? Should she die as well as the baby? I don't think the clinic atmosphere is good, there should be a more structured system. Maybe you should have to get it approved in a more regimented for, like a court case. An 18-year old with a steady relationship shouldn't be able to throw away a child every other month. I mean, that many a day really is unneccesary, it's like I said before, abortion is a last resort, not birth control. It should be legal, but much more formal. My 2/3 of a cent

------------------
I wish that for every dollar I spend, that I would gain another dollar, because then yippee! I'd get my money back.

Quote by Rambler
--------------------------------------------
Shadow...
There are alternatives to murder....a girl who gets raped and pregnant is a sensitive subject. Its not the girls fault but it isn't the babies fault either. Think about how many parents looking to adopt would be more then willing to love that baby, the baby and the adopted parents would never need to know, theres always alternatives.

-----------------------------------------------------
There is hope for this world. You are the first person outside my "friendship circle" to volunteer that observation. On this we can agree.

Shadowflame,

As I see it there will be reasons for abortion, the one you mention is a great example...not sure if getting courts involved is a good idea. The longer you leave it the more dangerous it becomes to the mother etc...however the laws as they stand now are too easy. I agree that alot of girls/woman use abortion as birth control and its wrong. Further the argument that its the womans body and her choice what she does with it is BULLSHIT, most abortions take little time and the woman WALKS out an hour later...it does HER body little harm but it does KILL a baby. Its not her body she's deciding the fate of. Anyways no matter what the arguments are the fact remains that abortion is murder and its legal...that just plain out bites.

Something I'd like to add to Cable Man's list of contributing factors is the cost of living. I live in the heart of Silicon Valley, make good money, have no major debts (like a car), and yet cannot find a place to live. My father would like for me to get married and have kids. I tell him he's nuts if he thinks I can afford a kid right now. Even with combined incomes there's now way I could foot the bill and maintain a standard of living even close to being acceptable for a child to be brought up in. Government programs and other charities won't touch me because I make too much money. They seem to think that I'm sitting on this pile of cash and just don't want to spend it. With the price of food and fuel around here, I'm surprised the abortion rate isn't higher in this area. Kids are just too expensive.

None of your comments square with the fact that compared to US, in Europe there is MORE "safe sex" education, LESS stress on the abstinence, MORE sexual imagery, MORE public nudity, MORE public acceptance of sex (e.g. French President Mitrteran's funeral was attended both by his wife and his mistress), virtually NO abortion controversy (it's simply accepted) - and with all that, FEWER unwanted pregnancies and FEWER abortions.

Along similar lines, Europeans on the average drink much more alcohol than Americans, yet the rate of drunk driving is much lower, even after taking lower car-per-person ratio.

What does all that imply?

Oxygen,
Are you really saying that you can put a price on your unborn childs life??? I'm in a similar situation, I wouldn't get welfare by any means and I also believe that financialy my wife and i are not ready for children....however if you are prepared to have sex with your partner then be prepared for the consequences. Ahhhh I realy don't mean to make this sound like a lecture, but seriously money over the life of YOUR child thats disturbing. Is your lifestyle really that rich????

Letticia,

"None of your comments square with the fact that compared to US, in Europe there is MORE "safe sex" education, LESS stress on the abstinence, MORE sexual imagery, MORE public nudity, MORE public acceptance of sex (e.g. French President Mitrteran's funeral was attended both by his wife and his mistress), virtually NO abortion controversy (it's simply accepted) - and with all that, FEWER unwanted pregnancies and FEWER abortions."

Yes, they have the pill. They've eliminated the dumpster and replaced it with a flush.

Europe is a strange land to visit--they are very open with their sexual appetites.

------------------
It's all very large.

Rambler- Rich? Me? When? Where? :)

I'm not saying it's okay to throw away a child's life. What I'm saying is that once it happens there's only one way to reverse it if for some reason the financial burden is going to turn what should be a joyous occassion into a hellhole of a life for both mother and child. There are still a lot of companies that don't give a mother, expectant or otherwise, time off to take care of either herself or her child. For people who work in these companies, it's not a simple matter of finding another job. They're usually pretty desperate to begin with. Faulty condoms, rape, incest, and other factors can contribute to a pregnancy that a woman thought she was protected against or never wanted in the first place. She could give the child up for adoption, but while she's gone having the baby, Mr. Bossman hires someone else to work her shift. Now she's out of a job and the market is poor. She can't get assistance because the government seems to believe that if you have no kids then you must be rolling in cash. Now her life is shattered twice.

