Off Topic

On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:35:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


So much simplification! You seem to think the only objection to abortion
is driven by rigid rules of one or another religion. Sorry, that's just
not the case.

https://www.americamagazine.org/poli...0/19/atheists-
case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

TLR wow, hypocracy. A possible future human has rights over an existing
human. Shame same rights aren't givern to all living organisms, aka
'right to exist'.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 05:56:05 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 13:36:30 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
Testament writers) could have benefited by ?just lightening the ****
up?.

As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.

Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were
"truths". The law in other words.

From my vague memory, just for a small and dying mob in the Levant I
think, or one mob (that became two and later three)_ in the Middle East.

I've always wondered just how many of the common folk were really
affected by these various "codes" and WTF "life" in general was like
where "the law" had to specifically state such matters.

I can't speak for all the common folks but from being in the service
for 20 years it is definitely my feeling that most people will accept
a set of clearly defined laws.

If you post a notice on the Bulletin Board that "Anyone that is later
then 2 minutes to work will receive squadron punishment and be
restricted to the base for 30 days." You will hear a lot of grousing
for about two days and than it becomes the status quo and there is not
more grousing.

Well, most of the time anyway, but I am reminded of an order said to
originate with the Commanding General, 5th Air Force, that stated:
"U.S. Military Personnel are forbidden to cohabitant with indigenous
females". Which I believe was universally ignored :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery, and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were compelled
to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in owning slaves
was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy mills today.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.
Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude.

Most industrialized nations do. Pick one and look at the law and practice. Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XUhtFFVKiUk

England, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...United_Kingdom

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Pick any place you might actually want to live. France is nice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Netherlands?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...he_Netherlands

I looked through your link for Japan, England and Germany. Despite your
implications, there _are_ restrictions that are more strenuous than
those in much of the U.S. Like it or not, Jay, the U.S. is within the
top ten most permissive - that is, promoting the least personal
responsibility.

Like what, a waiting period?

Like much stricter gestational limits. Like having to get the permission
of the father. Like having to have a reason beyond "Having a kid would
cramp my style."

If the father has veto power, then he better pre-pay child support. If the father is not given veto power, why subject the woman to that humiliation -- or even danger, depending on the father.

After the first trimester, states can and do impose greater restrictions. https://tinyurl.com/y3jwqlxk

Some do, some don't. (And it looks like your state is among the most
permissive states within one of the world's most permissive countries.)

And what is cavalier about recognizing a woman's right to control her body during the first trimester? Must the state be involved in every decision about reproduction?

First, if you have a quote of me saying abortions should be illegal in
the first trimester, please copy it and re-post it to remind me. I just
don't remember saying that.

Second, I'm all for a woman's right to control her own body. But I think
we need a LOT more promotion of such control immediately _before_ she
gets pregnant. It's not like we don't know how to prevent pregnancies.

Third, don't pretend this issue is so cut and dried and obvious. For
most thinking people, there are questions and they are difficult ones.
Many center on the fact that there is not just one "body" involved, and
a baby in the womb is different from a tumor. The fact that world
abortion laws vary greatly (and are mostly stricter than those in the
U.S.) should indicate that.

This issue is an old one, and is still being worked on in many ways -
everything from serious philosophical discussions to legal discussions
to religious discussions to protesters marching with signs. Don't
pretend it's simple.

I suspect the attitudes and the laws will change. After all, there were
times and places where infanticide was considered legal and moral.
Eugenics used to be big. Torture was normal. Times and attitudes change.

As applied to abortions, what amounts to infanticide is again definitional and raises the question of when a fetus an infant or a "human."

Yes, and there were times and places not that long ago where killing a
slave did not fit the _definition_ of murder. Definitions change.

Slavery does not involve a question of when a fetus becomes a human capable of being murdered. Slaves were objectively born and capable of murder, but they were considered chattel. I understand, however, that an inapt comparison to slavery adds perceived heft to emotional and often religious based arguments.

You should also understand that a current legal definition is not the
end of a discussion. Laws and definitions change.

There was a time when women could not vote. When alcohol could not be
sold. When marijuana was illegal in Oregon. When men could marry
12-year-old girls, but could not marry each other. When whites and
blacks could not attend the same schools.

Many of those situations are now considered outrageous and
unjustifiable. There may yet be a time when cutting a viable baby out of
a womb may be defined as infanticide.

