Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Women on Waves

By Anonymous Brave in Op-Ed
Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 08:28:45 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Portugal has a long tradition of protecting the human life. It was the first European country to abolish the death penalty, and more than 50% of voters rejected a 1998 referendum that would have liberalized abortion laws [en] (abortion is legal in Portugal if the pregnancy resulted from a rape, if it endangers the mother's life, or if the fetus is severely malformed; the morning-after pill is also legal).

Now a Dutch boat from an organization called Women on Waves intends to pick women in Portugal, bring them to international waters (where the law of the boat's country applies: the Netherlands allows abortions for six weeks after conception, if not performed within 25 km from an Amsterdam hospital), perform abortions, and return them to land. The Portuguese government has refused entry to Women on Waves' ship, the Borndiep (previously Sea Change).


Moral, etical and sexual issues are faced very differently in the two countries. The Netherlands are one the countries where the abortion rate is lower; I believe this is due to an effective sexual education being in place there.

In Portugal there's a huge amount of ignorance regarding sexuality, even though contraceptives are available for free at any clinic. Campaigns currently focus on basic issues like "the pill doesn't prevent AIDS infection" and "just because someone looks healthy, that doesn't mean he/she is AIDS free." I know a girl who has already had two abortions, and there was recently a TV report on a woman who has had eight. Sexual education must be put in place urgently. Only with a proactive attitude toward contraceptives can abortion be used in a responsible way. I don't believe Portugal is there yet.

The referendum mentioned above was greatly criticized for the way in which the question was phrased. It was something like "Do you agree with not penalizing the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, if performed at the woman's will, during the first 10 weeks, in a legally authorized health post?" It was too impartial. "Voluntary" and "at the woman's will" is also redundant.

Politicians now seem to be following a strategy, which can be depicted as:

do
    referendum
while people's will = no

I don't find this very democratic. It seems to impose the government's will on the population, which will end up acceding just to stop the ballots. It also legitimizes the same strategy's use by no-voters, continuing the cycle ab aeterno.

The Women on Waves initiative is the latest front in the abortion struggle. The Portuguese government states several reasons for not allowing the ship into Portuguese waters: they wish to avoid confrontations such as those that took place in Ireland and Poland [en] (other countries where abortion is illegal); it violates the UN Montego Bay Sea Rights Convention [en].

A group of pro-choice activists recently organized a protest of the government's decision -- but the activists were outnumbered by reporters [en]. The main promoter, Rebecca Gomperts, nevertheless acts like she's a movie star [en].

This yet another confrontation between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice is really an example on how democracy can be endangered by those who try to take advantage of media coverage.

Regarding any bias in this article: I support abortion rights if it can be used in a responsible manner. I believe that within one or two generations abortion can be used responsibly in Portugal. I voted "no" in the referendum, but I might change my position in the future, if the time is right. I'm Portuguese, but I lived in Holland 14 months during my university traineeship. I also believe the whole discussion about abortion has to do to when does the requirement of preserving a human life is greater than to coerce a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy and give birth against her will. It's very subjective to know where to draw the line between the two and each person has a different view on the subject.

It's possible to go to Spain have an abortion. The Guinean immigrant community also regularly sends their daughters to Guinea-Bissau to have female genital circumcision done to them there. Other people go to Switzerland looking for euthanasia. It's always possible circumvent illegality by relocating.

Links:

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Democracy is
o Rule by the People (Greek dEmokratia from dEmos meaning "the people", plus kratia meaning "to rule") 29%
o Rule by the Media 7%
o Rule by the Lobbies 9%
o Rule by the Media (who are ruled by the Lobbies) 30%
o Utopia 7%
o The opponents of the Republicans 15%

Votes: 82
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Google
o first European country to abolish the death penalty
o more than 50% of voters rejected a 1998 referendum that would have liberalized abortion laws
o en
o Women on Waves
o abortion rate is lower
o huge amount of ignorance regarding sexuality
o that took place in Ireland and Poland
o en [2]
o UN Montego Bay Sea Rights Convention
o en [3]
o outnumbere d by reporters
o en [4]
o acts like she's a movie star
o en [5]
o Google News coverage
o Interdição do "Barco do Aborto" Surpreendeu PSD e CDS
o Google [2]
o The Wayback Machine
o o Que Diz a Convenção
o Google [3]
o The Wayback Machine [2]
o Manifestaç ão Inexistente em Lisboa
o Google [4]
o The Wayback Machine [3]
o Primeira Tentativa de Entrar
o Google [5]
o The Wayback Machine [4]
o Also by Anonymous Brave


Display: Sort:
Women on Waves | 335 comments (293 topical, 42 editorial, 1 hidden)
Hmm, Rebecca Gomperts... (none / 1) (#5)
by Kasreyn on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 01:48:25 PM EST

...any relation to Diana Moon Glampers?

(500 points for anyone who gets the reference)

+1S, interesting subject, and you almost managed to come off as a native English speaker. Good job.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
sci-fi story, can't remember who wrote it (none / 0) (#188)
by alyosha1 on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 08:49:47 AM EST

But something about artificially constricting talented people's ability to perform to their potential, so that everyone was equal? One of the main characters was considered very dangerous because he was so talented, and so had to where heavy weights around his neck, and thick, out-of-focus glasses to impede his vision. Diana was the chief enforcer, right?

[ Parent ]
*buzz* (none / 0) (#197)
by davros4269 on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 12:00:54 PM EST

Did this story feature another another character who was bright, so he had an intermittent buzzing in his ears to make him lose concentration?

I read this in HS, I can't remember the name of who wrote it - I thought the author was a "master", like Heinlein or Bradbury...?


Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

'Harrison Bergeron', (none / 0) (#254)
by Kasreyn on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:40:31 AM EST

by Kurt Vonnegut. A true classic.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
I know, I know! (none / 0) (#227)
by Sir Joseph Porter KCB on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 10:35:09 PM EST

Kurt Vonnegut, and the story was called... um... hmm. Gah. But yes, what the other two posts said, and also Glampers' official title was "handicapper general." Yay!
~~~~

Thank you for your time.
[ Parent ]

'Harrison Bergeron', (none / 0) (#253)
by Kasreyn on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:40:15 AM EST

by Kurt Vonnegut. A true classic.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Ah. (none / 0) (#274)
by Sir Joseph Porter KCB on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:50:01 PM EST

Oh yeah! Aye, a very good story it was indeed.
~~~~

Thank you for your time.
[ Parent ]

does this all (1.70 / 10) (#7)
by bankind on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 02:06:08 PM EST

have something to do with Ellen?

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman

Cognitive dissonance on abortion abounds. (2.33 / 15) (#8)
by sllort on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 02:07:58 PM EST

Is an unborn fetus a human life? The funny thing about that question is that cognitive dissonance abounds on this issue; many people believe that the answer is simultaneously no and yes. For instance, do a Google search on norplant and eugenics. You will find that many people feel that the policy of requiring a birth control implant to become eligible for welfare is eugenics, or "elimination of individuals carrying undesirable traits". However if Norplant birth control can "eliminate individuals", then the unborn are people and abortion is murder. However almost to a man these same people believe that abortion is a moral right- that is, the unborn are people in one circumstance aligned with their beliefs and are not people in another circumstance unaligned with their beliefs. In short, they have no true value system as whether the unborn are truly people, they just make subjective decisions based on their politics.

I bring up this point because this same cognitive dissonance exists in your argument. If you oppose abortion, then you believe the unborn are people and have rights; however you approve abortion in the case of rape, which means that (by extension  of your beliefs) the child of rape is not a person. If you were ideologically sound in your argument, you would either advocate the destruction of all children of rape regardless of their age, or you would approve all abortion. Instead, you (like many oppponents of the welfare/Norplant system) have absolutely no ideologically sound opinion on whether the unborn are people or not.

Perhaps I am being too rigid in my thinking, and a third possibility exists: that both of the above positions exist because there exists the belief that the unborn are something different: a creature with more rights than an animal, but less rights than a  true human. It's hard for me to imagine, but if true I find it to be the most barbaric option of all.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

Re: Cognitive dissonance on abortion abounds (2.60 / 5) (#9)
by Anonymous Brave on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 02:27:06 PM EST

I'm stating the current law around here.

The whole discussion about abortion has to do to when does the requirement of preserving a human life is greater than to coerce a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy and give birth against her will. It's very subjective to know where to draw the line between the two and each person has a different view on the subject.


[ Parent ]

You also stated your vote (2.30 / 10) (#10)
by sllort on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 02:47:00 PM EST

Additionally; your argument makes no sense. "Coercing a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy and give birth against her will" - this is something that can never be more important than "saving a human life". The entire question of abortion is whether or not the unborn are human lives. If they are not, abortion is a nonissue. If they are, it is quite plain and simply murder. Childbirth is painful and can be dangerous, however it is a small price to pay to save a human life if that is truly what is at issue. I am not arguing either side of the argument, I am just asking you to be intellectually honest about your decision.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
You're simplifying far to much (2.80 / 10) (#20)
by godix on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 07:15:55 PM EST

"Coercing a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy and give birth against her will" - this is something that can never be more important than "saving a human life".

I don't know of a single society where people are required to donate an organ to save someones life. I know of no law that requires me to jump into a river to save a drowning man. If I refuse to donate a meal to a straving person I won't be thrown in jail. Society has already judged that coercing someone to act against their will, ESPECIALLY if it involves pain or hurts their physical well being, is wrong even if it's to save the life of another person. Morally you may have a point in saying a woman should suffer through pregnancy in order to save a life but if you take it a step further and REQUIRE a woman to do so then you're running counter to how society usually works.

Abortion isn't a simple yes/no question on if a fetus is a seperate life. The issue can quickly get quite complex and in trying to simplify it you're ignoring important aspects of the issue.

"Kerry's brother, Cameron, remembers their father's putting down John's "sophomoric" ideas while discussing foreign affairs around the dinner table." - New
[ Parent ]

None of your examples hold water (2.20 / 5) (#26)
by sllort on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 10:33:11 PM EST

Because in none of your examples is their certainty that the other's life depends on your actions.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Actually the first one is (2.60 / 5) (#30)
by godix on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 04:30:24 AM EST

the other two you have a point on but the first one is pretty certain that the other's life depends on your actions. If someone needs a kidney transplant and you're compatable then it's pretty close to guarenteed they will die if you choose not to donate. It's not 100% cetain but then again with the state of medicine from children born extremely young it's not 100% certain the fetus needs to be in a womans body all 9 months either.


"Kerry's brother, Cameron, remembers their father's putting down John's "sophomoric" ideas while discussing foreign affairs around the dinner table." - New
[ Parent ]
It's an asimov question (2.33 / 3) (#126)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:21:06 PM EST

Can you allow an entity to come passively to harm through inaction, and can you actively bring an entity to harm through action.

Having an abortion is action. Not undergoing a kidney transplant is inaction. The law does not equate inaction and action, nor should it.

Again, your example is BS.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

inaction (none / 1) (#158)
by gdanjo on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:08:47 PM EST

Having an abortion is action. Not undergoing a kidney transplant is inaction. The law does not equate inaction and action, nor should it.
Let's say I recieved a fine of $500 for speeding - can I claim "inaction" when I don't want to pay it? Will the law leave me alone?

The law doesn't equate "action" and "inaction" at all, except where explicitly defined. One can consider the "inaction" of NOT having an abortion as detrimental as well - if the parents can't afford another child, for example.

Your conceptualisation in these matters is rather rigid - they happen to support your point of view though (surprise!).

Dan ..
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

What's my point of view? (none / 0) (#333)
by sllort on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:01:31 PM EST

You have no idea.

I'll give you a hint: I'm not pro-life.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Good Samaritan Law (none / 1) (#45)
by Xptic on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:25:52 AM EST

But wouldn't it be a nice world if you did have to give a shit about other people?

Maybe donating an organ is a bit much.  I don't need both my kidneys *yet*, but some day I might.


[ Parent ]

Bollocks! (2.50 / 4) (#60)
by ksandstr on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:25:29 PM EST

Additionally; your argument makes no sense. "Coercing a woman to go ahead with a pregnancy and give birth against her will" - this is something that can never be more important than "saving a human life".
I call bullshit. The woman's life is, objectively speaking[1], obviously more valuable since she has fulfilled far more of her potential than the foetus. Given that signs point to personhood being learned rather than innate, it would also be quite a stretch to call an unborn, outside the womb non-viable foetus a person.

[1] Yes yes, I could go for the whole "you bleeding-heart liberals would readily substitute feeling for cold, ha^Wsoft science!!!1" angle, but let's not sink to that, all right?
--
Gegen kommunismus und bolschewismus und terrorismus, jawohl!

[ Parent ]

But no one asked you to choose (2.50 / 2) (#125)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:18:03 PM EST

I wasn't addressing the her-life-or-its case, you know.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
It's just human nature to view them differently (3.00 / 5) (#14)
by lostincali on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 03:56:09 PM EST

Follow me here -- Suppose a mother loses a baby 5 months into a pregnancy due to natural causes, she may be very affected. (naturally so, her child died)

Yet, it seems possible that she if she instead lost that child when it was 5, 10, or 15 years old, she might be affected quite a bit more. Why is this so? Is there somehow a different value placed on a human life?

I would say that yes, intuitively , people value the fetus and developed child differently, even though they consider them both to be human lives. And I don't see what's so barbaric about that -- it seems entirely intuitive to me. The developed child is a person whom other humans beings have interacted with, nurtured, and cared for -- of course they view it differently than a fetus whom they have never seen or touched or talked to or anything of the sort.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

You call it human nature (2.00 / 5) (#17)
by sllort on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 05:45:56 PM EST

I call it barbarism. If the rights of a person are not inalienable, but rather dictated by their experiences and interactions with others, then we could define the life of a child born into the wilderness who grew up as a "savage" as a non-life with no value; it would be legal and morally justifiable to slaughter such a person outright at any age. I reject your proposed value system.

The unborn are either human, endowed with unalienable rights, or they are not. Just because a mother is less emotionally attached to a particular person, be it the fetus in her womb or a savage loose in the wilderness 10,000 miles away, this does not make the killing of either one a morally justifiable act.

The only way terminating a fetus is morally justifiable is if a fetus is not yet a human. I am not stating an opinion in this debate; I am trying to define it in logically consistent terms.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Thought experiment (2.33 / 6) (#28)
by jongleur on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 01:41:11 AM EST

I claim that if at abortion time, instead of killing the fetus you were able to remove it and put it into a tank where it could grow to 'term' and go to a home or orphanage, we'd do away with abortion. This would after all remove womens' argument "they want to control my body!", and then I believe the idea of an unarguable future child would dominate. If you buy this it makes clear that abortion is more about the woman's / parents' convenience than about whether the child is a human or not - mere technology can't, or shouldn't, change a fetus' moral status.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
causing other problems (2.00 / 2) (#54)
by anon 17753 on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:05:27 PM EST

Orphanages, foster homes, and all other facilities for child wards of the state are already over-burdened. If any woman could dump her unwanted fetus on the state with minimal guilt, the system would collapse.

I think the only solution to this problem is by changing the attitudes and/or behaviours of the women who want abortions before they become pregnant. However, I'm not at all sure that this change of human nature is possible.

[ Parent ]

That's not my impression (2.00 / 2) (#62)
by jongleur on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:32:31 PM EST

population throughout the Western world is declining (except in the US), and even in the US there's demand for adoptible babies. Now, maybe you know more than I do about orphanages and the like but, your saying the world is full of unwanted babies goes against my perception.

--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
Question (2.33 / 3) (#72)
by godix on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 05:31:54 PM EST

When's the last time you saw an orphanage close because it ran out of children?

Considering the scale of abortions now I doubt adoption is even a significant factor in solving the problem of unwanted children. Reality is that not all, perhaps even not a majority, of unwanted children born get adopted and when you add on all the abortions performed worldwide adoption really becomes quite trivial in comparison. Partially it's because the overall demand is vastly overrated, partially it's that governments throw up huge legal and finacial barriers to adoption, and partially it's that the demand for children is actually a demand for healty white infants and any child that's sick, not white, or older than an infant is pretty well screwed. Whatever the reason adoption is not the sole solution to unwanted children and other methods are required.

"Kerry's brother, Cameron, remembers their father's putting down John's "sophomoric" ideas while discussing foreign affairs around the dinner table." - New
[ Parent ]

So we're both talking without knowing anything? (3.00 / 2) (#75)
by jongleur on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 07:55:28 PM EST

In which case we'd better quit or look stuff up. It's speculative anyway, but I made my point - with most Western govts hungry for children (some paying bonuses - not enough to raise a child to adulthood on certainly, though), and with the weight of sentiment about children on the side of letting them live, I think they'd be allowed to. But like I say, I'm speculating.

But yours is an interesting point, is it monetarily worth it to a govt to raise a child and educate it, for the tax it'll generate over the rest of its life? Of course the society would have to judge the human value, but, since we already kill foetii it could come down to economic value; wouldn't that be something!
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]

Additionally (none / 1) (#129)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:25:12 PM EST

Adoption costs about $20,000, on average.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Responsibility (1.00 / 3) (#63)
by Rich0 on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:44:18 PM EST

The problem is responsibility.  Most people who are candidates for abortion are in this position because of irresponsibility with contraception.  (Granted, this is not always the case - all contraceptives have failure rates.)

These people are precisely the people who you don't want raising kids in a healthy society.

On the other hand, whether or not a fetus is a human is independant of whether or not it would be convenient for society if they are or are not.

If a fetus is a human, it is too late to try to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy via abortion.  The problem is conception in the first place.  On the other hand, if a fetus is not a human, then I don't think anybody opposes abortion as a solution.  So the real debate is whether a fetus is a human or not.

Personally, I think the solution is to control conception, not abortion.  One solution might be to implant male and female contraceptives at puberty - in ALL cases regardless of social status (well, at least where health of the impantee is not at issue).  Then it is only removed when both parties really want to have a kid.  You could couple this in with financial criteria (ie, if they are on public assistance it isn't just their decision), or you might not.  You could even require counseling on the repsonsibilities of parenthood to get rid of people who just think it "sounds like a neat idea."  In any case, this would probably eliminate most unwanted pregnancies, and then there wouldn't be nearly as much debate.

It is bad enough that people just get married on whims and divorced just as quickly.  However, that at least is between just two people.  The decision to have a child impacts the child as well, and society must protect the interests of a child if the parents are irresponsible.  The "right" of two people to have a child is not nearly as important in my mind as the right of that potential child to at least have a half-decent childhood.  I'm not talking about being born rich - but I am talking about being born in a home where the child won't be treated as unwelcome and beaten whenever it suits one of the parent's whims.