We need to educate people not only as individuals but as a society. I would rather see the traditional scenario where you marry your sweetheart and then have children, as many as your heart can hold. But the fact is that this is not always the case. Pregnancy is not the "inconvenience" that society seems to think it is. It's a major commitment to a whole slew of health issues, all of which are "women's health issues", which don't get the same consideration as "men's health issues" (based on a study by Knight-Ridder news services). The women in power who have the ability to help matters rarely come from income levels where such burdens are much of an issue. The ones who carry the burden don't have the breath to speak. Everyone else seems to believe in fairy-tale endings where "love will find a way".

I salute the impoverished who decide to have their kids anyway. Putting aside the future that the kid is a lot more likely to become a criminal than an executive (although it has happened), he or she will at least have the advantage of parents who may or may not have wanted him or her, but at least didn't have him or her killed.

Unfortunately, abortion has been made easier while actually having the kid seems to be bordering on a crime, or at least something that you have to pass a credit check for.

Not to pick out Cable Man, but his list is a great place to start that shows why I have trouble getting my head around this:


A. Boyfriends(selfserving) encourage abortion.
B. Some parents(selfserving) encourage abortion.
C. Planned Parenthood buying billboards that try to convince that abortion is healthcare and how they will be non judgemental about their healthcare.
D. Parents not teaching/showing kids to value life.
E. Educators pushing "safe sex" policies rather than abstanince policies.
F. Men in the playboy world learning to look at women as toys and not as future wives or some mans daughter.
G. Men not being trained to protect women from harm.
H. Men not learning to be effective leaders.
I. Increasing demand for human research material will cause megabucks to be spent keeping abortion legal. (I talked to my son about carrying a sign that said, "I could have been sold for parts!". He wouldn't do it.)
J. Hardened women that shout, "I can do what I want and needn't give a damn about anything else, Fuck you!"


A: Why are boyfriends so self-serving?
B: Why are the parents in question so self-serving?

* My question here is whether or not the status quo is the best we can expect. After all, if there is something we can do to abate this self-centering trend, we ought to try it.

C: Political arguments do nothing to address the reasons for having political arguments. That abortions exist is not the fault of Planned Parenthood; that women choose, by necessity or desire, to have an abortion is not the fault of Planned Parenthood. Every child should be a wanted child; take it from one that wasn't. But there's a traditional Angel of Abortion (named "Kasdaye") in Judeo-Christian literature; that's how long abortion has been around. That the 20th century entity of Planned Parenthood is responsible for the current "crisis" (is that set around a raw number or a per capita rate?) ignores the colonial period of the United States--a period long trumped by Christians as the founding of a "Christian" nation--and the ridiculous abortion rate among young women.

D: I agree that parents don't do enough to create a proper respect for the value of life. That, however, is symptomatic. If parents knew, oh, maybe why they were having children ...? Because the dog's just not enough fun isn't a good reason. Again, if every child was a wanted, planned child ....

E: Right ... so scaring the hell out of a young woman on her wedding day is the best thing to do? Look ... sexual impulses hit kids starting between 11 and 13. Lysander Spooner once noted that parents like to keep children ignorant in order to maintain a state of virtue. Of course, in his day, the age of consent for sexual activity was 10 years old for females, so it wasn't so hard to maintain that state of ignorant virtue until wham!, welcome to the woman's world, honey. "Soon enough, you'll be taking the trade, too." Guess what you're advocating? What do you honestly think the result will be of demonizing or suppressing natural processes in young people?

F: Men in the playboy world ... are you referring to the world of Playboy magazine? In that case, I must protest. But, if you're referring to the playboy attitude that has possessed maledom from that first differentiation of gender, then I have no choice but to agree.

G: Men trained to protect women from harm? Suddenly I'm wondering if Sartre really did write Le Nausee, or if de Beauvier penned it for him. Who, exactly, are we protecting women from? Other women?

H: Effective leadership, by any gender, is useful. Of course, people don't need as much leadership if they're educated properly. That is, if their education doesn't revolve around trumped-up standards and illusory virtues.

