WTF? (political)

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think, if things like "coccaine" are any example, then making things illegal does work wonders for decreasing the number of cases in which a thing happens. I believe the strong affirmation to things like marijuana or abortion issues where one says "it won't make it less, it'll just make it more dangerous back-alley situations" isn't entirely accurate.

This isn't to say we don't have a coccaine problem in the US, but its a far cry from the time it was legal.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

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.

...how does showing that have relavance to the idea that people ought not use abortion as birth control (something I can agree that people ought not do)?

 

[Weird Harold]

This isn't to say we don't have a coccaine problem in the US, but its a far cry from the time it was legal.

I agree. The drug trade is MUCH different now than when cocaine, marijuana and most other drugs were legal -- Just as the Alcohol trade was much different during Prohibition.

The problem isn't the cocaine users, it's the cocaine dealers and the drive-by shootings and gang warfare they engage in.

Why just imagine how terrible it must hve been when you could feed a cocaine addiction AND your family without robbing a convenience store.

 

[minsue]

...how does showing that have relavance to the idea that people ought not use abortion as birth control (something I can agree that people ought not do)?

Your implication in stating that you feel abortion should not be used as birth control is that those who have abortions are using it as the sole method of birth control. Even more so for msboy who states that protection should be used instead.

Abortion is extraordinarily painful, both physically and for many phychologically. Very few women use it as their method of birth control, guys. Statements like yours pass judgement on any and all who have had an abortion by implying that all of these women were too irresponsible to keep from becoming pregnant in the first place.

Tell me, is that how you truly feel or do you simply not realize how you come across?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Your implication in stating that you feel abortion should not be used as birth control is that those who have abortions are using it as the sole method of birth control. Even more so for msboy who states that protection should be used instead.

My implication was that I feel that abortion ought not be used as birth control--very literal, don't read more into it. I don't think we can deny that more effective use or prominant use of birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Speaking from my own family, all those abortions that have happened were accidents of simply having sex.

Abortion is extraordinarily painful, both physically and for many phychologically. Very few women use it as their method of birth control, guys. Statements like yours pass judgement on any and all who have had an abortion by implying that all of these women were too irresponsible to keep from becoming pregnant in the first place.

I don't know that very few or very many women use it as a method of birth control... I think statements like that (those affirming vague notions of "few" and "many) are troublesome. I think the problem isn't that people believe very "few" or "many" do or don't, but that we simply don't know how many do or don't.

Tell me, is that how you truly feel or do you simply not realize how you come across?

I think things would go smoother if you took me much more literally.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

...how does showing that have relavance to the idea that people ought not use abortion as birth control (something I can agree that people ought not do)?

It has relevance, because that's what his statement implies. Go back and reread it. It states, that rather than abortion, people should use protection. That statement is echoed in another post, by the same poster, in another thread.

If you are going to defend someone's statement, you would be well advised to examine that statement closely, before you do.

I will quote again for you:

If people won't use protection, they shouldn't use Abortion as a form of Birth Control, IMHO.

If his quote, were simply people shouldn't use abortion as a form of birth control, I would not have reacted so strongly. The declarative before the statement, however, redefines the scope of that statement.

So again, did I miss 100% effective birth control? Or are you about to enter into another one of your long, pointless arguments about definitions of words. I will save you the trouble and admit the possibility exits everyone does use abortion for birth control who seeks one, so as to not offend your sensibilites and open another avenue of you rambling on as the last time we had a confrontation.

 

[minsue]

My implication was that I feel that abortion ought not be used as birth control--very literal, don't read more into it. I don't think we can deny that more effective use or prominant use of birth control would reduce the number of abortions. Speaking from my own family, all those abortions that have happened were accidents of simply having sex.

Other than rape, aren't all unplanned pregnancies accidents of simply having sex?

I don't know that very few or very many women use it as a method of birth control... I think statements like that (those affirming vague notions of "few" and "many) are troublesome. I think the problem isn't that people believe very "few" or "many" do or don't, but that we simply don't know how many do or don't.

Point taken. Logically, I suppose I have trouble picturing women choosing it as their method of birth control simply because of the pain. It fuckin hurts, Joe.

I think things would go smoother if you took me much more literally.

I do, actually. You are one of the few people I know that I always take literally. It does make life easier, I must say.

Let me be literal - Is there another reason for stating that abortion should not be used as birth control other than as an implication that it is used as the sole method of birth control?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It has relevance, because that's what his statement implies. Go back and reread it. It states, that rather than abortion, people should use protection. That statement is echoed in another post, by the same poster, in another thread.

If you are going to defend someone's statement, you would be well advised to examine that statement closely, before you do.

I will quote again for you:

If people won't use protection, they shouldn't use Abortion as a form of Birth Control, IMHO.