My feeling is that we're debating abortion when we should be debating conception...

[ Parent ]

I halfway agree (2.00 / 2) (#124)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:16:58 PM EST

Why would we go to the expense of removing a fetus that didn't yet have an active brain? Why spend all that money on technology to save a non-life?

And at what point of a fetus's incubation would there actually be a life there to save?

Despite its politicization, this is an interesting question.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

...suppose a fairy would come by... (none / 0) (#319)
by Kuranes on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 09:39:36 AM EST

thoughtexperimentsarestupidpoint


Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
A couple points (2.75 / 4) (#19)
by godix on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 06:59:01 PM EST

However if Norplant birth control can "eliminate individuals", then the unborn are people and abortion is murder.

Requiring Norplant for any class of people is taking away their right to choose about childbirth, which if you think about it is basically the exact same arguement pro-choice people use about abotion. Not only do I not see a contradiction in opposing mandatory Norplant and being pro-choice, I would serious wonder how much thought someone's given the issue who was both pro-norplant and pro-choice.

Note: I'm not expressing my opinion here, just explaining why I easily understand someone who does hold these views. My personal views can't be easily defined by 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' labels.

"Kerry's brother, Cameron, remembers their father's putting down John's "sophomoric" ideas while discussing foreign affairs around the dinner table." - New
[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (1.50 / 4) (#27)
by sllort on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 10:34:04 PM EST

Abortion is not childbirth. It is fetusdeath. Please reconsider.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
From your viewpoint, perhaps (2.62 / 8) (#31)
by godix on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 04:52:03 AM EST

That's the problem with abortion topics, it's full of people who have picked one viewpoint and are so diehard about defending it they forget there's even a possibility others see things differently. Nothing useful ever comes out of these discussions, instead it's just two sides totally ignoring the other sides point of view. I can see valid points in both sides but both sides do frequently ignore some pretty basic facts. The fact that you're ignoring is that western society values the right of individual choice very highly and forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term violates that.

Considering that the rest of this thread will just be us talking past each other I'm going to drop this now until I see some evidence this can be a discussion instead of two sermons being preached at each other. If it makes you feel better then you may declare yourself the victor and your morally inferior and factually wrong foe defeated.

"Kerry's brother, Cameron, remembers their father's putting down John's "sophomoric" ideas while discussing foreign affairs around the dinner table." - New
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (1.00 / 2) (#121)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:12:42 PM EST

It's not my opinion. In abortion, a child is not born. Instead, a fetus dies.

As far as what my opinion is about abortion, you don't know, because I haven't stated it. I'm just trying to get people to stick to the facts.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

So.... (none / 1) (#58)
by ksandstr on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:19:31 PM EST

Is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead before you open the box?
--
Gegen kommunismus und bolschewismus und terrorismus, jawohl!

[ Parent ]
That's not the question (1.50 / 2) (#128)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:22:34 PM EST

The question is: did it ever have a soul?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Define soul (nt) (none / 0) (#318)
by Kuranes on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 09:38:03 AM EST




Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
SO, if you don't quite get _their_ POV... (none / 1) (#61)
by ksandstr on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:27:08 PM EST

Then it must be inconsistent? With what? The straw-man you may or may not have constructed for yourself to burn?


[ Parent ]
I understand it. (none / 1) (#127)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:21:57 PM EST

And it's incorrect.

There is no paradox.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

induction (2.50 / 2) (#92)
by gdanjo on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:40:30 AM EST

[...] If you were ideologically sound in your argument, you would either advocate the destruction of all children of rape regardless of their age, or you would approve all abortion.
A grain of sand does not make a heap. Two, three, four grains of sand do not make a heap. Therefore, no amount of sand will ever make a heap.

Is this what you mean by "idealogical soundness"?

The problem is that we must admit that at some point a bunch of cells do not make a human, and at some later point some cells will make a human - it's just that, as with "heaps", the definition is ambiguous, and any attempts to disambiguate it results in a definition.

Thus, the only way to find out what the unambiguous definition of human is, is to unambiguously define what a human is. Spit, repeat.

Induction, it seems, don't work here.

[...] It's hard for me to imagine, but if true I find it to be the most barbaric option of all.
Perhaps. But a theory's "barbarism" says nothing about it's applicability; last time I looked, evolution wasn't a warm'n'fuzzy bedtime story - in fact, it's quite ruthless.

But to step outside this "barbarism" requires an "immortal soul" - as in, a bunch of cells spontaneously, "magically" becomes human - which, as a theory, has problems of it's own.

It may not be ideal, but this duality is the best we have.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Why not? (2.00 / 2) (#122)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:14:09 PM EST

Why can't we say a human is a fetus that has achieved measurable higher brain function?

We have an arbitrary but legally enforcable definition for braindead, you know.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

but (2.66 / 3) (#155)
by gdanjo on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:44:37 PM EST

Why can't we say a human is a fetus that has achieved measurable higher brain function?
And a fetus is a bunch of cells that achieved measurable entanglement - and cells are a bunch of molecules that achieved some synchronicity - and, and.

So, do you now admit to at least three stages of "humanness", or are all these "X is higher-Y" definitions "the same thing"? Stage 1: a bunch of cells, stage 2: a fetus, and stage 3: a fetus with higher-brain function. But did you not also say:

Perhaps I am being too rigid in my thinking, and a third possibility exists: that both of the above positions exist because there exists the belief that the unborn are something different: a creature with more rights than an animal, but less rights than a true human. It's hard for me to imagine, but if true I find it to be the most barbaric option of all.
In this case, a fetus is this third "creature" you talk about - it is not a human, not a rock, but something in between.

So ... we're back to square one. I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with Sorites' Paradox (the paradox of vagueness) ... it hasn't been solved as yet.

We have an arbitrary but legally enforcable definition for braindead, you know.
I think you mean "legal but arbitrarily enforcable" definition - but it's not a fixed definition, in the scientific sense. Even in these cases there exists three states, one of which is "fuzzy" - we have "alive", we have "dead", and we have limbo where technically the person is alive, but in reality they will never recover, so they are actually dead. No amount of legal definition can solve this; the only thing that the legal definition does here is to pre-define what "alive" means. It tells us nothing new.

If we cannot scientifically determine exactly what this limbo state is, and how it resolves to either "alive" or "dead", then we cannot have a "clean, crisp" definition of "dead" to please everyone (that is unversally acceptable - even in the scientific sense). We must therefore question whether the scientific method can give us any information whatsoever - I assert that it can't, and if it does give answers, it only does so because the answers were (arbitrarily) pre-defined.

I stick to my original statement: induction don't work here; the scientific method don't work here. It is a problem in the human domain, where other rationalisation methods are far more effective.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Loopholes (2.00 / 5) (#21)
by ZorbaTHut on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 08:20:46 PM EST

The one thing I find a bit jarring about the whole mess is this nice little loophole they've "found" in the law. Just bring them out to international waters, and it's legal!

I'm not going to even attempt to argue whether abortion *should* be legal or not - but can you imagine the reactions of the police to this?

"Well, YEAH, I went out and did pot. But I was in international waters!"
"Well, YEAH, I raped her. But I was in international waters!"
"Well, YEAH, I mercilessly slaughtered the entire boatload of guests. But I was in international waters!"

I think history shows just how the judicial system feels about people who cleverly find ways of getting around the law. Is this really the best way to do this?

If so, I'll set up my Nigerian scam operations floating on a raft, transmitting via satellite dish. Sure, it's illegal, but who cares? I'm in international waters!

Read More Closely (3.00 / 11) (#29)
by brain in a jar on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 03:40:14 AM EST

You will find that in international waters the law of the country where the ship is registered applies.

This does not imply lawlessness.

If you happened to be on a dutch registered ship, you might be able to get away with smoking pot, but all of the usual obiviously nasty crimes e.g. murder would remain illegal just as you would expect.

Read, think, then and only then should you post.


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

I Don't Know (2.40 / 5) (#47)
by Xptic on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:33:52 AM EST

For instance, a ship departing Florida can serve alcohol to people under 21 and allow gambling.  Those things are not legal in Florida.

I don't know what they'd do if you fired up a joint.  May be agianst ship rules.

In any event, I think international waters are, at best, fuzzy areas of the law.

Oh, and I have heard of people who went to Thiland to have sex with preteens and have been charged upon returning to the US.  So, like I said, international law seems very fuzzy to me.


[ Parent ]

"registered" (3.00 / 7) (#52)
by Happy Monkey on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:13:45 AM EST

not "departing from".
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Re: Loopholes (2.80 / 5) (#87)
by loqi on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:25:34 AM EST

This isn't any kind of special loophole. They're accomplishing what they'd otherwise accomplish (at greater expense) just going to the Netherlands.

Nope, this is just your everyday When Laws Collide dance that nations play with each other. The U.S. is no different, really, explicitly providing Iranians access to political material outlawed in their country.

Global society is still catching up with itself, and it's looking mighty silly in the process.

[ Parent ]
Intl waters :) (none / 1) (#282)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:51:49 PM EST

Just like noone will care when you get boarded by pirates.
What ? You thought that only happens in the Simpsons ?

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]
Thoughts (2.50 / 8) (#23)
by jd on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 09:05:06 PM EST

Portugal has some interesting historical quirks, when it comes to human rights and human life. Well, that's true of many countries, but we're talking about Portugal here.

The Portugese and Spanish, for example, are historic rivals. They spent many centuries in conflict or outright war. During the initial European colonisation of America, both the Portugese and Spanish invaded South America. Virtually all native civilisations were wiped out. Those that survived lost most (or all) of their culture.

Sure, the Spanish were by far the worse of the two, but Portugal was certainly guilty of attrocities and genocide.

"But that was a long time ago!" - Sure, but if we are talking about "historic traditions", I'd say attitudes in the last few hundred years are very relevent. Societies tend not to change that quickly. (Many Americans still think they live in the Wild West.)

Since those times, Portugal has waned as a global power. (As has Spain.) It's much easier to act noble, when your opinion isn't worth a damn. If it is to ever be more than an act, though, there has to be some risk for you, and you have to be willing to be wrong.

Here, the Portugese seem to fail the litmus test. By carrying out a rigged referendum AND by maintaining national ignorance, it is very clear that the authorities are NOT willing to be wrong. In addition, by being hard-line, they minimise the risk to themselves.

Personally, I'm more pro-life than pro-choice, but I also believe that there are going to be times when being pro-choice is the correct way to go. That you can't be hard-and-fast, but need to be flexible in your thinking and in the basis for your choices.

When pro-choice is the better choice, then THAT is more respectful of life than pro-life. It seems like a paradox, but it really isn't. It is a recognition that life is not binary, that nothing happens in isolation, and that family units (and society itself) are also "living entities". I believe it's best to resolve conflict than to have a winner/loser scenario, but sometimes that's not possible. Sometimes, someone/something is going to lose. When that happens, the best you can do is find the least bad loss.

A trivial and somewhat artificial example. A mentally-ill child-abuser is pregnant. If the child is born, there's a very high risk that it'll be abused and possibly die or be beyond any meaningful recovery. The woman doesn't want to do harm. All choices (including adoption or "state care") involve harm of some kind. It's inescapable. The best she can do is minimise that harm. Where pro-choice is the least harmful choice (as in this case), it is the correct choice.

In that fictional example, an abortion would be clearly the least harmful, by a long way. Adoption would be next-best. In almost no country in the world is "state care" considered that much better than having the child subject to outright abuse. Even a country as "enlightened" as the US is desperately naive when it comes to handling children. Hundreds of children in the State of Florida, in State care or monitored by State social workers, go missing each year. In some cases, it can take decades for anyone to realise that a child even HAS gone missing.

Portugal has other problems, too. Many European countries (though Germany gets cited a lot) are deeply enmeshed in the slave trade. Tens of thousands of people are bought and sold across Europe. Portugal is no exception. Unlike Britain (which offers immunity and a witness protection program for escaped slaves), most European countries prefer to protect the slavers and prosecute the slaves.

Is that truly protecting life? Or is it merely protecting the rich from the poor? Which goes back to the ignorance. Those who can afford to know, do. Those who can't afford to know, can't escape the consequences of ignorance.

Is that compassion?

Some clarifications (none / 0) (#36)
by tmenezes on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 08:30:47 AM EST

First of all I'm portuguese and live in Portugal.

I think some clarification is due here. Portuguese law allows abortion in 3 cases:

  • Pregnacy was caused by rape;
  • Serious health risks for the mother;
  • Serious helath/disability risks for the baby.


[ Parent ]
Double Standard (1.60 / 5) (#43)
by Xptic on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:22:02 AM EST

So, according to your law:

1.  Life is only important if it was created with consentual sex.

I understand there is emotional stress caused by carying a child produced by rape.  Does that emotional stress give the woman a right to commit murder too?  Do two wrongs make a right?

2.  The mother's life is more important than the baby's.

Walk into any public place.  Find a mother.  Ask her if given a choice between her life and her child's, which would she choose?  Anyone who will kill their child so that they can live is not a parent.

3.  Disabled life is not as important as healthy life.

Agian, raising a disabled child can be rewarding experience in its own right.  Do we allow parents to kill 13-year old 'tards?  Why not?

What a fucking joke!

I'm pro-choice.  Only because I really don't give a fuck about stupid non-issues the only affect a small minority of my country.  I made a decision not to decide, therefore, pro-choice

If you want to ban abortion, fine.  Ban it.  But do it outright with no exceptions.

If you want to allow it, then that's cool too.

Make a choice and live with the consequences.

Personally, I think there should be a full democratic vote.  No representatives, no debate, no lobying.  One person, one vote.  Decide once and for all if your country will allow it or not.  Every 20 years, revisit the issue and revote.  In the mean time, live with the choice, move, or get a gun and start killing people till you get your way.

[ Parent ]

A few definitions are in order here (2.66 / 3) (#57)
by ksandstr on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:17:33 PM EST

A fetus doesn't turn into a child until s/he is able to survive on his own outside the womb, given the usual stuff that a newborn baby is supposed to receive (i.e. warm place to stay, breast- or supplement feeding, clothes, care, etc). Therefore, abortion's relation to murder is only in potentia, which is generally not penalized in civilized countries.[1]

You wouldn't call a butterfly's larva a butterfly, would you?

(or maybe it's just that the Pope hasn't declared that you both 1. mustn't kill butterflies and that 2. butterfly larvae are butterflies...)

[1] Well, with the exception that you nearly decapitate someone with some kind of construction equipment or something -- even then it's "dangerous negligence" instead of "third degree murder in potentia".


Fin.
[ Parent ]

So based on your argument (2.00 / 3) (#65)
by LO313 on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 02:30:40 PM EST

A fetus doesn't turn into a child until s/he is able to survive on his own outside the womb, given the usual stuff that a newborn baby is supposed to receive (i.e. warm place to stay, breast- or supplement feeding, clothes, care, etc).

Then an abortion after 23 weeks would be murder? Since modern medical science has brought us to the point where a baby can survive at this early stage. I'm pro-life. I think anyone who has an abortion is selfish. The only time I think it should be legal is in an ectopic pregancy when survival of the mother and fetus are impossible. And as far as the health of the baby, that's a stupid argument because you don't knwo for sure until they are out. I've heard too many horror stories of couples aborting the healthy fetus instead of the "sick" one. And I actually met a woman whose doctor told her to have an abortion because the baby had a massive tumor. This was indicated by ultrasound. She declined and got another doctor. The baby was born, no tumor and no health problems. All these excuses are just that, ways to get an abortion.

[ Parent ]
the world is not black and white (2.75 / 4) (#67)
by tmenezes on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 03:13:57 PM EST

Life is only important if it was created with consentual sex.

Some people argue that abortion is a form of cruelty against a living person that could be avoided by contraception and information. This does not hold true in case of rape so the mother should be given an option. Also, imagine the mother is 13. She herself is still a child who will probably have her life ruined.

The mother's life is more important than the baby's

Acording to the portuguese constitution (and the constitutions of most civilized countries) the life of the mother is of *equal* importance as the life of the child. So the state chooses not to choose in this case.

Also, imagine the mother has 5 kids already who depend on her. She chooses abortion to protect the future of her already born kids. Is she less of a parent for that decision?

Disabled life is not as important as healthy life.

Disabled life is of equal importance but normaly envolves a lot more suffering. The state lets the mother decide if she wants to give birth to a human being who will probably suffer a lot through life. Also, nobody is forbiding the mother of having a severly disabled child as you imply. Ths choice is hers.

Most laws are compromises between antagonic opinions and lobyes in a world with many shades of gray. This is also known as democracy. It's far from perfect, but look at the alternatives...

[ Parent ]
they are consitent in some way (2.50 / 2) (#82)
by m a r c on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:24:25 PM EST

my belief is that if you bring a child into the world and the parent(s) don't love it, then its going to have a pretty fucked up existence. Its your parents who you first get attached to, learn to love from, etc.

In all of the 3 points, rightly or wrongly the mother either does not love the child (rape, tard kid) or in point 2) she's likely to have complications and not survive. Either way the child grows up unloved and has a pretty shitty existance likely becoming a burden on society.
I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts (2.75 / 4) (#104)
by Anonymous Brave on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:07:10 AM EST

In the early days of European overseas explorations, Portugal made a deal with Spain defining which regions would be colonised by which country (Treaty of Tordesillas). This allowed the conflicts between the two countries to be minimised regarding this issue. The same cannot be said, e.g., regarding England and France.

The only conflicts between Spain and Portugal had to do with attempts of the first to invade the second, and Portugal won all of them.

Unlike the colonisations performed by other countries, there weren't genocides but intermarrying, as can be seen by, e.g., Brazil's current population. They were by far the ones who handled slaves in a more humane manner and one the firsts to abolish slavery.

Regarding the issue of present days' sexual exploitation around Europe, Portuguese laws state it's not illegal for someone to become a prostitute, but it's illegal to be a pimp. These slave networks you talk about are usually run by Eastern Europe mafia, and it's not easy to wipe them out.

Shades on a wall are a symptom of an inner wall leakage; you don't paint them, as it would be a waste, a short-term solution. Instead you open the wall, you fix the pipes, you reconstruct the wall and then you paint.

Current abortion in Portugal (unlike that of The Netherlands) is a symptom of grassing ignorance; you don't legalize it, as it would be a waste, a short-term solution. Instead you put proper sexual education in place, and when the current ignorance vanishes you legalize abortion.

[ Parent ]

um... (2.00 / 2) (#142)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:15:17 PM EST

How is death more desirable that life without a parent?