I: Well, I think we see the kind of mentality that worries about point #I. Should I carry a sign that says, "My mother was raped, and the law forced me to be born"? Of course not. Slogans of such inflammatory design are useless. Spare parts ... can he spot you a conscience? It reminds me of protesters outside a concert by Poison and Tesla. Their children holding signs begging legislators to "Protect me from the Devil." Watch a wartime protest: children on both sides will be holding signs their parents made for them. To continue the war is to protect the children. To end the war is to save the children. Whatever.

But the market demand is a well-placed concern. However, even a cursory survey of biomedicine and genetics shows that as soon as all of the capitalists iron out their ethical problems, such ideas as fetal harvesting become less necessary, and suddenly the bitter taste such necessities leave in our mouths become overwhelming.

J: Why do we always blame the women? And, incidentally, they can, they need not, and that might be good advice in some cases.

* * * * *

The purpose of the above is generally to counterpoint the simplistic, moralist approach to a complex problem. Moralism doesn't always work, especially when issues like economy and infantile pride get in the way.

A, B, and D are directly educational issues.

C is not what I consider a valid point because it presupposes a false beginning to the problem. The problem is quite ancient. Such a presupposition as point C, I believe, ignores the real issue. I mean, sure, I understand that people have problems with Planned Parenthood; so do I, but for different reasons. However, they did not invent this problem.

E, G, and H are chauvanist, in my humblest opinion. Well, E and G, for sure. H is included because I don't see why men, per se have to be the effective leaders.

Point I contains an aspect I generally let slip by, since I focus on the idea of education. But it's a valid commercial concern, on the one hand, and something that won't be so much a concern in the future, when people are educated against factors like greed which make ideas like genetic manipulation and cloning appear so insanely dangerous.

Point J, simply, I find laughable.

* * * * *

So now that I've retorted ... are there any real answers?

I still say, "Education, education, education."

It's about people doing what's best for their own self. Not in the capitalist manner, nor any incarnation of pious prudism.

Why education? I recently (like, two weeks ago) met a twenty-five year-old Kingdom Hall member who still believes that you can't get pregnant if A) it's your first time, or B) you're raped. (I've heard both before: A from thirteen year-olds, and B from conservative politicians arguing for the passage of anti-abortion laws.)

It's like HIV education in that sense. I knew a handful of young women who firmly believed that you cannot contract HIV via oral sex.

What happens when people want to do the best thing possible, but are educated solely to measure things in terms of how an event or idea affects that individual exclusively? Take a look at how many stupid ideas we foist onto children. The importance of money. The importance of traditional marriage. The importance of being morally upstanding ... it's all lies. When they hit the real world, they'll find that money causes more problems than it solves, that marriage is a lie, and that morally upstanding people either get stepped on or are not as upstanding as we think.

Why does this happen? Well, look at an educational idea: Imagine that you believe in the Devil. There's two-thousand years of relevant devil-ideas, right? But if one never learns about those, they go forward with seemingly intellectual notions about the Devil and his doings that have been covered, dismissed, or even outright rejected for their incompatibility with God's glory. But it's not that individual's fault, and ... what? It's not like that individual's moral perceptions are going to affect his actions? What are moral perceptions for?

Hot damn! Therein lies the crux: What are moral perceptions for if they have nothing to do with morality?

Take point J, for instance. Maybe if morality hadn't boxed women into the roles of accessory, trophy, breeding machine, and chronic marital-rape survivors, they wouldn't be so hardened and defensive about their bodies. I will remind you that it was the 1990's before our upstanding British cohorts figured out that a wife is not the real and physical property of a man. Did you know that it used to cost $1200 in Alabama just to prove that you'd been raped? Just to demonstrate it well enough to warrant police or DA involvement? Any bright mind with the will to learn and adequate resources to survey will discover that such moral boxes have horrible implications. Education shatters bad moral ideas. Education offers people the tools by which to compare their morals and the goals of those morals.

If we constantly remind people that they are sinners, that they are pathetic in the eyes of God, that they are incomplete, that they are hopeless, ad nauseam ... eventually they will believe it.

Prudism might work, but only if the prudes are prudish for the right reasons. Not having sex when you're thirteen and a girl is a good idea based on medical evidence available. However, reminding your daughter that sex will make her the "town slut" pretty much guarantees a moral battleground that the parent might win in principle, but will lose in practice.

My college girlfriend graduated from a rural high school. Two years later, I attended the graduation of her little sister. Half of the women in the sister's class were pregnant, had children already, or were engaged to be married over the summer. If subsistence living and unchecked reproduction are the best we expect of women, then we're bringing about problems for everybody.

