Only in Arkansas is it a swipe against god to be gay. But banging your underage cousin or letting kids suffer in state care rather than find a loving home is A OK!

California, Arizona, and Florida can kiss my Nebraska.

Colorado and Washington are giving me hope for this country. Just like the election.

~Tobe

Ain't that some bullsnot? Take one step forward, and a huge chunk of the country, at the same time and on the same freakin' ballot, take a huge step backward.

Nebraska voted yesterday to ban any discrimination against race, sex, age and so forth

I will agree, that was worded very badly. I was all for it, thinking that maybe Nebraska, for whatever reason didn't have some sort of "equal opportunities" type law. But I'm torn on this issue, honestly. It sucks to those who really, really need it, I'm sure, however I'm all for working your ass off for something. Example, I turned down - practically - a free ticket to college in Miami. Why? Because I was Hispanic. I also graduated high school with a C grade. So, eh, I think that's bullcrap. Everyone should have to work their way up.

At the same time, if you are struggling and really can't get anywhere, then I can understand a little help. I dunno.

California/Arizona/Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

This - in all seriousness, and yes, a play on words and using satire - was pretty freakin' gay. HEY AMERICA, LET'S TAKE A STEP FORWARD! Alright, now ONE HUGE ONE BACK. Good lord, when will we all get it through our heads that we should all be equal, period, regardless of weird icky tastes, we're equal! ANGER!!!

Arkansas, where voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

And this is regardless of your sexual preference, also. Which is bull.

Colorado and South Dakota rejected anti-abortion initiatives yesterday. The initiative wanted to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother.

This is great provided abortions can still be done. *pro-choice*

Colorado also rejected an amendment that would have defined human life as beginning at fertilization. This might have led to banning certain birth control pills including the "morning after" pill.

Eff that. Life begins when I can see that you are a human baby in that stomach. Not my sperm.

Washington state voted FOR giving terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide. Oregon is the other state were this is allowed.

I'm totally not for suicide. But, the complete detail to that is, if you are COMPETENT, and I believe you have to go through hoops and bounds to have that proven, you can decide to end your life only if you fall under that criteria, and if you only have 6 months to live. If it's going to be a painful six or less months... well... it's easier said than done, I'm sure, but... *shrug?*

Massachusetts decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. I don't know what to think about this one.

Someone better commercialize that right away and star taxing the hell out of it! We need this to be a great precedent for the rest of the country! I don't smoke it, but I'll be damned if taxing it won't help states and the country in general.

San Francisco voted against decriminalizing prostitution. Although it might be cheaper to legalize it, I think it's still wrong to sell sex and people's bodies.

I'm for decriminilizing because most men and women who do this are in some serious financial and family troubles. These people need more help than jail time, and there are a lot more serious crimes out there that need to be dealt that require more resources with than prostitution.

For the first time in my life I am proud of America and embarrassed of California. It only passed by 3% though.

But holy bleep, Arkansas wins the idiot award. Congratulations for backing up the adoption system, denying people normal rights, and lowering your future educational levels. I think we can declare Arkansas 3rd world.

Kudos to Massachusetts and Michigan! The marijuana movement is very important.

I am positively livid at the result of California prop 8. There is little more that I can say.

Arkansas and California are pretty remarkable (well, not remarkable in the case of Arkansas) failures, but I don't think the battle's over yet. Obviously the backlash will be terrible because of last night's election results. In the case of abortion, at the clinic I work at the protestors were definitely out in force today (they are there every day, but typically it's only between 4-10 people), and definitely more aggresive then they have been every other day. People who are against any of these issues will come out more strongly against these issues, but maybe with a more liberal congress and presidency there can be some middle ground instead of a general chipping away of freedoms in every sector.

Sorry that Nebraska's prop passed. When I saw the wording of it a few months ago I was sure it would pass based on it's horrible wording.

Do idiots not read the proposition? I mean I didn't really do research on oklahoma's but I read the damn thing in the election booth. And if I didn't understand it there, there was no way in hell I was voting to pass it.

~Tobe

California voters passed a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage... What will happen to those that already got married? I believe Arizona and Florida also banned same-sex marriage.

Arkansas, where voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. If we have kids that nobody wants what's wrong about giving them a home where they will be loved?

disgusting. like jin, the only thing that consoles me about this is the huge leap forward that counteracts these two steps back. come on, california, we all know you're gay. stop trying to hide it. as for arkansas, there's no way you can pretend that measure wasn't fueled by homophobia. do they really think they're doing kids a favor by denying them a slightly larger chance of having a loving home? christ, i hope something's done about this.