If his quote, were simply people shouldn't use abortion as a form of birth control, I would not have reacted so strongly. The declarative before the statement, however, redefines the scope of that statement.

So again, did I miss 100% effective birth control? Or are you about to enter into another one of your long, pointless arguments about definitions of words. I will save you the trouble and admit the possibility exits everyone does use abortion for birth control who seeks one, so as to not offend your sensibilites and open another avenue of you rambling on as the last time we had a confrontation.

Neither....

Going on what he said (and I'm hardly defending his point's hypothetical implications... rather agreeing with his literal statement), how is it a bad thing that people ought not use abortion as a method of birth control. I'm sure we can draw up what he meant and what he means and what he might have been saying... but I don't think he deserves insults to his intelligence because of a point that, quite literally, isn't so bad or so strong as to mean anything innovative or really offensive.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Neither....

Going on what he said (and I'm hardly defending his point's hypothetical implications... rather agreeing with his literal statement), how is it a bad thing that people ought not use abortion as a method of birth control. I'm sure we can draw up what he meant and what he means and what he might have been saying... but I don't think he deserves insults to his intelligence because of a point that, quite literally, isn't so bad or so strong as to mean anything innovative or really offensive.

Right. The statement that people who get abortions should use contraceptive measures instead isn't offensive to you. That dosen't surprise me. I forget I am dealing with someone who postulates that George Bush may be leading us to perfection, and when pressed to cite an example falls back on the word possible as literally true, thus making his staement literally true.

One wonders why I even bother. In particular, I wonder why I even bother.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

One wonders why I even bother. In particular, I wonder why I even bother.

I don't know.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Other than rape, aren't all unplanned pregnancies accidents of simply having sex?

I think I meant more "they were having consensual sex and accidentally ended up pregnant and got an abortion to correct the problem".

Point taken. Logically, I suppose I have trouble picturing women choosing it as their method of birth control simply because of the pain. It fuckin hurts, Joe.

I suppose sometimes it does. Sometimes, though, as I understand it, its nothing more than mild discomfort or (with pills or injections) not even that.

I do, actually. You are one of the few people I know that I always take literally. It does make life easier, I must say.

Let me be literal - Is there another reason for stating that abortion should not be used as birth control other than as an implication that it is used as the sole method of birth control?

Yes. That it is used as an option for birth control.

 

[minsue]

*sigh*

We're just repeating ourselves and saying the exact same things, but it appears to have different meanings for each of us.

I think I meant more "they were having consensual sex and accidentally ended up pregnant and got an abortion to correct the problem".

That's exactly whay I meant, Joe. I don't really see how any other meaning could be derived.

I suppose sometimes it does. Sometimes, though, as I understand it, its nothing more than mild discomfort or (with pills or injections) not even that.

An injection of anesthetic directly into the cervix, even after taking multiple pills an hour beforehand to deaden the pain, is not a mild discomfort. While I'm sure there are other doctors that do things differently, I've yet to meet anyone who claims to have only been mildly uncomfortable.

Yes. That it is used as an option for birth control.

It's like banging your head against a wall, ain't it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Was looking at the news over on the stories page. This was on there.

My mood is now swinging back and forth between , and .

Jesus, can't these effen do-gooders mind their own business for once?

Why are you referring to this asshole as a do-gooder?

 

[angelicminx]

Wow! I go away for a few hours and this thread becomes a debate on the morality of abortion...

What I would like to know is how you feel about the government's right to delve into private records, private lives, because a crime "might" have been committed...

 

[Weird Harold]

What I would like to know is how you feel about the government's right to delve into private records, private lives, because a crime "might" have been committed...

The "Right To Privacy," AKA the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, should not a protection from investigation of a crime.

Note, that's a specific crime, not a blanket search for crimes that may, or may not, have been commited.

Sometimes, it's difficult to distinguish between a specific suspected crime and a crime that may, or may, not have been commited.

In this case, the supoena seems to be based on an assumption that a group of doctors are falsifying their reports to hide criminal behavior -- in essence, the AG is demanding an audit of medical cases by non-medical personnel in the "hope" there is something criminal to find.

However, the records requested and the stated justifiction for requesting them just don't match. There is no probable cause to believe that a crime HAS been commited, only the possible opportunity to uncover a variety of crimes that might have been commited.

There are times when the government has the right, and the duty, to issue warrant to invde the privvacy of a person's medical records to seek and gain custody of evidence related to a specifc criminal charge. That does NOT seem to be the case in this instance.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Wow! I go away for a few hours and this thread becomes a debate on the morality of abortion...

What I would like to know is how you feel about the government's right to delve into private records, private lives, because a crime "might" have been committed...

I am all for the right of government to compromise the privacy of someone in the case of a criminal investigation.

However, I am also violently opposed to the government not having to follow the proceedures laid down by law.