... but determining when it is a "human" is a matter of faith, and different faiths consider the fetus a human at very different times, e.g. the majority Jewish sects put it at the first breath as do some very conservative Christian sects. Yet other Christians put it at conception. I think that started as a Catholic thing. So who should decide which faith is right? Your government?

So much simplification! You seem to think the only objection to abortion
is driven by rigid rules of one or another religion. Sorry, that's just
not the case.

https://www.americamagazine.org/poli...t-human-rights

An Op Ed piece in the Jesuit Review is supposed to settle the issue?

Your implication was that objections to abortion can only be based on
religious rules. It requires only one counterexample to prove that's
wrong. The source of the article doesn't invalidate the existence of
that non-religious right to life organization.

But if you want other sources, they are out the
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...m-one-of-them/

A person can object to abortion for many reasons, but when do those objections outweigh the right of a woman to chose, free from government interference. You complain about MHLs. Imagine being told that you have to, upon penalty of imprisonment, carry a fetus you do not want to full term. Compelled pregnancies make no sense to me -- at least not until the child/state's interest outweighs the mother's, and I think we have an appropriate legal framework for determining when that happens.

If compelled pregnancies make no sense, you should be in favor of
preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But that won't
happen if we follow your stated attitude, that it's senseless to address
sexual practices.

ISTM it's possible to promote the idea that sex is consequential and
should be approached only within a serious life commitment; and that
personal responsibility includes taking effective steps to prevent
unwanted pregnancy (and, BTW, prevent STDs).

But all that is very unfashionable, isn't it?

I'm done.

Fine.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 1:07:34 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 11:10:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 3:51 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 10:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.

Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.

Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?

Wow, you're going of a cliff. People cannot do whatever they want because there are laws against incest, rape and lesser laws against public indecency. However, non-criminal sexual behavior is varied, and if you want to judge particular acts as immoral that's fine -- but they're going to happen.

Please recognize what you said above: "... moralizing out people's
sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless." And yet we DO
have laws against many sexual practices like ones you named: incest,
rape, public indecency, etc. You argue against yourself.

What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.

Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.

First, please understand my views. I've never said we should outlaw the
use of helmets (which would be the true opposite of a MHL), and I've
never said we should outlaw all abortions.

But "most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion"
only up to about 12 weeks into the pregnancy, although the laws vary
based on reasons for the request and other factors. The U.S. is in a
very tiny minority saying, in effect, "any time, for any reason." That
is cavalier by the definition.

Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."

We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal.

Yes, and there have always been murder, and rape, and theft, and
assault, and blackmail, etc. Yet we do have laws that attempt to prevent
them. Those laws almost certainly do reduce them.

You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because
Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

Jay, condoms don't break often enough to generate hundreds of thousands
of abortion requests per year. If they did, the manufacturers would have
long ago been sued out of business. The vast majority of those requests
come because birth control was deliberately not used. They are far more
often the result of "Oh, what the hell, let's do it." It's the opposite
of personal responsibility.

So what? The pregnancy happened. What's next? Forced motherhood? Unwanted children? Public stoning?

You have no end-game except to moralize about lack of self-control and personal responsibility. And if the mother is some god-forsaken harlot who lacks any self-control, what does that tell you about her ability to bear or raise a child?

FWIW, I have two very close friends plus another acquaintance who wanted
kids but couldn't conceive. I have other good friends who adopted
multiple kids despite having their own kids.

That's great, but most unwanted children are not put up for adoption. They are raised by a parent as an unwanted child. https://www.statnews.com/2018/12/05/...en-well-being/



Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude.

Most industrialized nations do. Pick one and look at the law and practice. Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XUhtFFVKiUk

England, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...United_Kingdom

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Pick any place you might actually want to live. France is nice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Netherlands?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...he_Netherlands

I looked through your link for Japan, England and Germany. Despite your
implications, there _are_ restrictions that are more strenuous than
those in much of the U.S. Like it or not, Jay, the U.S. is within the
top ten most permissive - that is, promoting the least personal
responsibility.

Like what, a waiting period? https://www.guttmacher.org/state-pol...riods-abortion AFAIK, waiting periods are automatic everywhere because of the lag between the initial OV and the procedure. It's not like you jump on a conveyor belt at the front door of Planned Parenthood and go out the back with an abortion.