Colorado and South Dakota rejected anti-abortion initiatives yesterday. The initiative wanted to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother.

Colorado also rejected an amendment that would have defined human life as beginning at fertilization.

good job. we're already trampling on lgbt rights, so do we really need to screw women over too?

Michigan approved medical marijuana.

Massachusetts decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.

good job. i don't really care either way on legalization of marijuana, but not throwing kids in the slammer for several months for having a bit of weed is ok in my book.

San Francisco voted against decriminalizing prostitution.

again with california, huh? although i'm not exactly outraged about it, i agree with jin that they should have voted to decriminalize it. hookers aren't criminals, they're poverty-stricken people who need help. anyone who says that prison will help is lying to themselves.

Nebraska voted yesterday to ban any discrimination against race, sex, age and so forth

i actually never heard about this one. does anyone have a link to the exact proposition? i share jin's ambivalence towards affirmative action, but i am curious.

I agree a little help is needed. I worked hard to get where I am and if it weren't for minority programs helping me along the way I would not have been recruited to this university.

Here's some related links from my University. Including a letter from the Chancellor and a Q & A short page.
http://www.unmc.edu/dept/...ersity/index.cfm?conref=6
http://www.unmc.edu/dept/...ersity/index.cfm?conref=7

Here's another link to the actual wording, which confused people, of Initiative 424:
http://www.newsnetnebrask...ve-action-coming-or-going

With only six of 93 counties voting no, the initiative will change the state's constitution, deleting all affirmative action policies. It will affect college enrollment, employment opportunity and exclusive race-based scholarships. A total of 58 percent of Nebraska voters voted in favor of the initiative.

"It's unfortunate not only for people of color, but poor whites," he said. "We have programs that reach out to rural communities where those students will go back to and help the rural communities."

"The way it was worded made it sound like a 'yes' vote would be to keep affirmative action, and it never really said affirmative action on there so the wording sounded very confusing," she said. "So I thought that I was voting for affirmative action, but it never said that this was a vote to cut out affirmative action.

"So I voted wrong."

What is affirmative action?

Historians say the term "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as a method of addressing discrimination that remained despite civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees.

"Affirmative action is a set of public policies, plus initiatives, in both the public and private sectors that are designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin... for the achievement of the following goals - (i) to reach out and encourage historically disadvantaged groups (e.g. women, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities etc.) to compete equitably; and (ii) to permit preferential treatment in the belief that preference will remedy past discrimination," according to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

I can pull the exact words from the ballot if anyone needs them...

I also agree Arkansas people need to re-evaluate their outlook on life. Actually, so does California.

Edited to include the quote.

Colorado also voted down an anti union measure. Colorado still sucks.

Also can we just legalize Mary Jane period and be done with it?

Ain't that some bullsnot? Take one step forward, and a huge chunk of the country, at the same time and on the same freakin' ballot, take a huge step backward.

Nebraska voted yesterday to ban any discrimination against race, sex, age and so forth

I will agree, that was worded very badly. I was all for it, thinking that maybe Nebraska, for whatever reason didn't have some sort of "equal opportunities" type law. But I'm torn on this issue, honestly. It sucks to those who really, really need it, I'm sure, however I'm all for working your ass off for something. Example, I turned down - practically - a free ticket to college in Miami. Why? Because I was Hispanic. I also graduated high school with a C grade. So, eh, I think that's bullcrap. Everyone should have to work their way up.

At the same time, if you are struggling and really can't get anywhere, then I can understand a little help. I dunno.

Agreed. There should be help for poor families and funds to award the extraordinary. But having funds for Hispanics and Blacks to go to college is just as racist as saying only whites can use the toilet on the right or sit in the front seats on the bus. America is never going to be color blind with crap like that.

As for medical marijuana use, I am on the fence about it. It needs to actually do something than just make you feel stoned (even if it makes Jimi Hendrix songs more enjoyable). I personally think tobacco should be illegal as it is truly a useless, chemically addictive (unlike alcohol and even pot which are only psychologically addictive), crap that has no redeeming qualities. I think though if you legalize pot you need to keep beer legal as well, as they are very similar. One though is more likely to do long term damage (considering you smoke marijuana... yeah).

Other issues: gay marriage. Whatever, as long as I'm not being hit on by a guy, they can do whatever the hell they want. Abortion: I look at it from beign selfish that you would put yourself before a child, but whatever. At the very leats late terms should be born as they barbaric in nature. Keep the morning after pill legal though.