By your logic, we should kill children who are orphaned, lest they be subject to the care of the state.

I'm not arguing either for or against here, but your example is silly. Clearly, in the case you give, adoption would be the best solution.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0) (#307)
by Viliam Bur on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 12:50:24 PM EST

By your logic, we should kill children who are orphaned, lest they be subject to the care of the state.

If the "care of the state" means that thay should be kept alive by our taxes... then we Libertarians will support your suggestion.

[ Parent ]

well, you sir are an idiot then. (none / 0) (#309)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 03:55:16 PM EST

Which, by being "libertarian" so so abley demonstrate.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
wtf? (1.33 / 3) (#176)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:48:28 PM EST

total time warp bullshit... slavery... and then a flawed analogy about a bad mother to back up a very true and insightful premise

can i shoot you and eat you for dinner?

seems like with that option you will do the least harm to my thoughts


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Re: (2.50 / 2) (#281)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:49:39 PM EST

> Virtually all native civilisations were wiped out.

Actually, that was the spanish. The portuguese were too busy shagging the natives.

> Portugal has other problems, too. Many European countries (though Germany gets cited a lot) are deeply enmeshed in the slave trade. Tens of thousands of people are bought and sold across Europe. Portugal is no exception. Unlike Britain (which offers immunity and a witness protection program for escaped slaves), most European countries prefer to protect the slavers and prosecute the slaves.

Wtf are you on about ? This was clearly the most bizzare paragraph of this whole discussion.


-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

I am so disappointed in you (1.47 / 17) (#24)
by Reiko the Hello Kitty Fetishist on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 09:11:52 PM EST

I clicked on this article expecting an article about surfer chicks, and maybe even some pictures. Instead, I get a bunch of political crap. -1.

But what do I know? I just buy worthless plastic crap because it's cute.
Did you ever see Blue Crush? (none / 1) (#35)
by The Aggrandised Mu on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 06:50:55 AM EST

I didn't, but those chicks look hot.

I think of people starving
But do you think I care
Let them all die hungry
So I can breathe their air.
[ Parent ]
And I'm sure that... (none / 1) (#40)
by skyknight on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 09:52:56 AM EST

they can act as well as they look, that they weren't just picked for how good they look in a swim suit.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Displaying your own ignorance. (none / 1) (#38)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 09:28:25 AM EST

It's always amusing for those around you!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Uh, yeah... (2.50 / 10) (#39)
by skyknight on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 09:51:02 AM EST

It seems to impose the government's will on the population, which will end up acceding just to stop the ballots.

Even I'm not that cynical.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
write-in vote (2.87 / 8) (#42)
by mikpos on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:21:02 AM EST

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.

oops (2.50 / 6) (#48)
by mikpos on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:38:53 AM EST

That should be two wolves and A sheep. It's important that there's only one sheep, because...ya. Ya. Dammit. I think you figured it out anyway.

[ Parent ]
ok, great, you've criticised democracy (1.16 / 6) (#173)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:33:19 PM EST

you got a better alternative?

tyranny?

theocracy?

i'm not saying human beings won't come up with a better alternative someday, but criticising the best govt system we got so far is pretty useless and stupid if you ask me

so out with it: propose a better form of govt than a democracy or shut the fuck up


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

''Democracy is a terrible form of government --- (1.50 / 2) (#198)
by glor on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 12:34:03 PM EST

--- however, there is none better.''  (Churchill, I think.)

Without criticism, there can be no improvement.

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
[ Parent ]

no fucktwit (1.00 / 7) (#202)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:02:48 PM EST

it's groundless criticism

put forth a better alternative, or shut the fuck up, for real

only positive criticism works, criticism that already has in mind a better alternative

otherwise, it's absolutely useless criticism

there are way too many useless fucking critics in the world

and not enough who actually SHUT THE FUCK UP and DO SOMETHING


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh come on (2.20 / 5) (#55)
by ksandstr on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:05:33 PM EST

Looping the vote when the government wants to bring their laws into line with modern, progressive policies is quite acceptable. Sometimes social change (i.e. that which is likely being opposed by the catholic church in Portugal and elsewhere) only comes about through modernisation of public policy -- and anyway, getting your abortion done legally has far less chance for the woman to bleed to death due to incompetence. The society will adapt, anyhow.

Besides, given that you've told us that the level of birth control education in Portugal is in the "pill doesn't keep AIDS out" stages, explicitly having to underline and boldface the voluntary part may be for a very valid reason.
--
Gegen kommunismus und bolschewismus und terrorismus, jawohl!

newspeak... (none / 1) (#212)
by tarpy on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:05:44 PM EST

...bring their laws into line with modern, progressive policies...

I just love that it's now considered progressive to kill babies.


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]
It's all about where you draw the line. (2.77 / 18) (#56)
by pb on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 12:05:44 PM EST

  • Killing any living thing is murder!
  • Masturbation is murder!
  • Birth control is murder!
  • Sterilization is murder!
  • in-vitro fertilization is murder!
  • Stem-cell research is murder!
  • A miscarriage is murder!
  • Abortion is murder!
  • Assisted suicide is murder!
  • Killing people is murder!
  • Illegally killing people is murder!
Tune in next week, when we talk about what might constitute 'terrorism'.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
Here's a good line: (1.83 / 6) (#76)
by jongleur on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 08:01:03 PM EST

something you can point to about which you can say, "if I don't burn or stab this, it'll be a nice 6 year old some day".
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
An ambiguous line (2.80 / 5) (#77)
by scibtag on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 09:14:03 PM EST

"If I don't burn or stab this, it'll be anice 6 year old some day" is perhaps the least clear definition I have ever heard.

If you are talking about a fetus then there are a huge number of things that need to happen. Perhaps "If I don't burn or stab this, and it's mother gives birth to it without complications, and I give it food and water and teach it how to live for six years, and it doesn't contract a fatal illness or get hit by a meterorite between now and then, it'll be a nice 6 year old some day." Not that that's a complete list of the requirements that would need to happen.

Compare this to what could be said about any of the trillions of sperm that die every day. "If I don't burn or stab this, and manage to get some and it impregnates an egg, . . ., it'll be a nice 6 year old some day."

Just because all the genes are together doesn't magically make it a human being. Human beings are more than just their dna, they are the development and experience that goes into creating them

[ Parent ]

Nah, it's enough (none / 1) (#81)
by jongleur on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:20:54 PM EST

if it makes it to birth the law will protect it. You're right about meteors though.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
But it's fair game after 6 (3.00 / 4) (#85)
by sholden on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 02:49:54 AM EST

The murder of 7 years olds is OK then?

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
"if it makes it to birth" (1.00 / 2) (#133)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:41:02 PM EST

now that's a real definition


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
that was part of my point. (3.00 / 6) (#84)
by pb on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 02:38:01 AM EST

The problem is, you could say something like that about any or all of my examples:
  • the living animal whose descendants could one day evolve into an entire race of sentient beings.
  • the sperm that could one day fertilize an egg and grow to term into a living--and possibly sentinet--being.
  • the condom that could prevent all those sperm from ever having this opportunity in the first place.
  • the artificial hormones that could end up causing a miscarriage at a very early stage, preventing same opportunity.
  • the fertilized embryos that could get discarded and/or dissected, never achieving their full potential.
  • a natural miscarriage that--with technology--perhaps could have been prevented.
  • an actual abortion, at whatever stage or for whatever reason, potentially stopping a person from one day coming into the world.
  • the killing of a person who presently wants to die, but who might have potentially wanted to live.
  • the killing of a person, for whatever reason, who could have lived longer.
  • the extrajudicial killing of a person who otherwise would have lived longer.
So the question remains the same--where do you draw the line.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Senti-Net - the newest AI breakthrough! /nt (none / 0) (#317)
by Kuranes on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 09:29:01 AM EST




Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
there's some gunk in underwear from beating off (1.66 / 3) (#132)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:38:36 PM EST

8,995,457 of them could have been a nice 6 year old some day

guess i'm a murderer 8,995,457 times over

(not those 12 over there though: 3 kleinfelters, 6 downs, 2 with 2 heads and 1 freaky sperm with 3 tails)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

'Every sperm is precious, every sperm is great ..' (3.00 / 2) (#150)
by jongleur on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:26:42 PM EST

..

No, most sperms left alone just die, wherever they end up.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]

lol! monty python ;-) thanx, needed laugh ;-) (1.50 / 2) (#151)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:28:27 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Nice (3.00 / 2) (#217)
by niku on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 06:55:36 PM EST

My seven year old neighbors are annoying. (jk)
--
Nicholas Bernstein, Technologist, artist, etc.
http://nicholasbernstein.com
[ Parent ]
lol, a "murder" of crows (1.50 / 2) (#131)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:35:07 PM EST

i knew crows and ravens were creepy, but i had no idea their edgar allen poe-ness went so far as to call a flock of them a "murder" ;-P

those birds need a public relations campaign ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

collectives (3.00 / 3) (#157)
by thepictsie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:55:15 PM EST

It's a murder of crows, but an unkindness of ravens. My personal favorite is a parliament of rooks, though.

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

i thought you were making that shit up (none / 1) (#164)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:31:02 PM EST

until i read this:

Many of these birds have unusual plural names; for instance a group of crows is called a murder of crows, a group of choughs is a chattering, a group of jays is a party, scold or band, a group of magpies is a tiding, a group of rooks is a parliament, or a building, and group of ravens is called an unkindness, a constable or a conspiracy

http://www.sacredhoop.demon.co.uk/HOOP-37/Ravens.html

holy shit! what is it about these big black birds that unnerves us so much?

maybe because when we look them in the eye we can see that they are intelligent (they really are smart birds)

and given ten million more years of evolution maybe they would happily be outsmarting us and eating us (or perhaps because a hundred million years ago they WERE eating our little monkey greatgrandfathers, like the philippine eagle, aka, the monkey eating eagle ;-P )


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

lots of animals have unusual collectives (none / 1) (#181)
by thepictsie on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:55:11 AM EST

"An exaltation of larks"
"An aarmory of aardvarks"
"A blessing of unicorns"
"A bloat of hippopotami"
"A charm of finches"
Not to mention familiar ones like "a gaggle of geese" or "a flock of sheep."

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

Ha! (none / 1) (#192)
by spasticfraggle on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 10:02:40 AM EST

Loath as I am to have any similarity to CTS ("an aneurysm of CTSs?" ^_^), I had to look those up too: here

A conflagration of arsonists!
A drunken ship of cobblers?

But my favorite for more drummer baiting fun:

A fagot of drummers

^_^

--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]

Eating meat is murder! [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#290)
by vyruss on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 12:22:15 PM EST



  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
Protecting fetuses ... (2.45 / 11) (#70)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 03:44:06 PM EST

... in early stages of development is not protecting human life.

Fetuses under a certain age can't be considered human under any sane definition. Most countries make that diferentiation, your article should not get entangled with that.

If you are going to defend a point do it openly, don't try to do it sideways, it does not look pretty and weakens whatever argument you want to make.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?

Fine, have it YOUR way (2.40 / 5) (#83)
by The Amazing Idiot on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:58:26 PM EST

---Fetuses under a certain age can't be considered human under any sane definition.

What is that age? A 2 year old cannot fend for themselves.. as cannot a mentally retarded 20 year old acting as a 3 year old.

Ok, lets say, for arguments sake, that whatever is inside a uterus is "not living", until it pops out. Ok. You can pay a "butcher" (*1) to cut and suck the parts out of said woman, but how dare does somebody else do it. Peterson is being charged with 2 murders... His wife's and the "unborn hunk of undead meat".

As you cannot murder something "dead", the state sees the fetus as alive, by bringing prosecution upon him. However abortion is perfectly legal, for any reason whatsoever.

If you say my "religion" has anything to do with this, yes, it does. However the Greek's saw it the same way..

*1 http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_hippocratic_oath.htm

Quoted from the Original Hippocratic Oath:

"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."

Comments?

[ Parent ]

what's a pessary? (2.50 / 2) (#147)
by Wah on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:11:20 PM EST

and what era is that from?

The Petersen angle is stupid (sorry, please don't take offense, I hate everything about that trial.  Gawlah, what a waste of time).  People were allowed to sue Hussein by some judge over losses on 9/11.  It doesn't make it so.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

You asked for it, you got it (2.00 / 2) (#152)
by The Amazing Idiot on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:36:44 PM EST

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=pessary&action=Search+OMD
---
pessary

1. <apparatus> An instrument placed in the vagina to support the uterus or rectum or as a contraceptive device.

2. <pharmacology> A medicated vaginal suppository.

Origin: L. Pessarium

(18 Nov 1997)

---
There's a source (which is valid enough for my professors) for the definition of that word. The Hipocratic oath was circa 400BC when done. I used that as proof that it was not Christian 'influenced' as many on K5 would scream. A Seperate people with a polytheistic religion came to the same ethics of being against abortion, whether it be now, or 2400 years ago.

---The Petersen angle is stupid (sorry, please don't take offense, I hate everything about that trial.  Gawlah, what a waste of time).

Agreed, but Im making the connection that a fetus is  alive when the state finds it conveinant to do so. That is an unfair double standard, and the piece of evidence that I will continually use until a valid point is made (which cannot be with double standards).

[ Parent ]

Surgery (2.00 / 2) (#275)
by PurpleBob on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:13:12 PM EST

The Hippocratic Oath forbids surgery, and at the time that was a darn good idea. But times change.

[ Parent ]
Nice way to preclude debate (1.00 / 2) (#95)
by Knot In The Face on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:13:53 AM EST

I must be _fucking bat shit insane_, because I consider humanity to be defined by genetics, not by whatever your so-obvious-you-don't-mention-it counter example is.

Why does rusty vote for Kerry yet act like Bush? - exotron
[ Parent ]
It's not insane (none / 1) (#314)
by beijaflor on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 08:21:03 AM EST

Just a bit Nazi.

[ Parent ]
Not human? (1.80 / 5) (#130)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:29:16 PM EST

Well, that ultrasound did look a little goat-like, I'll admit. Even so...

Defining humanity is rather difficult. But the definition that you hinted at, and didn't bother to post sounds an awful lot like it:

A) Would possibly deny people who survive only on advanced life support.

B) Would possibly deny people who are severely physically deformed.

C) Would possibly deny those people who are severely mentally retarded.

D) Would deny those people with extreme brain damage.

E) Would deny some of the elderly who reside in nursing homes.

F) Would deny babies until they are as old as 18 months, if not more.

G) Would be completely arbitrary, and might not even protect aliens if they landed in DC and wanted to do trade negotiations, dolphins should they prove to be as intelligent as we are, or even yourself, since obviously you belong to categories C and/or D.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Pipe down (2.50 / 2) (#160)
by Torka on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 08:57:22 PM EST

I'm tentatively pro-abortion, but I can't stand people who pretend that complex issues can be summed up in a single statement because it suits their agenda.

The simple fact is that the question of whether a fetus should be considered human in the early stages of development is VERY far from being settled at this point, though you might wish it otherwise. And posting a facile fucking sound bite of a remark to an internet discussion board is not going to change that.

[ Parent ]

I have said it before and I will say it again, (1.70 / 10) (#71)
by Danzig on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 05:03:26 PM EST

It is one thing to kill children or adults, but quite another to kill fetuses. Infanticide = ok, abortion = wrong.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
Damn (3.00 / 5) (#73)
by Master on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 05:49:41 PM EST

I fucking love the Netherlands. Is there anything they don't do right? It's like America in bazaaro world.
~Obey Your Master
the dutch still have their problems (1.00 / 2) (#103)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 09:59:15 AM EST

but i agree with you, the idea of a socially progressive democracy is the ideal to me, as it is with you, and i look at our more socially liberal neighbors: canada, the scandinavian countries, etc., with envy

what bothers me though is the huge fucking tax burdens those countries have

the ideal would be something the us is not and the dutch are not: a nation socially progressive in policy like our northeastern neighbors, but one that doesn't ask for more than half your paycheck as well! ;-P

Top marginal rates of personal income tax levied by central government range from 25% in Sweden and 33% in New Zealand to as much as 60% in the Netherlands. In Ireland and New Zealand, taxpayers at the income level of an average production worker are -already exposed to the top marginal rate of 48% and 33% respectively. In Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom workers must earn about twice the average before they start paying the top rate.

On the other hand, Swiss and US employees are not confronted by the top rate unless their salaries reach ten times the average production worker's wage. In Turkey the top rate does not kick in until taxable income is 29 times the average wage and more. The table summarises the rate structure of the personal income tax levied by central governments in all OECD countries.

Before drawing any firm conclusions from this panoply of income tax sche-dules, three points should be borne in mind. First, the actual tax bill of individual taxpayers also reflects the impact of various deductions - for example, for mortgage interest and employee contributions to occupational pension plans - and exemptions - for example for capital gains or interest received.

That means that effective tax rates in countries with lower statutory rates but little in the way of basic relief, deductions and exemptions, could well be higher than effective rates in countries which combine higher statutory rates with much more generous exemptions and deduct-ions. The second point is one we made at the start, namely that in most OECD countries there are other taxes to pay on income, beyond that owed to central government. Finally, tax systems are often characterised by minor peculiarities, which while perhaps complicating matters slightly, do not have a major bearing on the general picture we have outlined here.

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/77/The_income_taxes_people_re ally_pay.html


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Social security taxes (2.50 / 2) (#180)
by UnConeD on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:44:34 AM EST

Income tax is not the only tax to consider. In Belgium, you pay something like 50% income tax (above certain limits), but the company you work for also has to pay for social security, which means the effective tax-rate between what the company pays and what you keep is more like 60%.

[ Parent ]
Yep... (none / 0) (#112)
by Anonymous Brave on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:48:19 AM EST

The Dutch government just issued a court order stating no abortion operations can be done on the boat due to lack of conditions.

Most Dutch I met are very nice. Women on Waves are one of the exceptions, as they really screwed up this time.

[ Parent ]

Your source please? (none / 0) (#205)
by dpi on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 02:41:08 PM EST

The Dutch government just issued a court order stating no abortion operations can be done on the boat due to lack of conditions.

Please provide a link to the court order either in English and/or Dutch. TIA.

[ Parent ]

I just heard it on a TV debate (none / 0) (#258)
by Anonymous Brave on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:32:51 AM EST

But I know it was issued by Dutch Minister of Health in July 2002.

[ Parent ]
poll: rule by the people, but not all (none / 1) (#88)
by dimaq on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:35:55 AM EST

remember, full democracy was never realised in ancient greece or ancient rome.