And the top-ten most permissive countries are basically the only places outside the US where I would want to live. And do you think there is a higher degree of personal responsibility in Angola? El Salvador?


And what is cavalier about recognizing a woman's right to control her body during the first trimester? Must the state be involved in every decision about reproduction?

First, if you have a quote of me saying abortions should be illegal in
the first trimester, please copy it and re-post it to remind me. I just
don't remember saying that.

Second, I'm all for a woman's right to control her own body. But I think
we need a LOT more promotion of such control immediately _before_ she
gets pregnant. It's not like we don't know how to prevent pregnancies.

Third, don't pretend this issue is so cut and dried and obvious. For
most thinking people, there are questions and they are difficult ones.
Many center on the fact that there is not just one "body" involved, and
a baby in the womb is different from a tumor. The fact that world
abortion laws vary greatly (and are mostly stricter than those in the
U.S.) should indicate that.

This issue is an old one, and is still being worked on in many ways -
everything from serious philosophical discussions to legal discussions
to religious discussions to protesters marching with signs. Don't
pretend it's simple.

I suspect the attitudes and the laws will change. After all, there were
times and places where infanticide was considered legal and moral.
Eugenics used to be big. Torture was normal. Times and attitudes change..

As applied to abortions, what amounts to infanticide is again definitional and raises the question of when a fetus an infant or a "human."

We can make a scientific determination of when a fetus is viable outside the womb, but determining when it is a "human" is a matter of faith, and different faiths consider the fetus a human at very different times, e.g. the majority Jewish sects put it at the first breath as do some very conservative Christian sects. Yet other Christians put it at conception. I think that started as a Catholic thing. So who should decide which faith is right? Your government?

I think that looking at this from a non-faith perspective, Roe did a good job of balancing the rights of parent, child and state -- regardless of whether it was supported by the text of the First Amendment. A balance was struck and we should stick with it.

-- Jay Beattie.

There are VERY long lines waiting for adoption. The actual parents invariably want those children back. Unwanted you say? In what world? My middle daughter has been attempting to adopt young children or even babies for 10 years and has managed to get an 11 year old and an 18 year old.

She is a stay at home wife and her husband is a high school teacher.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 13:36:30 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the ****
up�.

As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.

Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were
"truths". The law in other words.

From my vague memory, just for a small and dying mob in the Levant I
think, or one mob (that became two and later three)_ in the Middle East.

I've always wondered just how many of the common folk were really
affected by these various "codes" and WTF "life" in general was like
where "the law" had to specifically state such matters.


So what you're saying is that you do not believe in the freedom to live.

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:12:05 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 13:36:30 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote:


I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old
Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the
**** up�.

As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities.

Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were
"truths". The law in other words.

From my vague memory, just for a small and dying mob in the Levant I
think, or one mob (that became two and later three)_ in the Middle
East.

I've always wondered just how many of the common folk were really
affected by these various "codes" and WTF "life" in general was like
where "the law" had to specifically state such matters.


So what you're saying is that you do not believe in the freedom to live.

Re-read my comment. I make an comment and not a statement.

I'll ignore the number of times you've given up 'freedom" for "safety"

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were compelled
to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in owning slaves
was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy mills today.

Err just abot all farming involving lifestock.



But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were compelled
to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in owning slaves
was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy mills today.

Err just abot all farming involving lifestock.



But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

"The share of abortion patients relying on condoms decreased between
2000 and 2014 (from 28% to 24%), and there was a small but significant
increase in the share of patients who relied on withdrawal (from 7% in
2000 to 9% in 2014). Use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC)
methods among abortion patients increased from 0.1% in 2000 to 1% in
2014. Jones notes that as more and more U.S. women rely on these
methods, a larger number of individuals will experience method failure.
It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

"Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became
pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive
users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a
contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided
to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they
became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions
in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence
suggests that improvements in contraceptive use contributed to the
abortion decline."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose
adoption.
But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion
available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting
adoption?
I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption.

But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a
woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery,
and it is not without risk.

In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were
compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in
owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy
mills today.

Err just about all farming involving lifestock.

But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions
happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without
use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal
responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner.

Belief or supported by research?

From a pro-abortion site:

It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly
after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods.

Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs.

I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective
opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered
by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all.
As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that
fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it.

Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures
that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any
contraceptive, then abort the baby that results.

--
- Frank Krygowski