A huge one here in Lancaster county was the decision the "Home Rule" charter. I do not think it got voted in as there have been no major reports on it, meaning our dumbass comissioners are probably safe for now. Better than non elected people running it. The county would draft and vote a county Constitution. It would turn into an episode of the Simpsons or something. Leave it up to these hicks, there would be a Dale Earnhardt day. Now, with Arkansas not allowing single or unmarried couples to have foster or adopted children, I can kind of understand from the idea that a single parent or unmarried couple will not be as steady and could have trouble providing for the child. That said, does it matter with as many crappy foster/adopted homes you have already?

On Nebraska essentially reversing affirmative action:
Quantifying harm versus good done by affirmative action is not easily done. I'd have preferred it be kept; yes, the highly underqualified minority shouldn't take the place of a well-qualified individual in the majority, but I'm inclined to suspect the minority will probably have fewer opportunities overall.

On California banning same-sex marriage:
Sigh. What two people do in their home isn't someone else's business. It's bad enough that the Ninth Amendment is the laughing stock of the Bill of Rights with decisions like these, but the amount of money that Christian groups pumped into making Proposition 8 pass is egregious.

On Arkansas forbidding single-parent adoptions:
If this policy spikes crime for all of those children who are never taken into a proper home at all, I will not be shocked in the least.

On Colorado/South Dakota rejecting anti-abortion measures:
Good. This is along the same vein as Proposition 8, really. What a woman does with her body ought exclusively to be her decision. It's particularly annoying when men try to argue some moral standpoint about it without knowing any of the physical pain or emotional damage of both birth and abortion. The truly fanatical pro-lifers should consider not taking any antibiotics when they have a cold, lest they kill the virus, if they're so deep into the preservation of life.

On Washington and physician-assisted suicide:
It's very hard for me to picture someone of truly sound mind railing against what has to be the most natural instinct: living. Furthermore, it is completely a contravention of a clause of the Hippocratic Oath. Some doctors don't take the Oath anymore, but...it's still freaky.

On Michigan/Massachusetts and marijuana:
Legalise it and tax away. Pretending that cannabis is somehow unacceptable when there are perfectly good tobacco cigarettes out to corrupt society is sufficiently hypocritical.

On San Fran rejecting the decriminalisation of prostitution:
Instead of locking up these people who are doubtless in such dire straits that they resort to selling themselves, there ought to be some kind of state-run office or bureau that redirects these unhappy souls into respectable professions.

You haven't truly felt hopelessness then, Rapid. I don't believe suicide solves anything. But wasting money trying to FORCE people to live lives they consider to miserable to continue? Eh.

~Tobe

[bold]
On Colorado/South Dakota rejecting anti-abortion measures:
Good. This is along the same vein as Proposition 8, really. What a woman does with her body ought exclusively to be her decision. It's particularly annoying when men try to argue some moral standpoint about it without knowing any of the physical pain or emotional damage of both birth and abortion. The truly fanatical pro-lifers should consider not taking any antibiotics when they have a cold, lest they kill the virus, if they're so deep into the preservation of life.

[/bold]

I agree with pregnancy being detrimental to a woman's body. There's so many risks. I'm not an MD student but my 2 best friends are and I've taken some of their classes. It's a risky and life-threatening event and on top of that if we have a scenario where a woman was raped, why should she be forced to have the baby? I'm pro-life and all as it's a personal decision but as a woman I would not know what to do in a situation like this. So I don't find it to ban abortion as I view like a personal choice.

On a second and less important note, I wouldn't take antibiotics if I had a viral infection either. Antibiotics are for bacterial infections while antivirals are for certain viral infections and the body usually does the rest. Also, viruses aren't alive. Viruses are made of proteins and they use the cellular machinery to replicate so I don't feel bad for destroying the heck out of a virus by adding some soap and bleach.

[bold]You haven't truly felt hopelessness then, Rapid. I don't believe suicide solves anything. But wasting money trying to FORCE people to live lives they consider to miserable to continue? Eh.

[/bold]
The assisted-suicide special issue can be practiced under certain circumstances. It's not like I can walk to a physician's office saying I'm perfectly healthy physically but mentally I'm not so well, please help me die as I can't find a reason for living. Mental health can be treated but terminal illnesses that are inevitably followed by death ... well you can do the math... If an end-stage cancer patient wishes to overdose on X and Y medications (kudos to those who can fill in my X and Y ) to die with dignity and stop the suffering and pain, then I'm all for it. It's the same reason we put animals down instead of waiting for them to die in misery.

I figured that Hidoi, was just answering Rapid on how someone can really want to end their own life.