Rome was a republic, not a democracy. /nt (none / 1) (#89)
by thepictsie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:52:32 AM EST


Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

Rome was a city (1.50 / 2) (#91)
by Rahaan on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:37:53 AM EST

and its Empire ruled by an Emperor.  Good try though.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
Interesting... (none / 1) (#93)
by araym on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:56:45 AM EST

I'm sure a lot of historians would like to hear your theory about the Roman Republic never existing. Good try though.

-=-
SSM

[ Parent ]
I'm sure the Poenis would be even more so (none / 1) (#96)
by Rahaan on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:14:38 AM EST

then again, not everyone has heard of the Rome and Home rule.

grammarnazii, delinda est.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

Wow! (2.00 / 2) (#154)
by thepictsie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:41:24 PM EST

So Iulius Caesar was never assassinated on the Senate floor because he was taking too much power for himself, and was thought to be setting himself up as a king? And we don't get the word "republic" from the Latin res publica, "the public thing," and that wasn't what they called their form of government prior to the Triumvirates and the Empire?

Go tell it to someone who never took basic classes in Ancient Civilization.

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

I think you've been watching too many movies (none / 1) (#179)
by Rahaan on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:09:25 AM EST

do you have any proof for your vigorous assertions?


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
five minutes worth of research (2.00 / 2) (#184)
by thepictsie on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:03:37 AM EST

Well, actually, in the preceding post, I didn't really assert anything; I asked you questions. Also, since what I say is in line with what every historian I have ever spoken to says, I think that perhaps you ought to back up your assertions. However:

From Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

From this site:

After the overthrow of the Tarquin monarchy by Junius Brutus in 509 BC, Rome does not revert back to a monarchy for the rest of its history. The era of the great expansion of Roman power and civilization is the era of the Roman Republic, in which Rome is ruled by its Senate and its assembly, which were institutions formed at the beginning of the monarchy. The history of the Republic is a history of continuous warfare; all of the historical stories which the Romans will use as stories of Roman virtue and values date from this tumultuous period of defense and invasion.

"Ruled by its assembly," an assembly which had voting rights as in b (1) of above definition.

How exactly are you defining "Republic" that Rome wasn't one?

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

My take. (1.87 / 8) (#90)
by Wallas A Hockpock on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:58:53 AM EST

My thought is when men can start actually having the child they can make decisions about abortion. Women have the right to do as they see fit with their bodies. Men don't have any right to say what a women does if she becomes pregnant. All the arguments pro and anti abortion fall away when you look at it from this prespective.

My preference is that very few abortions be done, But as I say I don't think I or any male has a right to any say in it either way. Most of the heat in the abortion question is caused by religious convictions and misreading of holy text.

Men and governments should just stay the hell out of this. Let the women decide with out pressure from males of government.

What? (2.50 / 2) (#98)
by ljj on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:49:21 AM EST

Men and governments should just stay the hell out of this. Let the women decide with out pressure from males of government.

What, men are not part of humanity here. You think just because our offspring are born from a woman, men cease to be stakeholders in any matters regarding the reproductive cycle?

--
ljj
[ Parent ]

you are forgetting (1.00 / 5) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 09:44:19 AM EST

that while some men shout at women that they have to keep the baby, the man that conceived the child is often running away from her as fast as he can

so what men ask of women is to be reproductively responsible, while they are reproductively irresponsible

men will deserve the right to ask of women when and how to have an abortion or a baby when they act as responsible as women are

read: never

women are more responsible because they have to be, they take way more risk than men during sex: if there are any consequences of the sex, what goes on will go on in their bodies

and so, since women take more risk during sex and shoulder more resonsibility in child rearing (both culturally and biologically: they got the tits, not us) women have more say than men do

that's just the way it is

if you don't like that, don't be angry at me, be angry at god or evolution: women's bodies are designed to shoulder the vast majority of cild rearing, and culturually women are expected to be nurturing children

yes, there are mr. moms in this world, but we're talking biological inevitability here, not cute hallmark card esoteric men

your world of men having equal say only exists where men have equal biology and act responsibly about their own reproductive activities

they don't and they don't

and so they don't


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

But... (none / 1) (#117)
by Anonymous Brave on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:51:34 AM EST

Women have written in their genes that they should like men with muscles because at the evolutionary time this got written into their genes this would mean these kinds of men were more apt to hunt and therefore provide food for the offspring. Of course this isn't true anymore nowadays in the civilised world, but women keep following what got written at those times.

This ended up shaping the evolution of men, hence now the average men has more muscles than the average women.

So I can read it the other way around: biologically, apart from the first months (where the women breasts provide all that the baby requires), it is the responsibility of men to ensure the survival of the offspring.

[ Parent ]

but nothing (1.33 / 3) (#118)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:57:21 AM EST

stop smoking so much weed and then posting on kuro5hin

a man can't make demands of women on reproductive behavior since most of reproduction happens in a woman's body and near a woman's body and because men don't have a very good track record of responsible reproductive behavior themselves

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Your view that reproductive responsibility (none / 1) (#161)
by Torka on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 09:06:40 PM EST

is somehow shared across all men conflicts badly with the political statements you make all the time on this site. Namely that you see a world of individuals rather than nations.

I see a world of individuals rather than genders.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHA (1.25 / 4) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:14:20 PM EST

as soon as i can squeeze some milk out of my man tit, i will be with you

but on the issue of ABORTION (hello?) just maybe the individuals with the vaginas have a separate take on things than the individuals with the penises, okay? sound farfetched to you?

sorry if that causes too much cognitive dissonance for you with my previous positions there kiddo, but as the one who delivered said words, i can assure you that there is no conflict at all


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Not talking about abortion (2.50 / 2) (#168)
by Torka on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:20:25 PM EST

Abortion has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about your view that men are collectively responsible for the actions of some men  (in this case, the men who avoid parental responsibility). And how it seems to me to conflict in a logical sense with your view that there are no nations, only individuals.

[ Parent ]
i'll put it this way (1.33 / 3) (#171)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:26:41 PM EST

i don't know what the hell you're talking about, but i AM talking about abortion, and as far as that goes men dictating to women reproductive responsibility while other men, or the same men, or the men from mars, or whomever, ARE acting reproductively irresponsible is bullshit

so if i were a woman, and some man came up to me and said his shit smelled like roses and he never was a "bad" man, and as a "good" man that they should do this that or the other thing with my body i would run the fuck away, whatever the fuck you or i or a "good" man or a "bad" man or anyone else said about collective or individual or venusian or martian behavior

capisce?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't care what you think about abortion (none / 1) (#172)
by Torka on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:32:34 PM EST

"There are no nations, only individuals"

"Some men evade their parental responsibilities, therefore I judge all men"

These 2 ideologies don't make sense together, CTS.

[ Parent ]

don't pull quotes out of your ass and attribute me (1.16 / 6) (#174)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:36:52 PM EST

"Some men evade their parental responsibilities, therefore I judge all men"

?!

ok, so you're retarded and you can't understand what i'm saying

more like "some men evade their parental responsibilities, so on what basis should a woman trust one man or another at face value"

there is no basis, and so she should trust no man until they prove their worth

do you trust perfect strangers?

if you do, then forward your credit card number and expiration date to my email address, thanks ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Good for you. (none / 1) (#223)
by garote on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:40:36 PM EST

Good for you. But what does your potential behavior as a woman, have to do with the situation of a man?

Even assuming he knows everything there is about sex and reproduction, and even assuming that a man wants to raise and support the child HIMSELF, he is told isntead by a judge that he has to give money to the WOMAN, so that she can supposedly spend it in the interest of their child.

Once that kid squirts out the woman's uterus, the inequality IS OVER. The man should not have to fork money over to the woman, for a child that EVEN THE STATE assumes should NOT be his by DEFAULT. If a woman complains that she can't support the kid on her own, she should be ordered by a court to either give it up for adoption, or GIVE IT TO THE MAN. Diverting money from one parent to the other arbitrarily to support a child (not a fetus, not a zygote, not the unborn, but an actual child) is no solution. At the MOST, a woman should be able to legally demand from a man, the funds necessary to purchase an ABORTION.

[ Parent ]

that's a nice hypothetical (none / 0) (#236)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:44:11 PM EST

now how does it apply to the reality of how children are raised in this world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The reality... (none / 1) (#265)
by ckaminski on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 12:57:28 PM EST

is that children get used as a weapon, often by the woman against the man, for being able to support a child, but not care about the woman enough to marry her, or stay married to her.

The horrible fact is that in custody cases, the woman is automatically favored, because she is a) weaker, b) the holder of the womb, sometimes against better considerations: the father is a better parent.  So the child becomes a weapon.

I've seen women beat a man into submission by taking all his money to live and eat.  I've seen women compassionately give the husband room to breath.

Being a child of divorce, I'm happy my father took the high road (he had custody).  He let me realize on my own that my mother was scum, while I spent my childhood listening to my mothers bitterness on those few occasions I actually saw her.  I see this today with my friends kids.  The better parent never disparages the other parent to the child... And it's not necessarily the parent with custody, either.  

[ Parent ]

that's very nice and all (1.33 / 3) (#270)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:46:44 PM EST

your mother was fucked up

ok, fine

do you deny the existence of fucked up fathers?

do you deny the existence of absentee fathers?

do you deny that these fathers out number mothers like yours?

simply out of statistical inevitability of male sexual behavior and female expected and real biological obligations?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

chop chop (none / 0) (#323)
by garote on Wed Sep 08, 2004 at 05:03:37 PM EST

Obviously the answer to your above questions is no. Those questions aren't even sensible questions to be asking, in response to the above posters' call for UNBIASED child custody and child support laws. You clearly have an axe to grind. Go out into the world and date some of the really FOUL women out there, and perhaps your axe will lose it's edge.

[ Parent ]
women are shirking their responsibility (1.50 / 2) (#167)
by justinw on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:15:08 PM EST

you suggest that women are more responsible because they have to be.

uh... not anymore.  they can and do flush that unwanted glob right outta their bodies... and you're saying they're more responsible?

it's also pretty presumptious to suggest that all men run away as fast as they can...

[ Parent ]

dude (1.00 / 6) (#175)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:34 PM EST

it's her body

it's her responsibility

so she takes care of herself

if she has decided she's not ready to have a kid, why are you doubting her judgment? why are you doubting her responsibility? she rolled dice to decide whether to abort or not? she has no feelings about the process? you're one of those fools who subscribes to the myth of club chick who visits a doctor/ takes a pill every 3 months and goes disco the same night... why? because she likes to have abortions? what the fuck are you smoking? can i have some?

it's her body

it's her responsibility

how much more basic and simple can the logic get?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

My thought is... (2.50 / 4) (#123)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:14:36 PM EST

When women aren't entitled to child support unless they consider the choice of the father, things will be alot more fair.

C'mon guys, can you be sure she didnt pull that used rubber out of the trash can? Did she really swallow, or did she hold some in her mouth til you went to shower, and then stuffed it in the old cootch?

This bullshit about "it's the woman's body, it's her choice" is all fine and dandy, but it's also the man's legal liability for 18+ years maybe *even if he was careful and responsible*.

Abortion isn't about women's rights, its about giving more rights to 50% of the population, and leaving the rest out in the cold, so to speak. Men should stand up for their own abortion rights too.

For those that think I'm trolling, I certainly don't believe that the father's right to abort overrides the woman's right to keep it... just that she should forfeit all child support if he chooses otherwise. I don't see why NOW and all the other feminazi's are against it, personally, they're liberated and whatnot, right?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

holy jumping bejesus (1.00 / 6) (#169)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:20:45 PM EST

you realize of course that we live in strange world, seemingly unknown to you, where THE HUMANS WITH THE PUSSIES SQUEEZE OUT THE BABIES AFTER NINE MONTHS, FORCE MILK OUT OF THEIR TITS INTO THEIR MOUTHS FOR AWHILE, THEN ARE EXPECTED TO CARE FOR THE KIDS WITHOUT QUESTION FOR YEARS

i don't see such societal or biological pressure on you there, dick

until further notice then, i'll consider their opinion much more valuable on the issue of abortion than yours, how does that sound mr. vast feminine conspiracy?

what world do you live in?

how can you weave a female conspiracy out of the state of the world when it is the men who hold the dominant positions of power and are culturally and BIOLOGICALLY much less tethered to the reproductive and child-rearing process?

every single one of your statements is disputed by BIOLOGY

geez, what a fruitcake


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Really? (2.66 / 3) (#195)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:53:33 AM EST

I seem to remember reading about men who have 50% or more of their wages garnished, have their drivers licenses, cars, and property forfeited for lack of payment. Even jailtime as a penalty.

Maybe that's just me, but secreting a few ounces of milk a day for 12 months is hardly on par with financial slavery for 18 (sometimes more) years.

Remember, not asking that the father have absolute rights to abort. Just that if he chooses that, and the woman overrides it, that she forfeit child support. Why is that so hard to accept?

Or do you think it's fair that women should have the right to blackmail and extort men?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

guess what (1.25 / 4) (#203)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:04:58 PM EST

warping your body for 9 months, lactating for months after that, and then expected culturally to support the child for years is way mor eof nuisance of selling out some money

don't like it?

THEN DON'T STICK YOUR DICK IN HER

it's unfair, and unbalanced, and nothing you say can possibly change the fact that women shoulder more risk and responsibility than men

period

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Erm (none / 0) (#213)
by Gravaton on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:09:05 PM EST

I'm sorry, but not having enough cash to live and eat sucks whether it's because you're taking care of a child or sucked dry by child support. And I'd hardly call getting 50% of your wages garnished for 18 years a mere nuisance.

Poverty and starvation don't really know gender that well.

[ Parent ]
HEY ASSHOLE (1.00 / 4) (#214)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:16:27 PM EST

IF YOU DON'T LIKE CHILD SUPPORT

DON'T FUCK A WOMAN WITHOUT A CONDOM

IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE

IF A WOMAN HAS YOUR CHILD, YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT IT, BY ALL CULTURAL AND MORAL STANDARDS OF JUDGMENT

END OF FUCKING STORY

NO FUCKING WIGGLE ROOM

YOU LOSE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ah, now I see. (none / 1) (#218)
by smegma hauler on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 07:28:57 PM EST

There's something you don't know about how the law works that might be causing some of your ire: Say yer with a woman.  She gives you head.  She later inseminates herself without your knowledge.  Legally, that baby is your financial responsibility even though you didn't stick your dick into her.

I doubt that happens very often, granted, but it illustrates the point about choice.

If the woman wants to keep a fetus and the man wants to abort, generally speaking, in a western culture where the level of sex education is high and there's no coercion going on, the man should not be held financially liable.  To suggest otherwise is to say that someone was forced into sex that they didn't want.  Women aren't dumb; they know just as well as men what needs to be done so they don't get pregnant and they can insist upon drugs and condoms and whatever else, and if that is not done then they have something more like a rape claim than a support claim.

This can work vice-versa as well.  If the woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep it, she should be able to hand it off to him at birth and then lose all parental rights.  You will probably yell that it's not fair and that it's the woman who has to carry the baby and all of that but it doesn't really matter- both parties know what's involved when they agree to fuck.  The woman takes a larger 'risk' due to being the one who carries the fetus, but the woman also agrees to the sex, using precautions that she can mandate.

Of course, everything becomes simpler if we push for abortion being unnecessary and illegal and insisting both parents care for the child.

[ Parent ]

for every sin a woman can do (1.33 / 3) (#219)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 07:51:37 PM EST

there is an equal one a man can do

i see your succubus paranoid fantasy and raise you one nightmare incubus fantasy

the man who uses economic or financial coercion for sex, and then abandons at the first sign of contraception

guess what fucktwit, sex has risk associated with it

all things that feel good in life: sex, drugs, etc., have a negative side

no pleasure without pain

no ups without downs

no mountains without valleys

if you fear women that much, then go move to the moutains and cut your balls off, you psychologically damaged fuck up


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

We are saying the same thing. (none / 0) (#220)
by smegma hauler on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 08:12:01 PM EST

Sex indeed has risks associated with it.  And benefits, of course.

What do you mean by financial coercion?  "Have sex with me or I'll stop supporting you"?  Sure, I guess that could happen.  I'm speaking generally, though, and maybe wish for an ideal world where each situation can be judged indivisually.

In the west, both genders know what's up.

[ Parent ]

Why bother? (none / 0) (#222)
by garote on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:25:45 PM EST

Why are you even bothering to mince words with this barbaric half-wit?

[ Parent ]
How dare you. (none / 1) (#232)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:32:45 PM EST

His words might be vile, his logic cretinish and half-witted. It may even be dangerous to stand closer than 2 miles to him for prolonged periods, else your IQ drop precipitously.

Despite all that, he is one of the most brilliant trolling geniuses still alive, and by god, you should respect that. Rusty should never have let you people in here...

Rusty, please close new user registrations!

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

that's right (1.00 / 3) (#237)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:45:26 PM EST

you two talk to each other

sounds like you are made for each other


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I've been here a long time; this handle hasn't.n/t (none / 0) (#262)
by smegma hauler on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:35:31 AM EST

.

[ Parent ]
Except... (none / 1) (#231)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:29:04 PM EST

Legally, women have a medical option available to them to end the pregancy, if the man does your "incubus" deal.

If a woman does the same, the man will be held liable for the better part of two decades. He has no option.

It's nice of you to jump on me with the misogyny fallacy, and then try to paint this as a "the man gets to choose whether she is forced to have an abortion or not" argument.

I propose that if there is a disagreement on whether there should be an abortion, then whoever insists on keeping it, is the only one held financially liable.

If you want women to have a slight advantage, then re-read what I said, because the woman would still be able to veto a "keep it" vote, and a man can't veto the "abort it" vote.

I honestly don't see the problem in this. As horrible as it might sound to some devout christians, I think that this would not only be fair, but might sway things a little in the right direction.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

what are you saying? (none / 1) (#234)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:42:40 PM EST

you're all over the place

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Ok. (none / 1) (#230)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:18:30 PM EST

IF YOU DON'T LIKE CHILD SUPPORT

DON'T FUCK A WOMAN WITHOUT A CONDOM

Let's ignore the "breaking condom" scenarios entirely. Let's consider the women who, when it suits them, prick needle holes in them when you aren't looking. That retrieve them after you've carelessly left them unflushed. And yes, the good old "I didn't really swallow, let's stuff the love juice in the lil pookie" trick. What about those? Sure, I'm not saying that it happens all the time, maybe 1 in a 1000, but 1 in 1000 pregnant women having a genuine excuse for a legitimate abortion was enough for Roe vs. Wade. So why do 1 out of a 1000 women deserve legalized abortion, when 1 out of 1000 men extorted cruelly and without recourse deserve 18 years of debt slavery?

