WTF? (political)

[msboy8]

Time to throw my hat in...

I don't agree with what the AG is doing, but I also don't feel the Right to Life campaign is a war against women. If people won't use protection, they shouldn't use Abortion as a form of Birth Control, IMHO.

 

[minsue]

Time to throw my hat in...

I don't agree with what the AG is doing, but I also don't feel the Right to Life campaign is a war against women. If people won't use protection, they shouldn't use Abortion as a form of Birth Control, IMHO.

And if people (read: women, seeing as men can't get pregnant) use protection and become pregnant despite that?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Time to throw my hat in...

I don't agree with what the AG is doing, but I also don't feel the Right to Life campaign is a war against women. If people won't use protection, they shouldn't use Abortion as a form of Birth Control, IMHO.

Take you rhat back, apparently you threw your brain in with it.

 

[msboy8]

Take you rhat back, apparently you threw your brain in with it.

No need to get mean or so upset that you can't type. We all have our opinions, what makes us civilized is that we can agree to disagree.

 

[minsue]

No need to get mean or so upset that you can't type. We all have our opinions, what makes us civilized is that we can agree to disagree.

Not all typos are due to emotion, Boy. Especially where the lovely Miss Colly is concerned. If you find any from me in response to posts like your last, though, they prolly will be. Ignorance tends to undo me when coupled with righteousness.

 

[msboy8]

Not all typos are due to emotion, Boy. Especially where the lovely Miss Colly is concerned. If you find any from me in response to posts like your last, though, they prolly will be. Ignorance tends to undo me when coupled with righteousness.

I can see where I'm not wanted, I'll leave now. Thanks for being so understanding. Bye

 

[cloudy]

No need to get mean or so upset that you can't type. We all have our opinions, what makes us civilized is that we can agree to disagree.

And no reason for you to be rude to someone you don't even know. I know your mother had to teach you better than that.

You'll find few here that agree with you on your stance on abortion. If it's not a war against women, then what, exactly, is it? Please explain for us non-Jesus types.

 

[minsue]

I can see where I'm not wanted, I'll leave now. Thanks for being so understanding. Bye

Understanding is a two way street.

 

[Huckleman2000]

before this gets into a holy war about abortion...

I think we should all try to stick to the issue at hand - the (heavy-handed, IMO) legal tactics of the Kansas AG in trying to enforce and push the limits of the laws of his state.

Of course, there are broader issues raised by this action, but I think we can all agree that fewer abortions is better than more, and that child sexual abuse should be prevented and stopped when possible. Raising these sorts of straw men issues does nothing to advance either "side" of an argument, and merely insults the people arguing an alternate point of view.

 

[angelicminx]

I think we should all try to stick to the issue at hand - the (heavy-handed, IMO) legal tactics of the Kansas AG in trying to enforce and push the limits of the laws of his state.

Of course, there are broader issues raised by this action, but I think we can all agree that fewer abortions is better than more, and that child sexual abuse should be prevented and stopped when possible. Raising these sorts of straw men issues does nothing to advance either "side" of an argument, and merely insults the people arguing an alternate point of view.

Hear Hear!

I'm pro-choice. I believe that women should be given all options, and be able to make an informed decision. I won't get rolling on this issue however. I do have strong opinions on it.

Our children need to be protected... I would love to see the ones abusing the innocent castrated.

I don't think the government has the right to step in and tell our children when they are old enough to consent. It's a parent's job to raise them, informing them about the risks and consequences of every action.

Abortion is humiliating enough without the thought that the government can step in at any time and learn private details of your life.

What is next I wonder... when does it stop?

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Hear Hear!

I'm pro-choice. I believe that women should be given all options, and be able to make an informed decision. I won't get rolling on this issue however. I do have strong opinions on it.

Our children need to be protected... I would love to see the ones abusing the innocent castrated.

I don't think the government has the right to step in and tell our children when they are old enough to consent. It's a parent's job to raise them, informing them about the risks and consequences of every action.

Abortion is humiliating enough without the thought that the government can step in at any time and learn private details of your life.