~Tobe

Most places where assisted euphanasia is an option, the call always has to be made by the relatives. I've never been a fan of that, as I think that the family should have no right to prolong a person's suffering for their own means, wether it morality, religion or a selfish sense of guilt and unwillingness to deal with death. If a person has chosen, with dignity, that no longer wish to fight a losing battle, and if the battle IS losing. As in no cure, no miracle, just an undignified circling of the drain, with bed wetting, chronic pain, absoloute helpless despair, then I think it's monsterous to leave them in that state until fate is willing to snuff them out.

The exception, is dementia. If someone is genuinely and legally unfit to make their own decisions, then yes. It would be best to consult the family.

Point well taken, Tobe. Indeed, I'm looking at it through the lens of someone who's never felt any kind of abject hopelessness or suffering. In such tragic cases, it should be one's own choice. Consulted relatives usually are going to pursue their own ends in prolonging that person's unhappy life, and those relatives that opt for ending that life are demonised with any number of unjust labels.

No one's saying anything about the New Mexico amendments.

Increasing school board memberships to nine?! Allowing school board elections to be moved and to be conducted via absentee ballot?!?! Making all cabinet secretaries be confirmed by the Legislature at the beggining of each term?!? Letting the governor appoint a new lieutenant governor in case of an absence in that office?!?

Such flagrant abuses of power I have never seen.

At least you got amendments.

New York doesn't need any.

On Nebraska essentially reversing affirmative action:
Quantifying harm versus good done by affirmative action is not easily done. I'd have preferred it be kept; yes, the highly underqualified minority shouldn't take the place of a well-qualified individual in the majority, but I'm inclined to suspect the minority will probably have fewer opportunities overall.

On California banning same-sex marriage:
Sigh. What two people do in their home isn't someone else's business. It's bad enough that the Ninth Amendment is the laughing stock of the Bill of Rights with decisions like these, but the amount of money that Christian groups pumped into making Proposition 8 pass is egregious.

On Arkansas forbidding single-parent adoptions:
If this policy spikes crime for all of those children who are never taken into a proper home at all, I will not be shocked in the least.

On Colorado/South Dakota rejecting anti-abortion measures:
Good. This is along the same vein as Proposition 8, really. What a woman does with her body ought exclusively to be her decision. It's particularly annoying when men try to argue some moral standpoint about it without knowing any of the physical pain or emotional damage of both birth and abortion. The truly fanatical pro-lifers should consider not taking any antibiotics when they have a cold, lest they kill the virus, if they're so deep into the preservation of life.

On Washington and physician-assisted suicide:
It's very hard for me to picture someone of truly sound mind railing against what has to be the most natural instinct: living. Furthermore, it is completely a contravention of a clause of the Hippocratic Oath. Some doctors don't take the Oath anymore, but...it's still freaky.

On Michigan/Massachusetts and marijuana:
Legalise it and tax away. Pretending that cannabis is somehow unacceptable when there are perfectly good tobacco cigarettes out to corrupt society is sufficiently hypocritical.

On San Fran rejecting the decriminalisation of prostitution:
Instead of locking up these people who are doubtless in such dire straits that they resort to selling themselves, there ought to be some kind of state-run office or bureau that redirects these unhappy souls into respectable professions.

Are you suggesting that people should think less of the ethical perspective being expressed because of the gender of the people expressing it? The sense in which they don't know what it's like is that they haven't experienced it; in which case, the same can be said about women who have never been pregnant as can be said about men. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-abortionist, but the whole "men don't understand" approach (one even Elizabeth May disagrees with) sounds a bit politically-correct to me. I think both sides should focus more on whether or not the fetus has a consciousness to lose by being aborted, and if not, whether or not other criteria (which so far sound kinda arbitrary anyway) justify protection by the law. Why don't we hear "it's annoying when people who don't have diseases curable through ESCR try to argue a moral standpoint about it" expressed as much about ESCR as its apparent equivalent is expressed about abortion?

Yes, one may put women who have never been pregnant before in the same category as men for that purpose. My lesser premise, that men are going to know less about what a woman is experiencing in an abortion, does not change. There are, have been, and will be couples in which the husband is struck to the core by knowing that his wife is aborting their child, but does that mean that the emotional impact on him is as strong as the wife who has been carrying the fetus in her? There is no way to validate this, but my suspicion is that she will bear a greater amount of pain. Men just don't have that same biological experience. Consider, then, men (who never will have that experience) who are dismissive of a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit, as though they somehow know better and ought to legislate (see John McCain talking about the "health" of the mother). I attribute this to a lack of understanding on their part based purely on the happenstance of their gender. It's not to say that all men are callous about the issue or that all women always understand better. There is simply a disconnect between those have had the experience and those who haven't; while it's no less acceptable for women who haven't been in the situation to moralise about it, at least there is the possibility that they may know that experience firsthand at some point. It also certainly does not affect my greater premise: a complete stranger telling you how to live is absurd.
I hope I have clarified my opinion to at least a small degree.