There is a burden here on men also. And considering that liberal hippies everywhere think there is nothing wrong with aborting babies strictly for convenience's sake, I feel that it is unfair to relieve the burden on women, without doing so for men also. Maybe 9 months pregnancy != 18 years of child support. Fine. If the woman refuses to abort, he only pays half, or 60%, or whatever...

Disputing the exact figures would be one thing, denying the validity of the logic is the same as saying men deserve to be second class citizens. Kinda sick.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

you got serious problems (none / 1) (#233)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:42:06 PM EST

if you seriously base your concepts of relations between the sexes on esoteric predatory female behavior without any consideration of all too common male predatory sexual behavior

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Oh yeah, you absolutist jerk? (none / 0) (#221)
by garote on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:24:34 PM EST

Yeah? Here's a similar deal for you, granny bitch-a-lot. Don't want to RAISE A CHILD ON YOUR OWN WITH NO HELP FROM ME? Then DON'T GET AN ABORTION AFTER I FUCK YOU AND LEAVE.

It's as simple as that, too, for a whole lot of men out there in the world. And what're you gonna do about it, aside from piss and moan and rant from your golden throne on high? A billion third-world men looking for a friday date are out there, and none of them are willing to see it your way. You need to either compromise, or stay out of THEIR BUSINESS.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA (1.00 / 4) (#226)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 10:18:25 PM EST

any women reading this: the above poster is an example of the type of man your mother warned you about

the psychotic control freak loser

you're one fucked up psychotic asshole there bitchboy

if there were any justice in the world, they would lock you up now, before you take out your inevitable damage on some poor women with an attitude like that that you have

kisses fucktwit, it's nice to know i'm not you ;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

pfft (none / 0) (#324)
by garote on Wed Sep 08, 2004 at 05:09:08 PM EST

You've just fallen into a troll-hole, sonny.

Seriously, what does your prattling mean, to all those people? You do not speak for them, nor do they listen to you. Laws engineered from your biased perspective will simply be IGNORED. Like, oh say ... prostitution laws are generally ignored by those involved.

Fighting them all every legal step of the way is a war you will inevitably lose.

[ Parent ]

tool (1.25 / 4) (#211)
by Wallas A Hockpock on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 04:59:33 PM EST

It's sad you are such a oppresive woman hating tool. Sorry. Thats what I see when I read your post. You did nothing to convince me my logic is flawed.

[ Parent ]
I don't entirely agree. (none / 1) (#228)
by Sir Joseph Porter KCB on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 10:57:20 PM EST