What is next I wonder... when does it stop?

Pro-choice is exactly how it should be. Like you, I won't get into that rant.

About your question of what's next and when does it stop? For as long as the Bible-thumpers are allowed to keep controlling the thoughts of their lemmings, and continue to stifle or discourage freedom of thought, speech and expression, these things will continue to get worse for those of us who don't subscribe to their practices.

They're not right. They're just powerful enough to make a lot of people think that they're right.

And that's not my humble opinion. That's what history has shown these people to be; controllers and manipulators.

 

[rgraham666]

Angelic, I share your distaste of and hatred for child abusers.

I would rather that we catch them before they do any harm, and treat them.I believe it would be better if we treated them as victims of illness, not as completely evil. We wouldn't dream of cutting out the lungs of a TB carrier. I doubt we would sterilise an AIDS victim, if they didn't spread the disease willing

If necessary, lock the pedophiles up.

But if we castrate them, what are we going to do if we find out we've made a mistake, give them their balls back? And we're also assuming that the perps will always be male. Would you agree to hysterectomies of female pedophiles?

And I can see where castration of pedophiles would end up being used for political purposes the same as abortion. It's an extreme measure that makes for extreme emotions. Dispensing justice isn't helped by extreme emotions.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's nice that we were all able to discuss divergent points of view in a civil and thoughtful fashion.

 

[DrFreud]

Our children need to be protected... I would love to see the ones abusing the innocent castrated.

Yes I can see how that would give the children their innocence back

I don't think the government has the right to step in and tell our children when they are old enough to consent. It's a parent's job to raise them, informing them about the risks and consequences of every action.

How about orphans or kids with worthless parents? Who will protect them?

Not trying to play devil's advocate but a passionate stance on a issue is DIFFERENT than argumentation. I think we should all promote the latter.

DrF

 

[angelicminx]

It's nice that we were all able to discuss divergent points of view in a civil and thoughtful fashion.

I think it is truly wonderful Shanglan. I have a tendency to piss people off, lol.


Isn't that the bitch of it rg? That our justice system is so flawed that there are doubts of guilt left behind. I speak of castrating the confirmed pedophiles. The ones that leave no doubt as to their guilt. As to women, hell I don't know. I don't profess to know how to fix the problem. I just know what I would like to see happen, as a victim of sexual child abuse myself.

I will do my best not to voice my opinion further on the ins and outs of punishment. I really do tend to piss people off. But I will say that this country is on the slippery slope to hell when we allow the government as much power as it has.

 

[angelicminx]

Yes I can see how that would give the children their innocence back

Once the deed is done, do we show them they don't matter? Pedophiles are released all the time and many choose other victims. What then?

How about orphans or kids with worthless parents? Who will protect them?

Not trying to play devil's advocate but a passionate stance on a issue is DIFFERENT than argumentation. I think we should all promote the latter.

DrF

In an ideal society those unfortunate children would have an adult they can trust to help guide the way. We don't live in an ideal society, but does that mean that government officials should be allowed to choose for children they don't know?

 

[DrFreud]

Once the deed is done, do we show them they don't matter? Pedophiles are released all the time and many choose other victims. What then?

Justice is no the same thing as vengeance.

In an ideal society those unfortunate children would have an adult they can trust to help guide the way. We don't live in an ideal society, but does that mean that government officials should be allowed to choose for children they don't know?

I don't get you minx. On one hand you're outraged when the government steps in to put a legal age for consentual sex, on the other hand you don't mind the government instituting harsh punishments like castration. For some reason these 2 and your alledgedly pro-choice stance don't seem to mesh. at least not to me...

To me if you're truly averse to government intervention, you should be against things like castration, capital punishment etc... Even if someone is a criminal, neither you or anyone else should make the decision to cut off his head or his dick. It is also well known that these type of punishments do not deter other crimininals so if the only point is to punish that single criminal why not lock him out for a really long time...

DrF

 

[oggbashan]

One of the recent newspaper reports over here covered the number of lawyers in the US compared with those in the UK.

It appears from our perspective that your lawyers invent work for themselves.