Men and women is a BS division. It only matters when it comes to reproduction. Given that reproduction is the future of our species, I would be more sympathetic to the anti-abortion crowd if their philosophy didn't go hand in hand with the idea of warping people's ideas about reproduction.

As far as abortions go, I would say that women don't stand a chance coming out of the gate. From the word go, little girls are dressed up, indoctrinated, touched, prodded, and abused in a manner that suggests the benefits of marriage, and advocates the use of sexual wiles to achieve marriage, as well as several other standards. It's nice that women are making their way into the world, but you'll still see a large number of those MBA's wanting a "family", wanting "security", and generally taking part in the marriage/reproduction debacle. (For the present purposes, would it be acceptable to say I am not simply discounting the male's role in this, but since we're all aware of how badly men screw up the world ....)

Anyway ... I stopped making sense days ago. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot



[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 03, 2000).]

Bowser:

"and with all that, FEWER unwanted pregnancies and FEWER abortions."

Yes, they have the pill. They've eliminated the dumpster and replaced it with a flush.

Sorry, the "fewer abortions in Europe" INCLUDES the use of the "abortion pill." It's not an over-the-counter, or even a prescription drug - you have to go to a doctor's office three times for an RU-486 treatment (read this week's TIME magazine). Hence statistics of its use are easy to keep. And I think Tiassa is right - dispassionate and non-judgmental education is the reason Europeans have more sex yet fewer unwanted pregnancies, as well as more booze yet fewer drunk drivers. Trying to enforce moral ideals instead of dealing with reality is counterproductive.

Europe is a strange land to visit--they are very open with their sexual appetites.

And Europeans claim Americans are the ones strange, sexually repressed, and neurotic. Judging by the amount of therapy in the US, and especially by the statistics such as above, I tend to think Europeans are right.

BTW, sorry for the horrible misspelling of Mitterrand.

Europe is a land of perverts. I was there for two years, and I speak from my encounter with their culture; however, I may be bias because of my American heritage. I would like to see a link which supports your statement that Europe has fewer abortions.

"And Europeans claim Americans are the ones strange, sexually repressed, and neurotic. Judging by the amount of therapy in the US, and especially by the statistics such as above, I tend to think Europeans are right."

We are far from being sexually repressed. Judging from your statistics, I might be inclined to believe we are a nation of hump-bunnies. This would better explain our higher abortion rate (if true). Maybe the Europeans are truly repressed sexually.

"Trying to enforce moral ideals instead of dealing with reality is counterproductive."

Morality has a purpose. It actually protects an individual from unwanted pregnancy, disease, and a host of other social problems. I wouldn't suggest that we throw away our condoms, but morality isn't such a terrible thing. It does deal with reality.

I have a problem with us using Europe as a model for social behavior. I mean, these are the people who brought us two world wars and progressive thinkers such as Hitler. They are far from having their heads together.

------------------
It's all very large.

This is a bit outdated - the data for 1995-96:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Abortion rates per 1000 women:

US - 22.9

Belgium - 6.8
England - 15.6
Finland - 10.0
France - 12.4
Germany - 7.6
Israel - 14.3 (not in Europe, but culturally close)
Italy - 11.4
Netherlands - 6.5 (now there's a "den of iniquity"!)
Norway - 15.6
Scotland - 11.2
Spain - 5.7
Sweden - 18.7
Switzerland - 8.4

No, morality is not a terrible thing, but climbing onto one's moral pillar and pretending it is the one and only way LEADS to terrible things. Compare the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention the rate of being murdered on the job among prostitutes in Nevada's legal brothels and prostitutes in the rest of US. (Hint: both rates for Nevada brothels are ZERO.)

To my European neighbors, fellow members of the Good Ship Earth ... go ahead and say what you need about Americans at this point. I think all is fair, at this point.


I have a problem with us using Europe as a model for social behavior. I mean, these are the people who brought us two world wars and progressive thinkers such as Hitler. They are far from having their heads together.

And we, the People of the United States of America have brought the world Manifest Destiny, the atomic bomb, and a worldwide economy whose biggest influence happens to be the one group of people (Americans) who refuse to give other people any consideration whatsoever in matters economic.

We have attempted Genocide, but I guess it's forgiveable because it wasn't just one lunatic at the top ... (and the NAZI's were innocent and decieved by Pied Piper Hitler ... :rolleyes: )

We have suppressed the economies of Central America, with untold human cost. We have endorsed and abetted the suppression of African economies, as well as certain Asian economies.