This seems to me to be side-stepping the issue. Your basis for believing that only women should decide whether abortion should be legal is the assumption that a foetus IS just a part of a woman's body. If that is the case, then there doesn't seem to be any question left -- if that's all a foetus is, then of course abortions should be legal. But if a foetus is a form of human life, then it is NOT just a matter of a woman deciding what to do with her body, because there is at least one other individual, who could be of either gender, involved in the issue. And then there is no basis for saying that only women should decide whether abortion is acceptable. So really FIRST we should decide whether abortion is acceptable, and THEN we should decide whether it's the business of women alone, or of women and men and government together. Having said that, I'm just pointing out my disagreement with your statement that only women should decide. I'm not, at this point, advocating either the view that the foetus is a form of human life, nor the view that it is not. I'm just saying that giving the decision to one gender alone is side-stepping the most important part of the issue.
~~~~

Thank you for your time.
[ Parent ]

Big furry deal (1.22 / 9) (#97)
by Knot In The Face on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:26:01 AM EST

So some third world Catholic or Asian country, or whatever the hell they are in Portugal, is still stuck in the middle ages?  Well, so is half the world.  If women there want to throw off their burqas and take some responsibilty for their own lives, good for them, but haven't we had enough cultural imperialism from those Nazi sympathising Dutch people to tide us over for a couple more hundred years?

Why does rusty vote for Kerry yet act like Bush? - exotron
are you indonesian? (nt) (none / 0) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 09:30:33 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Let's see [looks down] (none / 1) (#261)
by Knot In The Face on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:04:18 AM EST

Nope, I can see my Johnson, so I'm not Asian.

Why does rusty vote for Kerry yet act like Bush? - exotron
[ Parent ]
HI KNOT IN THE FACE! (1.50 / 2) (#115)
by CAPS LOCK on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:58:52 AM EST

I KNOW THIS REALLY GREAT PLACE YOU MIGHT WANT TO HANG OUT! IT'S CALLED TROLLTALK.NET, IT ISN'T LAME IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT'D BE REALLY GREAT IF YOU WENT AND POSTED OVER THERE INSTEAD!

[ Parent ]
ignorance is not bliss (none / 1) (#196)
by tmenezes on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:54:16 AM EST

It's not our fault that more than 50% of the american population can't locate the friggin' PACIFIC OCEAN on the world map, let alone Portugal, a country 650 years older than yours.

By the way, the only cultural imperialism I ever noticed in Europe comes from you cowboys. Creepy Ronald McDonald everywhere, Rambozo the clown exploding brown people on TV and Bushy the clown exploding real people on TV.

[ Parent ]
Pity (1.00 / 2) (#99)
by ljj on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:50:19 AM EST

Thought is was a surfing story.

--
ljj

there is one sure and true statement on abortion (2.00 / 18) (#100)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:59:13 AM EST

let women decide what to do with their own bodies

end of story

period

and if they choose to have an abortion, let them

men should not make decisions about women's bodies

pig headed women should not think their decisions should apply to all women

saying that an abortion is a painful emotional and physicial thing for a woman seems patently obvious, but needs to be said anyway for the sake of how many people are fucked up on the issue of how and when under what conditions a woman really decides to have an abortion

there is no such thing as the myth of the clubbing chick who goes to the abortion doctor every 3 months and then goes back to the disco next day

but there is such a thing as a man who rapes or ensures sex through emotional or financial coercion, then abandons at the sign of conception

and there is such a thing as people with their head up their asses about making decisions for everyone else about issues that people should make on their own, on an individual basis

when and why should a woman have an abortion?

only each and every individual woman knows the answer to that, no blanket satement need apply

and that really is the only insightful thing that can be said about abortion

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

But... (2.00 / 3) (#119)
by Anonymous Brave on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 12:07:39 PM EST

No civilised country allows women to perform an abortion in the late months of their pregnacies. So during this time window women really can't do what they want with their bodies. Have you thought about this?

[ Parent ]
it's a balance (2.50 / 4) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 12:13:00 PM EST

between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus

if you give the mother too many rights, some will wind up killing full term babies they give birth too because they can't support them- something still practiced in substinence parts of the world by humans and everywhere in the animal kingdom

but if you give the fetus too many rights, you will be forcing women to give birth to babies they don't love- what kind of childhood will that kid have? where is the dad? if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't be made to have it

so it's a balance you play, and on either end is injustice- injustice to the mother (and child) on one end, and injustice to the child (and mother) on the other

and really, the mother is the only one who can rightfully decide, short of infanticide (which, given today's technology, can be applied to later term fetuses that can be supported outside the womb, some would suppose)

if you deny safe clean abortion to mothers, all you are going to get is more injustice, except with rusty coat hangers in back alleys instead

it is a woman's right, it will alaways be a woman's right, no matter what you do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Agreemsg. (none / 1) (#225)
by garote on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:53:29 PM EST

Damn well said.

[ Parent ]
ugh (none / 0) (#313)
by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 06:57:14 PM EST

Until we provide free, safe drugs, more junkies are going to die in back alleys, having shot up bad heroin, or in the hospital with AIDS from a dirty needle. Therefore, the government must buy poppy fields, QED.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I love the part where.. (2.60 / 5) (#135)
by thelizman on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:19:14 PM EST

...you ignore the fact that an abortion doesn't involve merely a woman's own body, but another human beings body too.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I love the part where... (2.60 / 5) (#136)
by Wah on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:11:54 PM EST

...a fertilizes egg becomes a human being.

When is that exactly?
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

You Tell Me (1.25 / 4) (#140)
by thelizman on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:57:00 PM EST

...and while you're at it, explain why eating eggs from a chicken is cruelty, but tossing human eggs is a choice.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
you're assuming... (2.00 / 3) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:34:16 PM EST

that the agenda of the animal rights fruitcakes has anything to do with an agenda that simply wants to elevate women above the status of incubation chamber... a status that social conservatives seem hellbent on enforcing

i passed a woman on the street today with a t shirt that read "dogs are people too"

i think that just about sums up the animal rights lunatics' basic logical shortcoming

lol ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Proof (none / 1) (#209)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:30:21 PM EST

a status that social conservatives seem hellbent on enforcing
Other than a great soundbyte, why would you say trash like that?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
because its the truth (2.33 / 3) (#241)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:21:17 AM EST

there is explicit effects to the social conservative's agenda that they honestly intend, and there is the implicit effects they don't realize they are creating because they don't understand real life and real human nature

by championing fetus's rights without any room given to mother's rights they are in effect turning women into incubators

social conservatives entire position doesn't give any consideration at all to the rights of the mother, or any consideration to the validity of real life scenarios where a well-meaning woman would seek an abortion

social conservatives are amoral and injust: they create more suffering in this world by attempting to enforce simplistic readings of human nature and naive codes of conduct that dont't jive with how human beings really behave or how they really are

she's simply an evil sinner, end of story

she should shut up, squeeze out the puppy she wants or not, and that's it: that's what social conservatives believe

the very concept of "compassionate conservatism" is an oxymoron: the very notion of what conservatism is is at its root a holding back of resources and empathy: compassion meanwhile is deeply rooted in a liberal outlook on life, giving compassion to those who are traditionally not felt for

it's ok to be conservative, but don't try to pretend that there is any compassion in conservatism

conservatism wins on concepts like personal accountability, and being hard on crime and drug use: punish those who do harm to society and take responsibility for yourself and your life... these concepts are deeply conservative: "don't ask me for handouts, you should get to work and take responsibility for yourself"

this is valuable conservative stuff that actually helps the world

these facets of social conservatism i applaud

but there are other facets that frankly suck

where social conservatives treat lazy deadbeats and criminals effectively, they do not treat traditionally disenfrachized noncriminal groups like gays and women and minorities well at all

there is no compassion to the conservative agenda at all- which is absolutely fine, but don't pretend that when it comes to nontraditional but valid elements of society that conservatism has any compassion, understanding or wisdom about them or for them at all

all they have is naivete, ignorance and bible thumping idiocy

in short, according to conservatism, a woman is a fucking heat lamp, whether they realize what their one-sided view of abortion leads to in real life implicit effects or not

so dude: you go on with your bad conservative self, get the lazy back to work and crack drug addict and criminal skulls, i applaud that, where some moronic liberals will be embracing drug addicts and having empathy for criminals and deadbeats

but don't pretend that your pov has any understanding or compassion for women's reproductive challenges at all

social conservatives just don't understand how their pov works to maintain sexual inequality between men and women

they have their eyes glued to fantasy explicit intent of their views

and they are completely ignorant of the real world implicit effects of their short sighted simplistic beliefs that just don't jive with some extremely elemental aspects of human behavior

so in short, it is the absolute truth, it is not a sound bite: liberals want to elevate women above the status of incubation chamber... a status that social conservatives seem hellbent on enforcing, implicitly rather than explicitly because of their poor understanding of human nature


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You have... (1.50 / 2) (#284)
by thelizman on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:08:20 PM EST

...alot of pent-up anger you need to deal with. And don't be such a bigot all the time.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Sweet (2.25 / 4) (#146)
by Wah on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:03:03 PM EST

that was easy.

...and while you're at it, explain why eating eggs from a chicken is cruelty, but tossing human eggs is a choice.

Eating eggs from a chicken is a choice, given to all people.  Tossing human eggs is a choice, given to the women who would incubate them.  Eating human eggs is a crime, although is probably cool somewhere.  Tossing chicken eggs is a game, usually played at the country fair.

These all sound fantastic to me.

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Who's got the ammo, 'cause I'm all out of chewing gum.

Oh, and frankly, humans gain something of a soul, or personality, around the age of 5-8, IMHO.  Or if 'gain' isn't your cup of tea, how about something along the lines of 'comes into focus'.  Until then they are objects to be admired or annoyed by.  Still worth protecting, though.

Until a collection of fetal cells does something cute, inspiring, or worthwhile, it's just that, a collection of cells with potential, that requires outside choice to fluorish.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

dude i was there! (none / 1) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:39:30 PM EST

i was in herald square on sunday during that huge march

and on 28th and 8th on monday night at 9, shortly after that big scuffle where they got that punk kid on tape stomping and kicking the barricade into the cops... i saw the police brass being interviewed about it instead ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nice (2.50 / 2) (#239)
by Wah on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 12:20:30 AM EST

I've been all over for the past few days.

Still kinda trying to digest it all.  Lots of confrontations with cops, and a few side discussions.  D's outnumber R's 4-1 in NY, and I'd have to say some of that carries over to the police force.  I've caught a couple chanting under their breaths.

Union Square has been fun too.  It's been a real-live k5 for the last few days.  Just show up and start shouting and someone will respond.  The trolls call themselves 'anarchists' though.  Kinda wierd.  :-)

I saw the die-in, and others, but I have to say, the Police have done a very good job of following the national security policy and pre-empting disturbances.  Plus, they often outnumber most excited knots of protestors, so there is NO question, about who could kick who's ass. And how quickly.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

reminds me of union square... (none / 0) (#240)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:01:10 AM EST

post 9/11

that was nuts

skin heads arguing with diehard republicans arguing with hippies arguing with religious fruitcakes arguing with soccer moms

fun stuff, fun stuff

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Explain to me (3.00 / 2) (#283)
by JohnnyCannuk on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:25:50 PM EST

why dim wit neocon anti-abortion Bible thumpers are so concerned about the "baby" while its 'in utero', but don't give a fuck about it once its born?

I mean, logically, if the neocons and Republicans are so worried that a new life be brought into the world that they are willing to do it against the express wishes of the mother who must bear it, they should also be for large welfare benefits for single mothers, free medical care and more funding for education.

But they aren't.

Instead, they'll suround an abortion clinic, brow beat, yell and scream to intimidate a woman into not having an abortion (I won't even start into the killing of abortion providers and their staff). After the baby is born and living in the street, or abject poverty or a violent unloving home, they won't give to shits about them - until after they grow up in that hell and commit a crime against someone. Then these same twits are following over themselves to have them killed by supporting capital punishment.

Funny, huh?

Its pretty simple. If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one.

Oh BTW, as a note to the Xtian fundies: ancient Jewish tradition holds that a fetus does not have a soul (and is not, therefore, a person) until it has breathed after it is born. Hence the reason that the Bible says abortion is not a crime.


We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

Can't Explain A Fiction (none / 0) (#329)
by thelizman on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 08:46:23 AM EST

why dim wit neocon anti-abortion Bible thumpers are so concerned about the "baby" while its 'in utero', but don't give a fuck about it once its born?
Fallacy of preconception. Why don't you come up with a substantive point to argue, instead of shrill fictions based on your narrow minded spoon-fed perceptions of the world.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I love the part where... (1.22 / 9) (#137)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:14:38 PM EST

...antiabortionists ignore the fact that an abortion doesn't involve merely a fetus, but another human being's life too.

perhaps we need balance, fucktwit


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Is that really necessary? (none / 1) (#139)
by thelizman on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:56:23 PM EST

There's no call for you to insult me here.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
there is (none / 1) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:15:55 PM EST

and here's why

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You know I love you right? (none / 0) (#208)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:29:27 PM EST

I mean, it's probably not healthy...and we'll be divorced inside of a few months, but you're the only reason I come back here sometimes.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
come over here honey (none / 1) (#243)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:33:26 AM EST

suck my dick

but no pokey pokey in the sack tonight okay?

i wouldn't want to get you pregnant considering your views on abortion ;-P

xoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

cts & thelizman... (none / 1) (#266)
by ckaminski on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:21:20 PM EST

If ever we should cross paths, I owe you both a beer for making this place worth coming back to.

[ Parent ]
Ignore the profanities... (none / 1) (#288)
by RegularFry on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 09:45:30 AM EST

circletimesquare seems either to be incapable of communicating without them, or (and I would rather think that this is the case) to genuinely believe in his own statements to the extent that any questioning of them is an insult in itself. There's something to be admired in that level of self-confidence and self-belief, but I have no data points to judge the level of open-mindedness behind it :-)

There may be troubles ahead, But while there's moonlight and music...
[ Parent ]
clump of meat (1.00 / 7) (#148)
by Black Belt Jones on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:20:24 PM EST

isn't human

[ Parent ]
Yes... (2.25 / 4) (#165)
by ShadowNode on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:43:38 PM EST

But the doctor chooses to be involved of his own free will.

[ Parent ]
So a baby is part of a woman's body? (2.50 / 2) (#141)
by sllort on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:14:44 PM EST

0; vertical spam.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
no, fucktwit (1.14 / 7) (#144)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:30:16 PM EST

and neither is a woman simply a breeding unit

maybe we need some balance

capisce asshole?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

a fetus is /nt (1.20 / 5) (#163)
by ShadowNode on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:27:07 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Pro-Life, Pro-choice: P'ro caralho (2.50 / 6) (#182)
by mirleid on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 04:18:09 AM EST

I always find it amazing when people state that this is a one-sided discussion, that it is basically this simple: their body, their choice.
While I basically agree with the fact that people should never be forced to do something that they do not want to do, the fact of the matter is that the baby did not start growing in somebody's womb spontaneously. Something happened that caused it to be there, and people should be responsible for their actions (and before you take the easy way out and start talking about rape, I should state that I agree with abortion being legal for people that were raped). This means that I strongly believe that abortion must not be allowed to be used as a replacement for condoms or the pill (unsubstantiated bs about the clubbing chick or not).

And another thing that strongly annoys me is that everybody seems quite concerned with making sure that the woman is allowed to choose, but what about the (prospective) father? He apparently is not given any choice in the matter, but, should the woman decide to carry to term, then he is required by law to pay for the child's way (and sometime's for the mother's). So, the woman chooses, and somebody else at least helps paying for the consequences of that choice, but he has no say in the matter?

What about a married couple that get pregnant, and the woman decides to get rid of it while the man wants to have the baby? Is the fact that she decided to get rid of it legal grounds for divorce (without the man actually having to suffer penalties, monetary or otherwise)?

That looks like a balanced system to me...NOT!!!

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
it's not a balanced system (2.25 / 4) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:01:05 PM EST

a man exerts 2 minutes of activity (4 if she's lucky), and the woman must have her body warped for 9 months, lactate for months after that, and then is expected culturally to support the kid for years

and you think a guy shelling out some money is equivalent to that in any way?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

One-sided (2.00 / 2) (#245)
by mirleid on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:47:04 AM EST

a man exerts 2 minutes of activity (4 if she's lucky)[...]

The way you talk about it seems to imply that the woman is not more than a hunk of meat surrounding a couple of inviting holes. Having sex with some woman is not a one-sided thing (unless you are raping her), there's choice on both sides of the equation. Let me spell that out clearly: THE WOMAN ALSO CHOSE TO HAVE SEX. It's called consensual sex, and my point is that if she consented, then she must also deal with any consequences within a certain legal framework. If she did not want to have babies, then there's a sure fire way of making sure of that: not have sex in the first place. If she's willing to take a little risk, then she might take the pill and require her partner to wear a condom (which is not a bad idea anyway due to STDs). Bottom-line: abortion is not a means of contraception.

Furthermore, your post seems to describe a situation whereby a poor defenseless woman is innoculated with some crippling disease by some monster from outer space. Like I said above, even in one-night-stand-world, sex is consensual, my point being that, if the guy is required to shell out (ie, take responsibility for the consequences of his actions), then so should she. Taking this discussion outside the slippery ground of morals and ethics:

he is not required to shell out (which equates to not taking responsibility) <=> she can do whatever the flock she pleases.
she is required to have it (which equates to taking responsibility) <=> he is required to shell out.

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
Crikey! I agree with you wholeheartedly! (3.00 / 2) (#187)
by Nursie on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 06:48:25 AM EST

Not a first, but the first time in a while.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
The Netherlands IS one OF the countries where..... (none / 1) (#113)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:51:07 AM EST

Your mileage may vary on the other side of the pond.

---
The Big F Word.
And that was an editorial comment, (none / 0) (#114)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:51:55 AM EST

but you knew that already.

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]
Strange... (none / 0) (#116)
by Anonymous Brave on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:36:13 AM EST

English can be tricky indeed sometimes...

So basically "Netherlands" seems plural (ends with an 's') but is treated as singular. I'm always learning the exceptions...

In Portuguese it ends with an 's' ("Países Baixos") and is plural, as usually are words that end with an 's'.

In Dutch it's singular, but that's straightforward to know, as it doesn't end in "en", the suffix that denotes plural in this language.

[ Parent ]

what is the dutch word for netherlands? (none / 1) (#156)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:45:35 PM EST

because i would always be insulted if my country were called "netherlands" by the english

the word nether is also used as in "nether regions", or inaccessible esoteric parts, "nether regions" is a vague term for the genital area (!) or places like the deep abyss of the oceans or far off obscure parts of a province no one goes to and no one seems to know anyone from

so if the english called my country the "nether lands" i would be insulted

well... lots of the netherlands is reclaimed ocean land behind dykes, right? maybe the english term is onto something after all ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

in dutch (3.00 / 3) (#183)
by stud9920 on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 04:24:33 AM EST

they call it Nederland. So there's no insult that was not self inflicted to begin with.

Linux Zealot fan fiction. Post yours !
[ Parent ]
Isn't it really called 'Holland'? /nt (none / 0) (#162)
by ShadowNode on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:22:17 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No (3.00 / 2) (#204)
by dpi on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 02:36:38 PM EST

No, its not called Holland. North-Holland and South-Holland are 2 of the 12 provinces of the Netherlands hence it is not accurate to name it Holland.

However, the term Holland is deeply rooted in the Dutch culture (e.g. soccer) so it is used.

But the Netherlands is a more accurate and correct term. By using that, you don't limit yourself to only 2 provinces and thus the other 10 don't left out.

To the person hereunder about "Netherlands" being a flame or something. No, its not seen as offensive. The translation if the country name in Dutch is "Nederland" and that name got formed somewhere in the 16-18th century (i can't even remember, what a shame). IIRC it was first named Holland because these 2 provinces bind together to fight against the Spanish. Anyway, it just means the land lies low and indeed it does in most of the Netherlands.

Some of the land lies high, e.g. in Limburg and some parts of other provinces because of the Ice Age (this is geographics). And some parts got flooded (Zeeland, in the west). And Flevoland got taken from the sea indeed but its protected the Afsluitdijk and surrounding land. Zeeland had much more problems and the so-called Deltaplan solved this. These are fundamental parts of our infrastructure; good infrastructure is something NL is famous of.

Wikipedia has some good information about the country too. Just search for "Netherlands" and you find all kind of things out about the culture, the name, the laws, the "openmindness" (which is highly relative and a generalisation IMO). Anyway, worth a read for those interested.

[ Parent ]

It's simple, really, (2.50 / 2) (#170)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:23:19 PM EST

even though the Netherlands ends with an 's', in this context, you are referring to all those lands as a single entity. Effectively, you're saying "The Nation of Netherlands" but have dropped the words "The Nation Of" for simplicity.

It is for the same reason that the United States is referred to in the singular (or at least, has been so, ever since the end of the American Civil War)

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]

dios / deus (none / 0) (#199)
by DylanQuixote on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 12:45:57 PM EST

hehe, this reminds me of when I thought the Spanish word for "god", "dios" was plural... I imagine the Portuguese "deus" is not plural as well, yeah?

[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 0) (#200)
by Anonymous Brave on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 12:51:34 PM EST

plural would be "deuses"

[ Parent ]
Unsafe abortions 'kill thousands' (3.00 / 6) (#138)
by kamera on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:17:23 PM EST

BBC has an article on a study done by Ipas, a NGO, which released a report that says there are 70,000 deaths due to unsafe abortions every year.

"It found that 10m women undergo unsafe abortions in Asia each year. About half that number are carried out in Africa and Latin America.

In Asia, unsafe abortions account for 50% of all pregnancy-related deaths of women. In Africa, the figure is 44% while in Latin America it is 6%.

The organisation said the deaths could be prevented. It accused political, social and religious movements of standing in the way.

"Forty women every minute undergo an unsafe abortion and 200 are dying every day," said Elizabeth Maguire, its president."

Since the report originates from a NGO, I suspect that the numbers are exaggerated/misleading for political purposes (maybe not though?...). Regardless, unsafe abortions are a legitimate problem of great magnitude. Although the illegality of a abortion within a country probably increases the number of unsafe abortions, I'd suggest that lack of money and access to medical facilities is a larger cause of unsafe abortions. Promoting legal abortions around the world would definitely help, but would by no means be an end to the problem.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde

Um... (2.40 / 5) (#178)
by skim123 on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:05:36 AM EST

BBC has an article on a study done by Ipas, a NGO, which released a report that says there are 70,000 deaths due to unsafe abortions every year.

There's only 70,000 abortions done each year, worldwide?

Oh wait, they mean the death of the mother, not of the child being aborted.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Gray area (2.66 / 3) (#207)
by RadiantMatrix on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:27:55 PM EST

Oh wait, they mean the death of the mother, not of the child being aborted.

That largely depends on whether you believe a child is being aborted or not.  Those that believe it isn't a child until a certain point in pregnancy[1] would have a hard time calling abortion "death".

It's oh-so-easy to see things in black-and-white; on the one hand, you have the "life begins at conception" folks, and on the other you have the "it's not a child until it's viable outside the womb."  The former cite isn't that amazing! statistics to support their hypothesis (e.g. a fetus develops fingerprints extremely early in the pregnancy).  The latter claim that what can't survive on its own isn't a person.

Both sides are on crack -- you cannot logically prove either argument given current available data.  Having an opinion one way or another is, of course, perfectly reasonable... so long as the opinion-holder doesn't try to force their opinion on anyone else.

And, since we can't conclusively and logically argue either extreme, we just argue emotionally.  And insist that the other side is wrong.  The pro-life crowd could easily work for reasonable compromise, instead of insisting (as it often does) on an abortion ban; and, the pro-choice crowd could just as easily stop categorically opposing limitations on abortion.  Compromising is the best way to reach a resolution: maybe neither side will be completely happy, but at least they could find something both sides could live with?

[1]: debating that a fetus is human is fallacious, the question isn't if it is human, but if it is both "a life" (note: not alive, but an independent life) and "a person".  No sane pro-choice advocate claims that a fetus isn't human.

"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

[ Parent ]

You can't compromise (none / 1) (#267)
by jreilly on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:25:06 PM EST

Compromising is the best way to reach a resolution: maybe neither side will be completely happy, but at least they could find something both sides could live with?

If you're competing against someone uncompromising, then a decision to compromise is a decision to lose slowly. If abortion rights advocates agreed not to push for, say, late-term abortions, then it would merely lead to an eventual banning of the morning-after pill. You can't compromise with people who think any abortion is a murder, because it's just too important to them. I mean (for the inevitable Godwin's law invocation), you wouldn't agree to kill only Jews, as long as the gypsies and homosexuals were left out, would you?

I mean, I'm pro-choice, but think I somewhat understand the mindset of anti-abortion people, and given their belief, no compromise is really available.

Oooh, shiny...
[ Parent ]
Better idea (none / 0) (#321)
by NaCh0 on Wed Sep 08, 2004 at 05:35:44 AM EST

you wouldn't agree to kill only Jews, as long as the gypsies and homosexuals were left out, would you?

No, of course not.

But if we agreed to kill only the fags and leave the jews and muslims alone we'd have a good compromise.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]

On compromise (none / 0) (#334)
by RadiantMatrix on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 02:52:40 AM EST