Not for nothing is a frequent cry of revolutionaries 'Hang the lawyers'.

The US is divided on many issues and abortion is one of the most inflammatory subjects. I don't think it is possible to devise a solution that will please the extremes on both sides. This reported action seems designed to raise the temperature and force a decision one way or the other. That is asking for acrimony. I think the DA should be impeached for inciting public disorder.

Og

 

[angelicminx]

Justice is no the same thing as vengeance.




I don't get you minx. On one hand you're outraged when the government steps in to put a legal age for consentual sex, on the other hand you don't mind the government instituting harsh punishments like castration. For some reason these 2 and your alledgedly pro-choice stance don't seem to mesh. at least not to me...

To me if you're truly averse to government intervention, you should be against things like castration, capital punishment etc... Even if someone is a criminal, neither you or anyone else should make the decision to cut off his head or his dick. It is also well known that these type of punishments do not deter other crimininals so if the only point is to punish that single criminal why not lock him out for a really long time...

DrF

I make sense to few people DrF. I am adverse to government intervention into private affairs and choices made. When those choices are forced on others someone should step in. I don't have a problem with criminals being locked away for a long long time, forever if need be, but who pays for it? Is there a guarantee that they will be rehabilitated? I don't have the answers, I wish that I did. All I have are my views.

As to deterring other criminals... what do we show them that would prevent them? A lax punishment system. The standing joke around my circle of friends is if you are going to commit murder, make sure they die. You get less time than if it's just a botched attempt. Before you read into that statement that I would kill someone, DON'T. That is the furthest thing from my mind.

Thank you for a stimulating discussion DrF. I will return later to continue it if so desired.

 

[Op_Cit]

One of the recent newspaper reports over here covered the number of lawyers in the US compared with those in the UK.

It appears from our perspective that your lawyers invent work for themselves.

Not for nothing is a frequent cry of revolutionaries 'Hang the lawyers'.
Og

Wasn't Shakespeare one of the first to voice that opinion? or did you mean "revolutionaries" in general and not in an american context?

The disturbing thing about this thread is that it seems that few see abuse of individual rights as a bad thing. That is:

Reading between the lines, many who see this incident as bad because it's the actions of a pro-lifer sound like they would be OK with it in another context (looking for a serial rapist or other such misogynist field, or perhaps looking for terrorists).

Both liberal and conservative AGs at every level of government (severely) abuse their powers on a daily basis. The only time it gets mentioned and read by more than a tiny few is when inflammatory issues such as this are involved.

I know (personally) truly good people whose lives have been destroyed (seriously, lost fortunes, families, living homeless, etc.) by the abuse of their rights by the "authorities". Yet for most people it is OK, or just "the price".

Like Shirley Jackson's "Lottery", the majority these days think punishing one or two innocent is OK as long as we get the ten bad guys. If the court finds them guilty then they actually in fact did the crime, right? As long as your name doesn't come up, what do you care? Why should you, isn't your life pretty good?

 

[DrFreud]

I make sense to few people DrF. I am adverse to government intervention into private affairs and choices made. When those choices are forced on others someone should step in. I don't have a problem with criminals being locked away for a long long time, forever if need be, but who pays for it? Is there a guarantee that they will be rehabilitated? I don't have the answers, I wish that I did. All I have are my views.

As to deterring other criminals... what do we show them that would prevent them? A lax punishment system. The standing joke around my circle of friends is if you are going to commit murder, make sure they die. You get less time than if it's just a botched attempt. Before you read into that statement that I would kill someone, DON'T. That is the furthest thing from my mind.

Thank you for a stimulating discussion DrF. I will return later to continue it if so desired.

Yes it was stimulating discussion. I was just trying to caution you about the fact that feeling strongly about a subject is no the same as backing it up with strong arguments.

Catch you on another thread

DrF

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think msboy had a decent point. I don't think Right to Life is a war against women, either. Strikes me that claiming most political agendas as "wars against [someone]" is effective for demonizing the thing, but isn't necessarily representative of the agenda itself. The ACLU isn't a "war against the government", Greenpeace isn't a "war against business". I think Right to Life is most likely what they claim to be, which is little more than an organized advocacy and lobbying group about how abortion is a moral wrong.