We consume far more resources than we need, and base our subsistence on a consumer economy in which need is subserviant to the idea of Keeping Up With the Joneses.

Furthermore, since we're on Euro-American ideas, I should mention some progressive thinkers without whom my America would be poorer: Alexis de Tocqueville; Marquis de Lafayette; Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Camus, Sartre; John Lennon; James Joyce; Ranier Maria Rilke (and Franz Xavier Kappus for sharing Rilke's letters); Diderot (see signature line below); Marx, Engels, Weber ....

Europeans also gave us that Jolly Green Giant standing in New York Harbor. (And what a gift ... for all the images I have ever seen of it, it still strikes me dumb when I see it through the lens of my own eye.)

Europeans also pulled off that sweet deal for Manhattan Island ....

I think the ability to go to one bar and smoke some hash, then pop over to another and see celebrations of the human body, and then to continue with your life without causing all the stereotypically-devised "damage" of "immorality" speaks much regarding the European sense of what one wants and what that gets a person.

I mean, on the one hand, of course Europe is screwed; to the other, I'll betcha we're screwed even worse, and the only reason we don't know it is because we refuse to wonder.

Proud to be an American does not mean I can stop wishing for a brighter tomorrow.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser:

Have you ever heard the following distinction between socialism and capitalism?

Socialism assumes people and their institutions are perfect, or at least can be made that
way. The result is an economic disaster for everyone. Capitalism assumes people and
institutions are never perfect and USES that fact. The result is prosperity for most with
disaster for unfortunate few. One can claim that capitalism is less moral because it accepts a priopri that some will fail. Socialism loftily tries to empower everyone, but fails to deliver.

Same with personal behavior. I believe in teaching people to be responsible and to
understand the consequences of their actions, but not to legislate morality nor treat
people's actions
judgmentally. Yes, with this approach some will end up having abortions or addicted to heroin, or both. But a lot fewer than in a climate of moral superiority where they are told "This is the right way, and don't even think of straying!" It does not work.

And as for your other point, while Europe certainly produced its share of monsters, they were never known for moral permissivness. In Hitler's Germany abortion was a prison offense, homosexuality was punished by death, and women's role was to be "Aryan Mothers". Hitler would have despised today's Europe.

Letticia,

Thanx for the link. I will give it a look later. My time is limited. I will hold my response to you for later.

<hr>

Tiassa,

"And we, the People of the United States of America have brought the world Manifest Destiny, the atomic bomb, and a worldwide economy whose biggest influence happens to be the one group of people (Americans) who refuse to give other people any consideration whatsoever in matters economic."

Where Europe is concerned, we Americans sacrificed thousands of lives in order to end two world wars. We spent millions of dollars to rebuild ravaged economies and to feed millions after those wars. We did not stay as victors but rather as protectors against other dictorial threats (communism). We released those peoples to govern themselves as they chose. America's morality saved Europe from it's greatest dangers...Fascism and communism. If we Americans were not so morally obligated to helping our "European neighbors," they would be goose-stepping now.



------------------
It's all very large.

Where Europe is concerned, we Americans sacrificed thousands of lives in order to end two world wars. We spent millions of dollars to rebuild ravaged economies and to feed millions after those wars. We did not stay as victors but rather as protectors against other dictorial threats (communism). We released those peoples to govern themselves as they chose. America's morality saved Europe from it's greatest dangers...Fascism and communism. If we Americans were not so morally obligated to helping our "European neighbors," they would be goose-stepping now.

I believe what you're describing is referred to as Jingoism.

What has that to do with Europeans being perverts? That since we fought a couple of wars there, they owe it to us to be perverts if we say they are?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

"Jingoism" <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

I suppose you might percieve it that way--more so if you can't accept the positive contributions and the many sacrifices which are attributed to American morality. The Europeans are free to be perverts simply because we were there to defend their freedom. Our Christian values saved their free will. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

It's hard for me to contest American morality because American morality doesn't exist. By and large, American morality is a commercial scheme.

But the notion of American morality isn't so far-fetched for me to swallow.

Rather, it's your ethnocentric, jingoist assertion that Europeans are perverts.

It seems that, in the face of contradictory evidence concerning your notions about Europeans, the argumentative implications no longer need to matter since, as you've so eloquently characterized, Europeans are perverts, and they owe Americans such respect that the idea of reality has little to do with the issues at hand.