In this case, The Ag should be required to present probable cause, for the specific crime he is investigating. the people, who are having their records demanded should be informed, so they can confront him in a court oflaw and make him present cause, and prove he has a legitimate need to see their records.

Govenrment should not be prohibited from seizing records neccessary for a criminal investigation. On the other hand, the rules and proceedures they must adhere to in doing so are laid down to protect all individuals from having their privacy violated. In this case, he is trying to circumvent the applicable laws and proceedures. In effect, rewriting the law to suit his wants.

This should be fought by the clinics. The odds are good they will loose at the state level, perhaps even the State Supreme court level. the odds favor it being struk down by the federal courts however, as the Feds generally are more concerned with proccedural legality then results and while not immune, are usually less swayed by public opinion.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yes. That it is used as an option for birth control.

Well, obviously. I mean, it isn't a diet plan, is it?

The question is whether it's a first or last option, and the relative morality of either. So hiding behind the obvious literal interpretation is just retreating to a statement as banal as "walking involves placing one foot in front of the other". We all know how to use a dictionary, Joe.

What the others are saying is that statements like Boy's (and your poorly-defended concurrance with it) implies that a substantial number of women (enough to warrant a blanket moral judgement) use abortion as their birth-control method of choice, in a morally cavalier manner. Which, when you consider the relative costs (monetary and otherwise), the relative difficulty of procurement, the psychological unknowns involved... it's a pretty stupid fucking argument to try and make, not to mention insulting to a whole gender that lives with certain biological realities of which men, by definition, have no experience.

If Boy had said, "Black men shouldn't have sex with white women because their dicks are too big.", would you agree that he had a point, and then defend your position by saying "Some black men have big dicks."? That, in essence, is what you're saying in this thread. Literally.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, obviously. I mean, it isn't a diet plan, is it?

The question is whether it's a first or last option, and the relative morality of either. So hiding behind the obvious literal interpretation is just retreating to a statement as banal as "walking involves placing one foot in front of the other". We all know how to use a dictionary, Joe.

What the others are saying is that statements like Boy's (and your poorly-defended concurrance with it) implies that a substantial number of women (enough to warrant a blanket moral judgement) use abortion as their birth-control method of choice, in a morally cavalier manner. Which, when you consider the relative costs (monetary and otherwise), the relative difficulty of procurement, the psychological unknowns involved... it's a pretty stupid fucking argument to try and make, not to mention insulting to a whole gender that lives with certain biological realities of which men, by definition, have no experience.

If Boy had said, "Black men shouldn't have sex with white women because their dicks are too big.", would you agree that he had a point, and then defend your position by saying "Some black men have big dicks."? That, in essence, is what you're saying in this thread. Literally.

Actually, what I'm saying in this thread is that the assertion may have had no greater conversational implicature than "If you're not going to keep your eyes on the odometer, you shouldn't complain about the ticket"--which isn't to say that every ticket is the result of not paying attention or that not paying attention always leads to a ticket, but in the instance that one isn't paying attention and one gets a ticket, that one shouldn't complain.

If you're not going to use birth control, you shouldn't use abortion in it's place can, may, might, and I think (short of him explaining his assertion himself) does carry very little conversational implicature in the direction of "this is him making a statement of moral absolution across the board of all pregnant women, women as a gender, and all abortions that have ever been done under all reasons".

I think that is a greater leap than the literal meaning of something in his humble opinion.

But, your point was what?

 

[angelicminx]

And they are off and running again...LOL! Boys? Have you bothered to answer the question raised by the thread? No, it wasn't an abortion issue!

 

[Boxlicker101]

And they are off and running again...LOL! Boys? Have you bothered to answer the question raised by the thread? No, it wasn't an abortion issue!

Yes, Minx, I must say that comments have strayed far from the original subject, which was privacy of medical records.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well, apart from the fact that speeding is illegal and a ticket is punishment, and I think you must have meant speedometer, not odometer, so I'm going to have to break your rule of reading your posts literally....
I think what you're trying to express with that analogy is the point of view that if someone does something out of willful ignorance, that they should live with the consequences, whatever they may be, and however that affects others around them. Even putting aside the oxymoronic debate over "willful ignorance", that's pretty harsh judgement. Especially when the foolish act in question requires two people to be ignorant, and the consequences fall inequitably to one of them alone. If I was one of those to whom the consequences fall inequitably, it'd be one of my hot buttons, for sure.

Maybe reaction to Boy's post was a bit hair-triggered. Still, the attitude it betrayed was insensitive, at best, and showed little understanding of the realities surrounding the issue for women. I mean, what was he (and you) trying to say? "I'm against the anti-abortion forces, except when you're talking about libertine women, for whom having a child should be their punishment for having unprotected sex."?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, apart from the fact that speeding is illegal and a ticket is punishment, and I think you must have meant speedometer, not odometer, so I'm going to have to break your rule of reading your posts literally....