Of course, whether it is or isn't, I couldn't say. I think it most accurate and fair to admit that abortion is a very grey area of ethics... what category it's supposed to fall under is highly, highly inconclusive. May be murder, may just be purgation.

I don't see why we have to belittle him for a pretty non-confrontational belief that's hardly "wrong" or "damaging", by itself.

I think people are getting unwarrantedly defensive.

 

[fifty5]

Actually, the investigator stated that all records came to him with names redacted.

Shanglan

Redacted in what way? "Redaction" is "editing for publication" (see Concise Oxford Dictionary), not, as such, removal.

The kind of reporting this sicko (Kline, not BS) wants, just like the illegalisation of abortion (and the death penalty for sheep stealing) doesn't reduce the number of transgressions, it just drives them underground and causes further harm.

I was going to add "IMHO", but that isn't just my opinion, it has been proved by objective study!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't agree with what the AG is doing, but I also don't feel the Right to Life campaign is a war against women. If people won't use protection, they shouldn't use Abortion as a form of Birth Control, IMHO.

Lets see:

Perfect use effectiveness. Among people who use condoms consistently and correctly, pregnancy rates are fairly low—about 3 pregnancies per 100 women in the first year of use.

Note that is perfect effectiveness, I.e. the effectiveness given if no mistakes are made in use and only failures of the condom are considered.

And

FDA Approval Date: First in 1960; most recent in 2003
Description: A pill that suppresses ovulation by the combined actions of the hormones estrogen and progestin. A chewable form was approved in November 2003.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Some Risks: Dizziness; nausea; changes in menstruation, mood, and weight; rarely, cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and strokes
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Must be taken on daily schedule, regardless of frequency of intercourse. Women using the chewable tablet must drink 8 oz. of liquid immediately after taking.
Availability: Prescription

One to two for the pill. 3 to 18 for the condom (the high number representing the FDA's failure rate, when judged through trials rather than perfect usage).

The intimation, that abortions are only sought by people who don't practice safe sex, is patently rediculous. It is, an ugly, sterotype, perpetuated by people with a lack of intelligence or an angenda. An agenda I find repulsive in the extreme as well as anti-intellectual.

I can argue civily with someone who is pro-life, I have many times. I will loose my temper when someone is spewing crap, crap they cannot support, and do not support, under the guise of everyone being allowed to have an opinion. Everyone is, but if you voice your opinion, you have to expect rebuttal. And if your opinion, is so much horse dung, you should expect a response that shows a lack of respect for you intellectual capacity.

I am quite prepared to admit I am wrong when I am. So if Msboy or Joe would like to show me where 100% effective contraception has been invented and approved for use in this country, I will galdy apologize for my ignorance. If not, with a failure rate of even 1 or 2 per hundred per year, considering how many people are actually hetero, of child bearing age, and blooking, it would seem an absolute lock that many who seek abortions were using contraception and just happened to fall outside of the statistical norm.

 

[fifty5]

... with a failure rate of even 1 or 2 per hundred per year, considering how many people are actually hetero, of child bearing age, and blooking, it would seem an absolute lock that many who seek abortions were using contraception and just happened to fall out of the statistical norm.

Right on, Colly!

What many news clips fail to cover is the individual special circumstances of each case. In this case, what they (the articles cited in this thread) also haven't actually done is to say whether Kline's subpoena asked for records for specific individuals, or for all records that meet given criteria (age and period of gestation). The implication is that it's the latter, but there ain't any explicit statement to that effect.

For lack of detailed information, all I can say on my own behalf is that the media are being sensationalist; and that Kline appears to be going well beyond reasonable respect for individual privacy. The only party/parties in whow I have any confidence are the medical practitioners (the patients not having any stated opinions at all). Human fallibility admitted, at least the doctors deal with individuals as individuals, not merely as statistical groups.

In so far as any outsider can make any judgement, I'd back those doctors against both the media and Kline.