Tell Central America what the effect of American anti-communism is. And then listen to what they tell you.

Or are they, too, perverts, since they owe so much of their present condition to American morality?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Our Christian values saved their free will.

From Columbus' landing forward, morality in America has never been about "Christian values", except those that honor dominion, conquest, and greed.

American morality honors Genocide. But, as per the topic ... I suppose we need not worry about that since genocide's more acceptable than abortion?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

"From Columbus' landing forward, morality in America has never been about "Christian values", except those that honor dominion, conquest, and greed."

Yes, the European perversion of morality was devistating for the natives. Dominion, conquest, and greed...who brought those to America? I believe that our identity has evolved past that of those across the Atlantic. Maybe we have taken what is best of those old perverted values and are shaking off the dirt.

"American morality honors Genocide. But, as per the topic ... I suppose we need not worry about that since genocide's more acceptable than abortion?"

Certainly our early European heritage gave us the moral justification for such acts, but we have grown past that.

Also, the cultures which were destroyed by the early European invaders had, at the very least, an opportunity to fight back or run away. A fetus doesn't have even that much. I suppose it is easier to suck a child out of its womb than it is to face the moral responsibility.

------------------
It's all very large.

Letticia,

Thanx again for the link. I need to go back for more reading later. From what I've seen, there is a lot of room for error in those numbers...


<hr>"For the United States, we used data published by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) in preference to government statistics, which are incomplete for many states."

"For France and Italy, we used estimates made by local experts.13 For the remaining countries, we took into account the opinions of local experts, as well as abortion rates in countries with a similar profile of abortion service provision and similar legal and social conditions regarding abortion. Seventy-one percent of our estimated number of legal abortions worldwide were reported and 29% were estimates of uncounted abortions."

"Data compilations published by the Council of Europe and the United Nations (UN) were used if data were unobtainable or if gaps existed in available official data.14 For some countries, we used birth estimates provided by the Population Reference Bureau. For countries for which we could not obtain official estimates of the population of women aged 15–44, we relied on the estimates of the UN Population Division15 and interpolated where necessary."
<hr>



These are the numbers which I found through your link:

<hr>
Northern America 1.5 Million Abortions
Europe 7.7 Million Abortions
<hr>

I'll get back to your post later.

------------------
It's all very large.

Latticia,

<hr>
"Have you ever heard the following distinction between socialism and capitalism?

Socialism assumes people and their institutions are perfect, or at least can be made that
way. The result is an economic disaster for everyone. Capitalism assumes people and
institutions are never perfect and USES that fact. The result is prosperity for most with
disaster for unfortunate few. One can claim that capitalism is less moral because it accepts a priopri that some will fail. Socialism loftily tries to empower everyone, but fails to deliver."

First of all, is "priopri" truly a word? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Truly, if I gain nothing else from my exposure to these message boards, I will walk away with a larger vocabulary--at the very least.

Anyway, that is an interesting analogy, but it is also a can of worms and a whole other topic for argument. I won't touch it here.

"Same with personal behavior. I believe in teaching people to be responsible and to
understand the consequences of their actions, but not to legislate morality nor treat
people's actions
judgmentally. Yes, with this approach some will end up having abortions or addicted to heroin, or both. But a lot fewer than in a climate of moral superiority where they are told "This is the right way, and don't even think of straying!" It does not work."

Morality is responsibility, a responsibility to others as well as to yourself. When a woman becomes pregnant with an unwanted child, it is not because morality has failed them. Look, contraception has been a topic of American education since the 40's. The one difference between then and now is that there has been a change in our perception of morality. If we now have a problem with abortion, it is because education has failed, not morality.

"And as for your other point, while Europe certainly produced its share of monsters, they were never known for moral permissivness. In Hitler's Germany abortion was a prison offense, homosexuality was punished by death, and women's role was to be "Aryan Mothers". Hitler would have despised today's Europe."

No comment... <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">




------------------
It's all very large.

Jingoist denial.

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

"Jingoist denial."<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

Too late in the day to argue about it.

------------------
It's all very large.

Education ....

--teaches us about our bodies, and how to use and abuse them properly.

--teaches us about our world, so that we might relate to other human beings in a manner conducive to the advancement of the human endeavor.

--teaches us about our world so that we might relate to things not human without unnecessary fear and its accompanient menagerie of damages.