I mean, I'm pro-choice, but think I somewhat understand the mindset of anti-abortion people, and given their belief, no compromise is really available.

This comes from the old "squeaky wheel" problem.  The most vocal pro-lifers out there are kooks who believe everything from "the morning-after pill is murder" to even the extreme of "contraception (other than rhythm) is murder".  Likewise, the most radical and vocal pro-choicers believe in little or no regulation of abortive procedures (allowing minors to have abortions without notice to parents in all cases, for example).

Because the vocal, radical views are so different, the moderates on either side tend to form a prejudice about the other group based on the most radical views of the opposition.  Many moderate pro-choicers think that all pro-lifers are crazy fundies, for example.

The reality is that most people are more moderate than the extreme position.  Most pro-choicers accept and promote that there are times when abortion is not ethically acceptable (i.e. late-term abortion).  Most pro-lifers would allow abortion in special circumstances (ranging from likely maternal death to children resulting from rape to any abortion within the first 3 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the individual).

If the radicals on both sides would just shut up for a little while, the moderates might work something out that would be acceptable if not ideal for both groups.

In the interest of "full disclosure", I am a moderate pro-choicer.  I think most cases of abortion are morally wrong, but (a)there are plenty of cases where it is justified [e.g. serious health risks to the mother], and (b)I don't have the right to push my morality on anyone else, therefore I'd never support a law to ban abortions.  I would, however, support sane limitations like the extant ban on partial-birth abortion.

"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

[ Parent ]

OTOH, safe abortions 'kill millions' - N/T (1.66 / 6) (#191)
by BurntHombre on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:52:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
wait wait! (1.22 / 9) (#159)
by o O on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:21:45 PM EST

instead of complaining about chicks who get abortions we should be writing down their phone numbers and asking them out on dates because:

you know a date with that chick is not a waste your time. there is no question she puts out!!

and instead of catholic priests abusing alter boys we need to hook them up with chicks waiting in line at the abortion clinic.

Women On Waves (none / 1) (#177)
by maluka on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:33 AM EST

I'm amazed at those who think they know Portugal and am dismayed that one would actually include a translated page. There's nothing more butchered than Portuguese to English. I've lived in Portugal for 10 years and find it very different than the rest of the world. But that's not the point. I read a site that comes from another expat American who has lived here almost as long as I and she's been very vocal about this subject and it will probably evoke some ire and anger, but it's her opinion. Women on Waves Creating A Tsunami In Portugal Aug. 30 http://www.brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=502 BARCO DO ABORTO Aug. 31 http://www.brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=503

Too uninformed... (none / 1) (#189)
by Anonymous Brave on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:31:43 AM EST

I realised I was wasting my time reading that blog (which isn't really a blog, as nobody can reply or place comments) when I came across the sentence "That's why those who can afford it or sell everything they have go to Spain to have a legal abortion".

Even the part of Portugal more distant from Spain (Lisbon or some place nearby) is a couple of hours far from Spain by bus. It'll cost you the price of a meal or something like that. You don't have to sell everything. Whoever writes that is too uninformed. Unbelievable, really... She could be making less mistakes talking about nuclear physics...

[ Parent ]

You are so wrong (1.33 / 3) (#229)
by maluka on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:17:13 PM EST

Oh mighty expert on the country I call home, you are so wrong. The cost of an abortion in Spain is steep and Portugal is the poorest country in the EU and I know 2 young women who had to save everything for 2 months to go to Spain to have the abortion.

I am very curious about something. You write like an American, therefore I doubt you're Portuguese or even living in this country.

Would you clarify that, please?

As far as what you read being a blog, I asked her about the comments, in fact emailed the site address, and wrote back, saying, "I don't have them because of fools like that."

[ Parent ]

Be serious! (none / 1) (#252)
by plexar on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:37:18 AM EST

Be serious! Did you read all those editorial posts complaining about the spelling mistakes he made? English is not his first language (like myself). He is Portuguese, and i know him personaly (although i'm pro-choice). He even voted in the last referendum. Did you? As i said, i'm pro-choice, and he never called me a "fool" in the discussions we had.

[ Parent ]
Gratutious insult (hey, it's free for all) (none / 1) (#280)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:40:16 PM EST

> You write like an American,

I blame TeVe and poor English teachers in High School. It makes most portuguese people sound merkin  when speaking english.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

Taking more umbrage at your words (1.50 / 2) (#244)
by maluka on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 03:44:59 AM EST

<i>That's why those who can afford it or sell everything they have go to Spain to have a legal abortion</i>.

Read closely at the distinction between those who can afford and those who have to sell everything. Do you think the abortions are free???

My Portuguese friends and I discussed this yesterday in a cybercafe after I showed them your article.  They laughed and said YOU should be talking about nuclear physics and doubted you were really Portuguese.

[ Parent ]

Portuguese indeed. (2.50 / 2) (#251)
by plexar on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:20:18 AM EST

He is Portuguese. I know him. ---- in Portuguese: Ele é Português. Eu conheço-o.

[ Parent ]
Caramba!! (1.00 / 2) (#263)
by maluka on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:47:35 AM EST

It makes sense now. I thought a female wrote this and was really dismayed at "her" line of thinking.  A Portuguese male, of course.

[ Parent ]
Carago! (none / 1) (#268)
by plexar on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:41:37 PM EST

Well.. for someone who, firstly (and wrongly) thought the author wasn't Portuguese, by reading his text, the fact of the author now being a male (and Portuguese) is irrelevant. Please, don't attack the people behind the ideas (mainly if you don't know them); attack their ideas with your arguments.
And please, cut out with that "macho latino" steriotype.  Not all "Portuguese male" are like that. They have the right to express their ideas in this subject (like myself as being also a male). And if you think that the author's line of thinking is, somehow, machist, then you are making a mistake. The author defends sexual education and contraception! Some of the pro-life groups dont even consider that!! And the Catholic Church.. well, i imagine that you already know their position on these questions.
This is a important issue to be discussed with female *and* males without throwing accusations of machism or feminism each other.

just my humble male opinion

[ Parent ]

É isso tudo, carago! (none / 0) (#325)
by Vesperto on Thu Sep 09, 2004 at 09:10:38 PM EST

Kinda late, huh...? Blame the trolls.
_____________________________
If you disagree post, don't moderate.
Not a Premium User.
[ Parent ]
Hey! (none / 1) (#279)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:37:09 PM EST

Ah! You're a <insert nationality here> female, of course.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]
And from whom did I get this line of reasoning? (2.50 / 2) (#292)
by Anonymous Brave on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:41:11 PM EST

I started thinking like this from the discussions my 6th grade class had with our female teacher (one of the best teachers I had, btw).

Last debate I watched on TV had a pro-choice man and a pro-life woman.

I'm against all kinds of macho man kind of talks, which fortunetly is a rare species nowadays here. In this aspect Portugal evoled a lot. Also, in the 60's being a single mother wasn't very sociably acceptable, but is absolutly fine nowadays, yet another reason that it doesn't make sense to have abortion legal.
correspondente.net - reflectir e discutir em português
[ Parent ]

Spain and Portugal (2.00 / 2) (#257)
by Anonymous Brave on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:27:02 AM EST

The Spaniards earn more than we do and buy stuff cheaper than we. Yet another example of the neighbour's grass being greener than ours.

So if abortion is legalised in Portugal, do you believe it'll be cheaper? It'll probably cost the Spanish price plus the price of a meal, if you're lucky.

Regarding your doubts about my nationality, chech my reply to one of the other comments you posted.



[ Parent ]
No (2.50 / 2) (#278)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:33:47 PM EST

> (which isn't really a blog, as nobody can reply or place comments)

So, you're new to this intarweb thing ? That's ok, there's AOL in Portugal.

> Even the part of Portugal more distant from Spain (Lisbon or some place nearby) is a couple of hours far from Spain by bus.

Gosh, those spanish sure are nice, taking in foreigners who never payed a cent to spanish social security and performing abortions for free!
It's pretty plain for someone who actually thinks about it private clinics are involved. If you're still with me, private clinics = mucho dinero. This last part is dificult so pay attention, there are *a lot* of illegal abortion back alley stuff in Portugal, and that's cheap. So there's a market. If there's a local market for cheap you'll-might-die-in-the-process stuff it means the good procedures in real clinics in Spain must be expensive.
See, this wasn't hard.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

slander (none / 1) (#302)
by maluka on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 04:42:41 PM EST

How dare you slag this work? I see others here have defended you (this is the author btw, at maluka's) and you said some pretty nasty things. How do you think you are to judge other people's work and so publically. It's even on Google.

Your kind makes me ill.

You will make a great subject.

[ Parent ]

I dunno... (none / 1) (#185)
by tonyenkiducx on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:23 AM EST

...I'm probably one of the few people who doesn't have an opinion on this subject.  Much as I would love to put myself in the position or a woman who is pregnant and find out what my real opinion is, I cant.  

But this is really an issue of social responsibility, and as such there is no one answer, but a whole slew of answers based upon a persons own experiences and personality.  The abortion problem can be likened to the current drug problems many countries are facing(Bear with me, it does make sense).

Many people want to take drugs, some even want to ruin there lives with drugs, but most just do not realise what there doing or have the strength to make the "socially responsible" choice.  Im sure you can work out the similarities for yourself.  

But then ask yourself if you would force drug addicts to stop taking drugs, or would you just allow them to destroy there own lives?  I know the resounding answer from a significant amount of people would be that they should be stopped for there own good.  There is a slight difference in that drug addicts can sometimes be a danger to society, but then many countries have a problem with teenage pregnancy spiraling out of control which is also a danger to society.

I guess I might be looking at this the wrong way, but I see it as a problem for the individual to decide not society, as society often gets it wrong.  I also think this for the current drugs problem.

Tony.
I see a planet where love is foremost, where war is none existant. A planet of peace, and a planet of understanding. I see a planet called

Clarification (2.33 / 3) (#186)
by cvalente on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 06:27:14 AM EST

"more than 50% of voters rejected a 1998 referendum that would have liberalized abortion laws"
Just to make clear that although more than 50% of voter rejected to legalize abortion up to 10 weeks, less than 50% of the electors actually vote, rendering the referendum not binding. More than who won what, I find less than 50% of participation rather shamefull.

If you think that's few participants... (2.50 / 2) (#190)
by Anonymous Brave on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:35:22 AM EST

You don't want to know the abstention in the European elections...

[ Parent ]
I do know (2.00 / 2) (#193)
by cvalente on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 10:53:42 AM EST

I do know the "abstention in the European elections" (generally speaking). They were a lot more. (70% in Polland?). My main criticism is that most people say, "I don't vote because everything will remain the same". Here there was a subject which I think most people would consider very important and still not even 50% of them vote so as to make the referendum binding and thus count for something.
The Portuguese Constitution mandates that a referendum must have half plus one of the enrolled electors voting in order to be legally binding.

[ Parent ]
but nevertheless... (2.50 / 2) (#255)
by plexar on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:09:15 AM EST

...he's right. The referendum turnover was lower than the minimum necessary to be legally binding. (I think should refer that in your article). Was the socialist government on those years (irony, a leftist party!) that took a political conclusion from the referedum result: do nothing! Now we have a ruling rightist party, and the situation of (illegal) abortion is more or less the same. No sex education, old and restrictive abortion laws, illegal abortions with deplorable conditions, and criminalization of womens who abort. This situation is no more tolerable, as i see radical groups from pro-choice and pro-life in a very mediatic, but not a useful confrontation.

[ Parent ]
Education? (2.33 / 3) (#194)
by J T MacLeod on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:29:56 AM EST

Do we REALLY believe that most of these unwanted pregnancies stem from people not knowing that sex makes babies?

Yes, being educated on sex is important to a point.  But we really can't complain that prudes repressing sex education is the cause of all these pregnancies.  

Unless these people are so ignorant as to not know that SEX PRODUCES CHILDREN, then the problem is them not being prudish enough.

myths abound... (3.00 / 3) (#206)
by ShaggyBofh on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:26:12 PM EST

Some people still believe that a woman can't get pregnant if:

If the girl douches after sex.
If girl is having her period.
If one/both drink high caffeine drinks (kill sperm).
If the guy pulls out.
If you screw standing up.

Some in Africa think having sex with a virgin cures hiv/aids.

A little education can't hurt. Even it someone is too stupid to reproduce, doesn't mean they can't and make me pay the damn bill.


Just say NO to negativity.
[ Parent ]

Sigh (1.66 / 3) (#235)
by maluka on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:42:42 PM EST

Obviously you don't live here. I live down the street from two high schools and have witnessed many manifestations by the students, who have walked out of school in organized masse, and taken the subject to the streets. They want and need sex education and they're not getting it. That's why there are so many pregnant 14 year olds.

Whoever started this thread either lives in Algarve or Cascais and probably doesn't know any poor people. I would bet on it.

[ Parent ]

Come on, you're smarter than that... (none / 1) (#256)
by Anonymous Brave on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:16:51 AM EST

Click my user name, check what comments I posted. Look in the archive. I've been posting around here since 2001. Many posts have to do with the Portuguese reality.

I grew up in São João da Madeira and I currently spend my days travelling between Oporto and Lisbon. So I can say I'm aware of how we live.

And you're telling there's many teenage pregnancy in Portugal. But among the developed countries, the one with the higher teenage pregnancy rates is the US. If you keep just telling lies after lies I'll have to start ignoring you, really...



[ Parent ]
High teen pregnancy rates in the U.S.... (none / 1) (#271)
by ckaminski on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 02:05:27 PM EST

I'm not sure I can speak for anyone else, but the sexual education I got in school was thorough, but clinical.  We get it, but on the flipside we get hit by family and church that sex is immoral, sinful, and dirty.  Hence the backseat fumblings in a 1980 Ford Fairmont.   The fear of buying condoms or asking a parent to put you on the pill... eep!

America is a land of contradictions, even moreso in poor communities where sex education is either passed over in favor of keeping the buses running, or is being hamstrung by conservative governments who thing any sex education other than abstinence is bad (Thank you GWB).

[ Parent ]

so your problem isn't wtih sex education, per se (none / 1) (#312)
by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 06:53:01 PM EST

It's with social mores and family values as they currently stand in America.

Why, then, should the schools be enlisted to address this problem?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

This one comes off late, i know... (none / 0) (#326)
by Vesperto on Thu Sep 09, 2004 at 09:18:31 PM EST

Er... for starters, i think by "manifestations" you mean "rallies", but that's just me. Students don't protest because they're worried, they do so because they want to talk about sex in class, period. And please, your comments sound so ignorant i'm not sure you're a troll or just plain silly. Get a grip, Whoever started this thread either lives in Algarve or Cascais and probably doesn't know any poor people. I would bet on it.? Oh my...

Note to self: check K5 more often.
_____________________________
If you disagree post, don't moderate.
Not a Premium User.
[ Parent ]

What I can't bear... (1.00 / 4) (#210)
by spacebrain on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:35:31 PM EST

is just people imposing their fu..ing opinions on others!
Just let people be themselves!
If a woman wants to get rid of an unborn fetus, it's no one else's business!

My 2 cents

Re: What I can't bear (none / 1) (#215)
by m50d on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:44:13 PM EST

And if a woman wants to "get rid of" a baby after it's born, that's no one else's business too?

[ Parent ]
that's interesting (1.20 / 5) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:28:28 AM EST

but he didn't say that

so fuck off


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

but he did (none / 1) (#259)
by Frequanaut on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:38:15 AM EST

say he doesn't like it when people impose their opinions on others. m50d's rhetorical question was meant, hopefully, to highlight the point that there are laws which are defined by social mores.

But where is the line drawn? Those laws aren't always agreed upon by all parties, hence someone has imposed their opinion of proper morality onto others. I can't think of any law that everyone agrees on. If that were so, no one would break the law, or at least it would be broken much less often.

At what point does the rule of the majority become the tyranny of the majority? Does a simple majority always confirm the correctness of something?  If not, when does it not? If so, does it mean that something which is "right" can change quite frequently?

Do those who disagree with the laws in question due to philosophical or logical differences obtain some sort of moral upperhand when disobeying them? If so, should they still be eligible for protection under other laws, not necessarily related?

Given the above, the best we can probably hope for in some sort of representative political system is one which passes laws suited to the will of the people.

It seems to me, the people of Portugal, in this case either didn't care or cared to prevent women from obtaining legal abortions.  Personally, I believe that is to their own detriment as a society.

Unfortunately,  your response to m50d is not interesting, not even in the simple, open ended manner which could possibly lead to an interesting discussion.  

For that I can only offer you what you've offered him.  Fuck off.


[ Parent ]

no he didn't fucktwit (1.00 / 3) (#269)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 01:44:12 PM EST

he said "fetus"

all of your nine paragraphs of hot air i didn't even read

desperate attempts to reverse and rationalize the bullshit you already said

he said fetus, he didn't say baby

THERE

IS

A

FUCKING

DIFFERENCE

YOU

STUPID

FUCK


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

righto (none / 0) (#287)
by Frequanaut on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 09:27:06 AM EST

Well said. The caps and extra returns really help your argument.

[ Parent ]
since you mention it (none / 0) (#311)
by Battle Troll on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 06:50:58 PM EST

Many of the main justifications for legal abortion can also be applied to legal infanticide, as Pete Singer has argued in print. I realize that the last time I talked to you about this, you ranted about irresponsible playas with cellphones and called the fetus 'a worthless ball of cum,' so I'm not likely to change your mind on this issue, but this is a public forum.

If THERE IS A FUCKING DIFFERENCE, I invite you to elucidate it rather than leaving the world to suffer in ignorance. If you can convincingly settle the abortion question to general satisfaction, you will be a hero.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

In answer to your question (none / 1) (#273)
by kurtmweber on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:07:28 PM EST

No, refusing to obey a law with which one disagrees does not, in and of itself, constitute a form of moral righteousness. Morality is objective; thus, the proper set of laws is also objective. It is only when refusing to follow a law that is not part of this set that one is morally in the right.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0) (#249)
by Bill Godfrey on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:58:12 AM EST

Which is why most countries have an adoption system.

[ Parent ]
What about Ireland? (3.00 / 2) (#216)
by cdguru on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 06:07:37 PM EST

I've read all the comments and nobody, not a single person brought up that this same group (and maybe the same ship) was going to go to Ireland with the same mission.

I believe the Irish are a fair sight more restrictive about abortion than the Portugese. Anybody know what happened there? I think I recall they denied the ship permission to dock and still they tried to ferry women out to the ship by speedboat. I don't think I heard the final outcome.

Bah (2.50 / 2) (#224)
by jandev on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:42:58 PM EST

Portugal has a long tradition of protecting the human life.
Lies. This is the same country that messed up Angola and Mozambique so badly by overstaying their welcome by roughly 400 years that the result was 15 years of civil war in Mozambique and 25 (and counting) in Angola.

I know it's off topic, and that the Portuguese weren't the only ones to mess up former colonies, but please spare me the righteousness.

JdV!!

"ENGINEERS" IS NOT POSSESSIVE. IT'S A PLURAL. YOU DO NOT MOTHERFUCKING MARK A PLURAL WITH A COCKSUCKING APOSTROPHE. APOSTROPHES ARE FOR MARKING POSSESSIVES IN THIS CASE. IF YOU WEREN'T A TOTAL MORON, YOU WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE "THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S SMALL PENIS". SEE THAT APOSTROPHE? IT'S A HAPPY APOSTROPHE. IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED BY SOME GODDAMN SHIT-FOR-BRAINS IDIOT WITH NO EDUCATION. - Nimey

Angola and Mocambique did not exist (none / 1) (#246)
by tmenezes on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:14:00 AM EST

...before colonizition. They were tribal zones. And messing-up did not occur while they were Portuguese territories.

[ Parent ]
Whatever, dude (2.00 / 2) (#291)
by jandev on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 12:29:37 PM EST

You believe what you want, but I'd recommend you read up on some of the goings on in the late 1400s/early 1500s in what is now northern Angola, where the ManiKongo had quite something going.

"It's Africa south of Sahara, there's only savages there."

You're an ignorant idiot.

JdV!!

"ENGINEERS" IS NOT POSSESSIVE. IT'S A PLURAL. YOU DO NOT MOTHERFUCKING MARK A PLURAL WITH A COCKSUCKING APOSTROPHE. APOSTROPHES ARE FOR MARKING POSSESSIVES IN THIS CASE. IF YOU WEREN'T A TOTAL MORON, YOU WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE "THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S SMALL PENIS". SEE THAT APOSTROPHE? IT'S A HAPPY APOSTROPHE. IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED BY SOME GODDAMN SHIT-FOR-BRAINS IDIOT WITH NO EDUCATION. - Nimey
[ Parent ]

dude (2.50 / 2) (#305)
by tmenezes on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 06:18:50 AM EST

"It's Africa south of Sahara, there's only savages there."

I never said that. I can't belive you're quoting something made up by yourself when one can go read the parent post. What I said is that Angola and Moçambique as countries were created by the Portuguese Empire. I never called no one savages. I just wanted to correct the wrong impression that was conveyed by a former poster that Angola and Moçambique were countries at some time oucupied by Portugal and then messed up by portuguese. I would also like to make the point that the Commonwealth, for exeample, is at this moment exploring those countries much like portuguese did. Except that portuguese also build schools instead of just taking the diamonds.

[ Parent ]
Indeed... (none / 1) (#260)
by Anonymous Brave on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:01:07 AM EST

What happened in Angola and in Mozambique was wrong by all views.

I can say it didn't had the support of the majority of the population, and it was put to an end as soon as the revolution came and brought democracy with it thus fullfilling the will of most of the Portuguese, but the reality is that it happened.

E.g., it's true the Dutch are very tolerant, but that came after a wave of intolerance towards protests, for example. Read The Discovery of Heaven, by Harry Mulisch.

[ Parent ]

Mocambique is now para of the comonwealth (2.00 / 2) (#264)
by tmenezes on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 12:13:06 PM EST

...and also for all effect an english colony. And still messed up. Does anybody care? No.

[ Parent ]
No (none / 1) (#277)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:24:02 PM EST

> This is the same country that messed up Angola and Mozambique so badly by overstaying their welcome by roughly 400 years that the result was 15 years of civil war in Mozambique and 25 (and counting) in Angola.

No. What messed them up was the 3 days of pull out. But this is off topic and I'm sure you wouldn't stand for history lessons anyway.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

I would, actually (2.50 / 2) (#289)
by jandev on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 12:21:09 PM EST

...be up for history lessons, that is.

I happen to be interested in African history. And I know that my statement above was gross generalization or even hyperbole. It was just that the first line of the article struck me as so overly righteous. Call it an emotional response or something.

Anyway, as far as I understand (after reading numerous books on the topic, though admittedly none specific to the former Portuguese colonies), the problem there was that Portugal for about 400 years saw those areas as hunting grounds for slaves first, and later as really big plantations ran by cheap (forced) labour. They never cared to develop a middle class and the technocrats that come with that. On top of that they pulled out on very short notice, as you mentioned, leaving completely unprepared people to fend for themselves.

And again, the Portuguese were not alone there. The Belgians e.g. did the same to Congo (Zaire) 15 years earlier, and see were that got them.

JdV!!

"ENGINEERS" IS NOT POSSESSIVE. IT'S A PLURAL. YOU DO NOT MOTHERFUCKING MARK A PLURAL WITH A COCKSUCKING APOSTROPHE. APOSTROPHES ARE FOR MARKING POSSESSIVES IN THIS CASE. IF YOU WEREN'T A TOTAL MORON, YOU WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE "THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S SMALL PENIS". SEE THAT APOSTROPHE? IT'S A HAPPY APOSTROPHE. IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED BY SOME GODDAMN SHIT-FOR-BRAINS IDIOT WITH NO EDUCATION. - Nimey
[ Parent ]

About right yeah (none / 1) (#294)
by chbm on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 08:39:50 PM EST

The portuguese colonies were setup with pretty independent infrastructures but as you mention they were all run by non-locals. A proper decolonization process involving an handover would have probably resulted in nice balanced "westernized" countries.
However, the hasty escape (it wasn't so much a decolonization process, it was actually running away) left a void in power and several armed groups locked in civil war.
Afterwards in some areas the diamond and gold smugling operations and in most being cold war theaters kept the civil wars going on strong.

The previous portuguese ditactorial regime wasn't planing on letting go so no contingency plans were made. The new regime after the coup declared the colonies free and was much too busy trying to establish democracy and avoiding a civil war in Portugal to actually have decolonization plans.
So it all went to hell pretty fast.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]

Gah. It's a tangled question. (2.00 / 2) (#238)
by Sir Joseph Porter KCB on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 11:47:15 PM EST

I think that the basic question on whether abortion is acceptable or not is whether a foetus is a human being. If yes, abortion bad, if no, abortion ok. And how on earth can we figure out the answer? It's a very fundamental question when you think about it, with strings leading to it from lots of philosophical and scientific topics on psychology, free will, and other fun things. Like, what about the nature-versus-nurture debate? If a human being is mostly made a true human individual through nurture -- education, experience, simply living out a life and letting new pathways form in the brain as it takes in experience -- then it seems that a foetus cannot really qualify as a human being, all in all. But if it's mostly a matter of nature, then the potential of that foetus to become a full-grown human being seems to matter more. And speaking of potentiality, is preventing life really the same as ending it? Is PREVENTING a foetus from becoming a member of society the same as killing a citizen? Speaking from a deterministic perspective, it seems the answer is yes, since if you DIDN'T kill the foetus it would have, indeed, become a human being... but then, how far back should this chain of deterministic events be taken? Did you commit murder by, say, NOT going out with that cute guy you met at the party, because if only you did, then you surely would have married and had children years later? And besides, maybe preventing a human life, even in a deterministic world, simply cannot be the same as ending it, since there isn't really an existing human pattern of emotion, memory, thought, or values that's being lethally interrupted by your action. I personally feel that, at least at earlier stages, abortion is acceptable because the foetus simply cannot be a conscious human being, not having, or capable of having, a mind. And I think that preventing life is not the same as ending it, since that life doesn't really exist yet. The future is the future preciesly because it is not yet real. There has to be some distinction between it and the past. Even in a deterministic world, the future is forever beyond our epistemological reach. But it's such a confused topic that I'm perfectly wiling to change my point of view. Gah, very confusing. At any rate, it seems to me that the abortion debate is a case of practical philosophy. There's no doubt that it's an issue of immediate practical importance, and yet it cannot be resolved without delving into some very abstract and hypothetical regions of human thought. And finally, I'd like to say that I don't think abortion is none of men's business. Men play a role in reproduction too, after all, and while women play the more long-term role biologically, saying that the entire debate is merely about an individual's freedom to do as she pleases with her body circumnavigates the question of whether a foetus IS just a part of a woman's body. Which, as I said, I think it is, but starting off with that assumption seems to me to make the whole debate irrelevant. And I feel there's plenty left to be debated. And besides, the fact that men, on average, don't take as much social responcibility for children as women do is something that should be changed, rather than something that should be used as an excuse to leave half of the potential contributors out of the debate. I'm sure many men make great and concerned parents, and with more equality between gender roles in the future, this number will hopefully grow.
~~~~