I meant "speedometer", yes. Ooooooooooh. My points still ought be taken literally, despite an instance of referring to the wrong part of a dashboard. There really isn't a need to scrap the point, as is.

I think what you're trying to express with that analogy is the point of view that if someone does something out of willful ignorance, that they should live with the consequences, whatever they may be, and however that affects others around them. Even putting aside the oxymoronic debate over "willful ignorance", that's pretty harsh judgement. Especially when the foolish act in question requires two people to be ignorant, and the consequences fall inequitably to one of them alone. If I was one of those to whom the consequences fall inequitably, it'd be one of my hot buttons, for sure.

The point I was trying to make is much, much simpler. That the "ought not" is as deep and meaningful as "ought not".

Maybe reaction to Boy's post was a bit hair-triggered. Still, the attitude it betrayed was insensitive, at best, and showed little understanding of the realities surrounding the issue for women.

Hair-triggered is a good way to put it, yes.

The attitude it "betrayed" was entirely invented by people not him. I think it most cautious and polite to not assume attitude of the statement, as the statement didn't seem to have any more attitude than "I think X, IMHO".

I mean, what was he (and you) trying to say? "I'm against the anti-abortion forces, except when you're talking about libertine women, for whom having a child should be their punishment for having unprotected sex."?

"What was he trying to say?" is a good question, probably the first one that should have been asked--rather than berating his intelligence off the bat. "I'm against anti-abortion forces, except when you're talking about libertine women, for whom having a child should be their punishment for having unprotected sex" is a strange answer that seems to extrapolate quite a bit from very few words.

 

[minsue]

People should speak to what they truly feel rather than hide behind semantics, especially if they care to be taken seriously, IMO.

 

[cloudy]

People should speak to what they truly feel rather than hide behind semantics, especially if they care to be taken seriously, IMO.

. .

 

[Huckleman2000]

I meant "speedometer", yes. Ooooooooooh. My points still ought be taken literally, despite an instance of referring to the wrong part of a dashboard. There really isn't a need to scrap the point, as is.

Well, except that you seem to be making the point that having sex without birth control is analogous to speeding, which is unlawful, and that an unwanted pregnancy is like getting a fine, which is the penalty for breaking the law.

The point I was trying to make is much, much simpler. That the "ought not" is as deep and meaningful as "ought not".

But your point is not "ought not" - it's "ought not, because". Because they could get fined. Because cocaine is illegal. Because there is a moral judgement to be made about sex without birth control. You yourself acknowleged that there was moral grey area in this (in an earlier post), yet when challenged on the basis of your moral stand, you retreat to "literal" meanings.

The attitude it "betrayed" was entirely invented by people not him. I think it most cautious and polite to not assume attitude of the statement, as the statement didn't seem to have any more attitude than "I think X, IMHO".

Are you really trying to argue that writers' words convey none of the bias and attitude of the author? I'm a research analyst, and that's a good part of my job - to convey information and recommendations without bias - and writing that way is no small feat. Not for me, anyway, and I earn a decent living at it, so it can't be all that simple.

"What was he trying to say?" is a good question, probably the first one that should have been asked--rather than berating his intelligence off the bat. "I'm against anti-abortion forces, except when you're talking about libertine women, for whom having a child should be their punishment for having unprotected sex" is a strange answer that seems to extrapolate quite a bit from very few words.

It's not as strange as you imply. Short of instances to save the life of the mother, all abortion is primarily birth control, by definition (to speak in logical terms). Saying that this particular form of birth control is more acceptable in one instance than another is making a moral judgement, whether or not it's stated that way explicitly. Your own legalistic analogy, while not explicitly saying "an unplanned pregnancy is the punishment for not using birth control", certainly gestured in that direction. And that gesture places the consequences (or punishment) squarely on one gender more than the other. Not your own, either (judging from your representation).

And when called on the logical extrapolations of your statements (or those you're defending), you must show how the extrapolations are inaccurate, not simply point out that they are extrapolations. You may want to say that Boy's words are his own..., but you also voiced agreement with them, so you must have some interpretation of them.

Maybe people shouldn't have sex without considering the possibilities of pregnancy. Apart from sterilization, that rules out pretty much everything, if you're a woman. If you're a man, you can fool yourself, but the consequences don't fall directly to you in any case. Is every intimate sexual act that you've performed an affirmation of your desire to have a baby with that woman? If women really held you to that standard, would you ever get laid?

Abortion is the acknowledgement of failure, at one level or another. Sometimes, that failure is indicative of unlawful conduct. However, fishing in the pool of those who have had abortions to find those who have broken the law does not seem to be a very productive use of time for an AG, unless the AG is trying to make some sort of a point. So, if you're not trying to defend that point, and you don't want to start an argument, then the logical thing to do is to leave it alone.