--teaches us about our human conventions, the artifices of society (economy, government, religion, &c), so that we might exist within them, employ, exploit, and refine them in a manner conducive to the advancement of the human endeavor.

... in relation to abortions ...

* Education offers women (who, by proxy of biology, have the abortions) the skills to participate in society in a manner not "reduced" to a breeding factory.

* Education offers men (who, by proxy of biology, knock up the women who have abortions) manifold reasons to respect what biology teaches (via education) about women (whom the men knock up, as covered above).

* Education offers men and women alike (since reproduction is a two-way street) the ability to make responsible and informed choices regarding their participation in the human endeavor.

* Education offers both individuals and the collective society "opportunity", a perennial political buzzword that, when unadulterated by a candidate's glittering smile, has some meaning.

* Education cultivates the idea of human independence, and thus the idea of consent. (In 1875 the age of consent was 10 years old for a girl in Massachusetts; consent could be won with gifts, essentially through prostitution. I don't think the 2 and 2 are difficult to add here.)

* Education cultivates responsibility by instilling in the individual the ability to perceive the relevant factors in making a responsible decision.

Education leads to knowledge, economic empowerment, and independence. So long as we refuse these things of all human beings, they will continue to behave in a manner which results in the many abortions we see.

Life should never be its own worst enemy. Human beings, however, can make it so.

As we learn about nature, we learn to manipulate it. Since we're all on-line here, I'll just remind that we all have electricity, so yes, we learn to manipulate nature. As we learn more about how we, the people, function together, why should we not learn from the mistakes of our past, and thus manipulate our own human nature by deliberate will?

We can, if we educate people.

Ignorance only helps those persons who would oppress--willfully hurt--the ignorant.

Consider the schoolborne issue of sex education in public institutions. Is sexuality something reserved for the home? Ideally, yes. Is it the "right" of the parent? Most certainly. Does the parent have a responsibility that coincides with that right? Well, if the parent isn't selfish, and understands (via education) what's at stake when we--as Spooner accuses--keep our children ignorant in order to maintain the illusion of virtue, then the child might reach maturity with enough proper information to not make irresponsible choices out of virtuous ignorance.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The dumber we raise children to be, the dumber adults they are. How stupid do we want them?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Sure, education is good, bot it's not the total answer. It is useless without morality.

<hr>
Northern America 1.5 Million Abortions
Europe 7.7 Million Abortions
<hr>

------------------
It's all very large.

Education, unadulterated by artificial demands, provides the individual the opportunity and authority to recognize morality.

It's when we start claiming it to be a "right" to lie to our child because it's simply easier than telling them the truth that we get into trouble.

Consider, simply, the fact that a parent has chosen to add another human being to the fray, and is responsible for raising that person. It is my feeling that the parent has an obligation to do their damnedest to raise that child "properly". Now, if the arbitrary moral conditions which are a parent's "right" incite the child to advocate conditions detrimental to humans individually or collectively, then what has that right garnered, except the satisfaction of having created a negative force on the face of the earth. Hardly the goal of either morality or parenthood, eh?

I mean, just because a parent wants it to be so doesn't mean it is. And they should consider what happens when they teach the child the lie as truth.

Is it just that some people are so bitter about being unable to be moral without the force of threat that they want all of us to feel so threatened?

Damn ... it's just so sad. All of these people who need God to tell them that abortion's wrong.

Or has it never occurred to those anti-abortion folk who happen to be religious that the pro-choice crowd have no greater desire for abortion? That's possible ... anyone happen to be religious and anti-abortion who wants to chime in with a bit of an image of how you see the typical choice advocate?

All I'm getting at with that is that those of us who believe in safe, legal abortion as a medical alternative don't particularly enjoy the thought of abortions. We happen to find it a tragedy. But we would rather that every child be a planned, wanted child, period.

Religious anti-aboritonists quite often give the appearance of not giving a rat's behind about that aspect of it. From where I sit, it often takes the appearance of religious people angrily trying to extend their dominion over other people.

I consider anti-abortionism as the religious, so-called "pro-life" movement describes it, to be counterproductive to any goal of reducing the number of abortions performed.

True Anti-Abortionism would call for economic justice, education, social equality, and personal responsibility. So far, religious anti-abortionism favors personal responsibility because it's easier for the anti-abortionist.

(I'm happy to have those notions demonstratively dispelled, but that's a mighty tall effort.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 08, 2000).]