Thank you for your time.

interesting read (3.00 / 2) (#248)
by caridon20 on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:47:48 AM EST

have a go att Peter Singers book practical ethics if you feel a need for more info.
He does a good job about going through both sides argument.

/C
Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
[ Parent ]

My problem with Ethics... (none / 0) (#316)
by Kuranes on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 09:09:46 AM EST

I'm a philosophy student, so I quite playing around with questions and counterarguments, but the problem with practical philosophy and nowadays' professional Ethics is, basically, that there ought to be experts who can tell us how everybody should live.

So, to be a little polemic: The real challenge for a practical philosopher would be to tell a pregnant women left by the child's "father" (or rather inseminator) to 1. ask herself if the child is really part of her body, then 2. ask her to contact the "father" what he thinks about it.

The potentiality argument is basically theological: It relies on forebuilt future for the child (who could equally experience tremendous pain and sadness in this future) and the common sense that it is always better to have something than not. Then it's all about generating guilty conscience (do we really want to sacrifice this life for a little spare time? etc.).

Children are a tough job, however. They cost money, time and - most of all - nerves. Most of today's society doesn't allow much of that to anybody, and even less to women. Keep that in mind.


Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
mistake in article (3.00 / 2) (#247)
by matje on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:34:37 AM EST

(where the law of the boat's country applies: the Netherlands allows abortions for six weeks after conception, if not performed within 25 km from an Amsterdam hospital) I think you made a mistake here. I believe the Dutch secretary of health has decided that abortions may only be performed on the boat, if the boat is within 25 kilometers of the Slotervaart hospital in Amsterdam. In case you were wondering: yes this defeats the purpose of the boat. However, they can still provide morning-after pills and information etc.

Democracy and abortion (3.00 / 5) (#250)
by tiago on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:07:30 AM EST

" more than 50% of voters rejected a 1998 referendum that would have liberalized abortion laws "
50.07%. An overwhelming majority as we can see. 68.11%. Abstension (a lot for an European country - even on European elections, the worst, it was 60% in 1999. For the parliament abstention was 38%).
Voted once (with these numbers), casted in stone forever, so it seems.
Maybe we should just vote once for parliament/president and we could live with the same government forever?
AFAIK, the biggest confusion with abortion (for those who discuss in rational terms) has to do with the definition and importance of life.
Life in itself is not that much important: do you eat veggies (they are alive)? Do you eat animals (I know some of us don't)?
An embryo is different from a fetus, and a fetus different from a child.
For me killing a cat is a much more serious ofense than killing an embryo. A cat feels pain.
And feelig pain itself is not enough (we routinely kill cows, chicken, etc. which feel pain)
Surely its difficult to have a clear border but we kill millions of entities which are more complicated and more "rich" than a fetus.
Not to say that the the behaviour of the government against the boat is clear a case of attacking freedom of speech as "Women on waves" have declared that they would never do anything ilegal in Portugal (and even if they were going to do, then they sould be arrested when doing it).
I would never had anything against a "Death penalty" boat going to Portugal preaching the death penalty, although I am 100% against it, and proud my country was the first in Europe abolishing it. They have to right to free speech.

That's not what I said (none / 1) (#308)
by Anonymous Brave on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 01:06:47 PM EST

As you can see from the first sentence I wrote on the article I'm referring to "human life," not simply "life."

These kind of referendums are generational, IMO. You aren't going to ask the Timorese each 5 years or so if they prefer to be independent or incorporated into Indonesia. The current generation wants to be independent. The next might have a different will, e.g., for economic reasons.

You say that "killing a cat is a much more serious ofense than killing an embryo," as a "cat feels pain." However if you first anaesthesiate the cat, then your concern no longer exists. Things can't be put in these terms.

Have you thought about the fact that at the moment of conception, that cell that evolved into yourself now, already had defined the colour of your hair, your sex, your potential height, your potential IQ, etc?

[ Parent ]

Congratulations to Portugal... (1.25 / 4) (#272)
by kurtmweber on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:04:58 PM EST

...for letting those who utterly reject civilization and reason to continue living. The death penalty is not barbaric; the absence of it is.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
Your reasoning? (2.50 / 2) (#286)
by RegularFry on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 09:16:47 AM EST

The death penalty is not barbaric; the absence of it is.

Why?

There may be troubles ahead, But while there's moonlight and music...
[ Parent ]

SImple (none / 1) (#295)
by kurtmweber on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 09:58:00 PM EST

Murderers are barbarians. They have renounced their humanity--they are sub-human. Allowing them to continue to live, then, amounts to nothing less than an outright sanction of barbarism.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
So.. (2.50 / 2) (#296)
by plexar on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 10:59:28 PM EST

..if we kill those murderers, we turn ourselfs as murderers too. How can we respect the value of life, if we can't give the example of humanity to those killers? What make us diferent from the murderers? Perhaps your post is just a flame-bait.. and i'm idiot enough to respond to it.

[ Parent ]
False (none / 1) (#298)
by kurtmweber on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 01:01:26 AM EST

Murder is killing of a human being. As I already stated, murderers are not human beings. Thus, there is nothing wrong with killing a murderer, just like there is nothing wrong with killing anything else non-human.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Slave of logic. (none / 1) (#300)
by plexar on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 08:27:09 AM EST

...murderers are not human beings. Thus, there is nothing wrong with killing a murderer...

You TAKE their right to live as human beings, as they TOOK the life of their victims. Do you see the flaw on your logic? What kind of morality is that?

Fortunatly, some of our modern societies are ruled by a complex system of laws that prevents ourselfs as being slaves of that kind of simple logic. That way we prevent some of those bad consequences of an "a eye for an eye" law; for example: the inevitability of error and the fallibility of human judgment, the idea of killing people to solve social problems (like violent crime), the cruelty of the execution...


[ Parent ]

I'm not taking his humanity away (none / 1) (#301)
by kurtmweber on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 11:34:06 AM EST

Nor is anyone else but the murderer himself. He relinquished it by choosing to kill a human being. After having committed murder, he is no longer a human being. Period. That's a fact, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
you think like a dictactor (none / 1) (#304)
by tmenezes on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 06:09:39 AM EST

After having committed murder, he is no longer a human being. Period. That's a fact, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Jesus, can you hear yourself talking? Why sould we accept YOUR facts and not the facts from some other guy? One of the things that makes us human beings is reasoning and the capacity to thinking our own opinions.

I say that murders are still human beings and deserve some basic rights. Period. That's a fact, weather you choose to recognize it or not.

Now what?

[ Parent ]
Then you are wrong (none / 1) (#306)
by kurtmweber on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 10:32:50 AM EST

And you are wrong because what you claim as "fact" is not rationally consistent with reality. Want to know why? You said so yourself: "One of the things that makes us human beings is reasoning and the capacity to thinking our own opinions." (n.b., though, that while NOTHING is simply a "matter of opinion"--everything is a question of objective fact--you are entitled to your own opinion as to what is objectively true and what is objectively not true; just realize that if two or more people disagree, at most one can be right).

It is precisely the capability to think rationally and deal with abstract concepts that makes man superior to the lesser animals. Their cognitive capability is limited to recognizing cause and effect after the fact. A murderer has rejected rational thought and abstract reasoning for mere physical brutality--he has rejected the one quality that sets him above all other animals, and thus has rejected his humanity.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Rubbish. (none / 0) (#328)
by unhygeinix on Sat Sep 11, 2004 at 09:28:33 AM EST

In the United States there is a category of crime called murder in the first degree, to convict of this crime a jury must not only be convinced that the accused is the murderer but that he committed his crime with premeditated intention. What is terrible about first degree murder that sets it above and beyond other slayings in the eyes of the law is that the killer makes rational decisions to destroy his intended victim. That is to say, the killer is in full posession of all his higher human faculties of abstract conception and employs them to kill in cold blood. In crimes where the killer can be shown to be not in full control of his faculties the punishments are mitigated appropriatly.

[ Parent ]
Maybe, but.. (2.00 / 2) (#297)
by Sir Joseph Porter KCB on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 12:01:33 AM EST

Not all people convicted in any legal system are guilty for the simple reason that no legal system is perfect. Sometimes juries and judges make mistakes. Sometimes, though hopefully rarely, they're downright malicious. Which begs the question which (for real) was once asked by a U.S. judge (can't for the life of me remember who exactly, sorry) -- "what percentage of executions must, in the end, turn out to be executions of innocent people, in order for the continued application of the death penalty to become immoral?"

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation of democracy, no? A prison inmate can always be released; but good luck getting a wrongfully executed person back to his or her family.
~~~~

Thank you for your time.
[ Parent ]

Principle vs. pragmatic (none / 1) (#299)
by kurtmweber on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 01:02:12 AM EST

Please learn to distinguish between the two. Thanks!

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Um? (1.50 / 2) (#303)
by Sir Joseph Porter KCB on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 12:42:03 AM EST

I am confused by your responce. Are you saying that it's okay to execute innocent people if you do it out of principle rather than for pragmatic reason, or that your post has no bearing on the real world but would make lots of sense in an ideal world where courts would be perfect, or that allowing practical concerns to influence legislation is an evil thing to do?
~~~~

Thank you for your time.
[ Parent ]

Problem with argument... (none / 0) (#315)
by Kuranes on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 08:49:28 AM EST

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation of democracy, no? A prison inmate can always be released; but good luck getting a wrongfully executed person back to his or her family.
The underline of this argument is, basically, that a judge doesn't have symbolic (legal)authority. When a judge speaks a verdict, even if it is incorrect or, even worse, biased, the law itself speaks through him (of course, lawsuits can be brought up again, or the judge's word become invalid if mistakes or the judge's malignant bias are found out.

This is the elemental core of a court: If the court doesn't have this authority, it's a bunch of people discussing events in the past and what if someone might be guilty.


Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
Can't say I agree with you there,,, (none / 1) (#310)
by RegularFry on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 04:15:56 PM EST

For starters, murder does not imply renunciation of humanity. Depending on the context, it can be an *expression* of humanity. And that's before we even get anywhere near deciding who decides what constitutes murder, or even what other crimes ought to be punishable by death.

The death penalty is rather unique in that it is the only penalty that prevents those penalised from learning - surely the point of punishment is to correct later actions? There is the argument that having a death penalty acts as a deterrent to others, thus correcting their actions, but do the statistics bear this out? I've just done the maths over the year-2000 FBI statistics, and I don't think they do. The murders/100,000 average at 5.42 for those states with the death penalty, and 3.02 for those without.

Personally, I lean towards the view that it is the death penalty itself that is barbaric - it reduces the whole society to the level of its lower members, and assumes that whoever has been sentenced to death would otherwise have had no further useful input to society.

And that whole 'eye for an eye' thing is just a little Old Testament for me.

There may be troubles ahead, But while there's moonlight and music...
[ Parent ]

Then you are irrational (none / 0) (#320)
by kurtmweber on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 09:46:23 AM EST

Not to mention mistaken.

First, homicide != murder, and it's insane for you to imply that the two are equivalent. There are plenty of types of homicide that do not constitute murder, and I'm not referring to those--things such as self-defense, etc. Murder is the taking of the life of a human being without just cause--the key phrase being "just cause". Nice strawman, but I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Now, the reason murderers are subhuman is because they reject the very quality that makes one human--the capability for abstract rational thought. No other creature has that capability. Certainly, they can recognize cause-and-effect after the fact--such as an ape playing around with a stick and then realizing he can use it to dig ants out of the ground. But he doesn't think beforehand, "I bet if I use this stick to dig ants out of the ground, things will be much easier for me", nor is he capable of figuring out a way to improve upon his discovery in the future. He's still limited to happening upon a random chance occurrence and drawing the connection after the fact.

Thus, it is his capability for abstract reasoning that sets man apart from every other creature. He does not have sharp teeth or claws, exceptionally quick reflexes, super-fast legs, etc.--the way of brute strength is the way of the lesser animals. The murderer, however, has abandoned abstract reasoning as a means of achieving his goals and has instead accepted the method of brute strength--he has abandoned and rejected THE quality that makes him human. He has degenerated from a man to a barbarian, and he has done so of his own volition--he DESERVES to die. And that is the sole purpose of punishment--giving people what they deserve. Justice is desirable for its own sake.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Fair enough about homicide and murder, (none / 1) (#322)
by RegularFry on Wed Sep 08, 2004 at 06:42:12 AM EST

but who gets to decide what the dividing line is, and what constitutes "just cause"? The difference between two peoples' interpretation is the difference between life and death for whoever gets caught in the middle.

"Just cause" is a wonderfully subjective term - it may be that I would feel justified if it would put a $10 note in my hand so that I could afford my next meal, or if a patient of mine were suffering too much with no realistic chance of recovery, or if I felt I could stop a child from being born that would not have a respectable quality of life. It could be argued that anyone who has made the decision to kill will have done so with their own "just cause" in mind.

But he doesn't think beforehand, "I bet if I use this stick to dig ants out of the ground, things will be much easier for me", nor is he capable of figuring out a way to improve upon his discovery in the future. He's still limited to happening upon a random chance occurrence and drawing the connection after the fact.
How do you know? It's not self-evident in any way. We are far from unique in having a planning capability, as evidenced by various experiments with birds and dolphins that for some reason Google isn't helping me find. The only thing that makes humans unique, for now, is the order of magnitude of the bandwidth of our social networks, and that's got a lot to do with the complexity of our languages and the flexibility of our communication media.

Thus, it is his capability for abstract reasoning that sets man apart from every other creature.
No. Wrong. Humans are self-glorified apes, and vain ones at that.

He does not have sharp teeth or claws, exceptionally quick reflexes, super-fast legs, etc.--the way of brute strength is the way of the lesser animals.
Broadly correct, but overly simplistic. Many animals reason about their environment and exhibit abstract thought patterns along with complex linguistic abilities, giving them a way of existing that does not rely on brute force.

The murderer, however, has abandoned abstract reasoning as a means of achieving his goals and has instead accepted the method of brute strength
Not the case at all. There is no rejection of abstract reasoning necessary to decide that murder is the best plan. Besides which, who said that all our actions had to be the result of abstract reasoning? The world would be a dull place if they were.

--he has abandoned and rejected THE quality that makes him human. A quality that he happens to have, and not one that defines him as human.

He has degenerated from a man to a barbarian, and he has done so of his own volition--he DESERVES to die. That's such a leap of logic that it's difficult to know where to begin. Assuming for a moment that he had "degenerated" somehow from the image of perfect reason that is the average human being, by his own volition (if not by his own reasoning), why should that condemn him to death rather than, for example, a life apart from the remaining perfect beings in the human race? If separating the wheat from the chaff is your goal, that need not imply death for the chaff. Indeed, is it not the fault of the society that produced him for allowing the possibility that he might make that decision?

And that is the sole purpose of punishment--giving people what they deserve. Justice is desirable for its own sake. I strongly disagree. Where is the rationality for society to expend energy punishing someone if there is no benefit to the society in return? Punishment is an educative act, and justice serves to correct and, in extreme cases, to contain. Justice for its own sake, in my opinion, is a waste of time.

Besides all that, there is the simple fact that, until I see some convincing evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that the presence of the death penalty contributes to a lower murder rate. I will admit that it is undoubtedly cheaper than life imprisonment, but that way leads to the argument that any effective punishment is unconstitutional, which I feel is a discussion for another day...

There may be troubles ahead, But while there's moonlight and music...
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#332)
by ogxela on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 06:42:09 PM EST

Are you saying that murderers are no longer Homo Sapiens?  That they are biologically different from non-murderers?  I doubt that's what you mean, so exactly how are you defining "human" here?

[ Parent ]
News from the (water) front (3.00 / 7) (#276)
by chbm on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:20:45 PM EST

Being portuguese and left wing let me give you a bit of insight about some inacuracies of this article.

The referendum isn't being repeated over and over. It was done once and the current right wing christian coalition won't even hear of it.
The build up to the referendum was something of a joke. The assembly voted and passed a law dicriminalizing abortion. Immediatly after it voted and passed a decree saying a referendum would take place and thus utterly declaring the assembly's incompetence to legislate.
The referendum itself was a joke with something around 30% turnout ("more than 50% of voters" :)). The campaign was dominated by christian demonstrations featuring preppy christian mothers and christian preppy kids in "pro-life" demonstrations. The question was: [my translation] "Do you agre with the decriminalization of voluntary pregnancy interruption, if done, by woman's choice, in the first 10 weeks, in an acredited health care institution ?".
I believe not all 30% of voters could parse and compreend the sentence given our literacy level.

The Women on Waves situation itself is being a parody. The current government is a center-right/christan-right coalition and pretty much freaked out about it. At some point there were 6 ministers, 2 war ships and a navy chopper tracking the boat (information collected from local newspapers). The govt response was ridiculed and the President asked why the navy was involved in the position of commander in chief of the joint armed forces. The Defence Minister (who ordered the navy to block the ship) is part of the christian right party.
The official govt position as expressed by the prime minister is in the lines of, we encourage debate but the law won't be changed.
The official reasons for the navy involvement is this as become a national security matter (which was ridiculed as well in some sectors).

Meanwhile, people who can afford it drive daily to spanish clinics to perform national security threatning illegal abortions. The army barricade at the border is expected shortly (<- sarcasm).

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --

law may be changed (2.00 / 2) (#285)
by tmenezes on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 07:34:57 AM EST

I'm also portuguese and agree with everything you write except that "the official government position is that the law won't be changed".

Actually and quite to the contrary, government parties state that the law will be revised in 2006. You may not belive that and it's fine, but it's not the official position of the government.

[ Parent ]

right! (none / 1) (#293)
by chbm on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 08:26:06 PM EST

I meant, it's not going to change based on the current debate now and won't change until 2006. Actually, what they say is it won't change till after the next elections so what the current govt means is "we're not going to change it" :)
I was stressing the statments that boil down to "we're open to debate as long as nothing comes from it".

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
[ Parent ]
There's a plus in the 2006 deadline. (none / 0) (#327)
by Vesperto on Thu Sep 09, 2004 at 09:30:13 PM EST

Maybe by then we'll have proper sex-Ed in place and condoms will be more than funny sccessories for preppy girls' slumber-parties. Maybe after that the number of HIV-infected people will start decreasing... sigh
_____________________________
If you disagree post, don't moderate.
Not a Premium User.
[ Parent ]
morning-after pill (none / 0) (#330)
by JudicatorX on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 03:44:32 PM EST

abortion is legal in Portugal if the pregnancy resulted from a rape, if it endangers the mother's life, or if the fetus is severely malformed; the morning-after pill is also legal).

So exactly how in each of these three scenarios is the morning-after pill useful?
------------------- http://walkingshadow.redirectme.net

re: morning-after pill (none / 0) (#331)
by ogxela on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 06:37:25 PM EST

The way I read that sentence was that abortions in such-and-such circumstances are legal, and that the morning-after pill is also legal, and what they have in common is that they're both legal in Portugal.

[ Parent ]
Yep... (none / 0) (#335)
by Anonymous Brave on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 09:22:26 AM EST

You're right, ogxela...

[ Parent ]
Women on Waves | 335 comments (293 topical, 42 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!