As for why stem cell research isn't argued about as much, that's just the nature of the current national dialogue, over which most of us have no control.

Yes, one may put women who have never been pregnant before in the same category as men for that purpose.

... fair enough, at least you're being consistent.

There are, have been, and will be couples in which the husband is struck to the core by knowing that his wife is aborting their child, but does that mean that the emotional impact on him is as strong as the wife who has been carrying the fetus in her?

But that's a different story, since it's not about protecting the rights of the fetus but the feelings of the husband.

Consider, then, men (who never will have that experience) who are dismissive of a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit

Again, until the aspect about the fetus itself is adressed, one could say what she's doing isn't being done just to herself but to the fetus as well.

as though they somehow know better and ought to legislate (see John McCain talking about the "health" of the mother)

From what I've heard of that his stance is that the "health of the mother" argument could be stretched to include almost anything, and while I don't know much about that argument in particular it really should be considered... once you've gotten far enough along in the pregnancy for the fetus to have a consciousness is when it becomes an issue of weighing the rights of the fetus with those of the mother. In any case, why is "health of the mother" looked at differently than "health of the people with diseases curable through ESCR"?

I attribute this to a lack of understanding on their part based purely on the happenstance of their gender. It's not to say that all men are callous about the issue or that all women always understand better.

Fair enough, though I'm more so saying that dismissing moral perspectives from men, or from woman who've never been pregnant, (as opposed to dismissing the moral perspectives on their own merits) doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. And are you saying this as a guy or as a girl?

There is simply a disconnect between those have had the experience and those who haven't; while it's no less acceptable for women who haven't been in the situation to moralise about it, at least there is the possibility that they may know that experience firsthand at some point.

There is also a "possibility" that men may know that experience firsthand at some point; ever heard of male pregnancies?

It also certainly does not affect my greater premise: a complete stranger telling you how to live is absurd.

No doubt, but it's not so much about how one lives in ways that are only affecting themselves as in ways that are affecting others, or in this case, the fetus; until the aspect of the fetus itself is adressed, labels like "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" just don't cut it.

As for why stem cell research isn't argued about as much, that's just the nature of the current national dialogue, over which most of us have no control.

I wasn't even saying ESCR was argued about less so much as that even within ESCR debates there doesn't seem to be the same kind of "you don't understand unless you've experienced it" approach as there is within abortion debates. It's like with people describing anti-abortionists as "anti-choice" or even "woman-hating neanderthals" (I don't recall how I came across that page, I think it was after a series of clicking links from the sources of some Wikipedia article about Elizabeth May, but stuff like that makes me regret being on the same side as them) but I don't hear as much about people describing the anti-ESCR as "anti-cure" or "neanderthals who hate those with diseases and disabilites"...
EDIT: Changed spacing between each quote-and-rebutall pair.

On Florida's ban of gay marraige...

I voted NO on that amendment...not only because it was the majority trying to dominate and take away rights from minorities...but because it was DECEPTIVE! This is what it said..."This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Not very specific is it?

"Amendment 2 does nothing to protect marriage. But it does take away important family protections, health care insurance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making authority, from all unmarried couples, gay and straight. It permanently bans civil unions and dismantles domestic partner benefits that seniors, teachers, police officers and firefighters rely on in more than 18 communities across the state. Take action right now to oppose this amendment." ~ http://votenoon2.blogspot.com/

Good job Florida...let's give the government more power to control our lives. 9__9
I'm waiting for this to backfire soon, or hope the supreme court solves this mess!

o.o I don't know much about the marriage issue specifically in Florida, but it seems to me like both sides of the gay marriage debate make a bit too big a deal of it, whether it's the people that act like gay marriage will destroy straight marriages (with half of marriages ending in divorce, giving another 2-3% of the population the chance to marry is like adding a drop of water to a flood) or the people who refuse to settle for civil unions with the same legal protections as marriage, calling it "separate but equal"; if it's the same legal protections, what difference does it make whether people call it marriage or not?

o.o I don't know much about the marriage issue specifically in Florida, but it seems to me like both sides of the gay marriage debate make a bit too big a deal of it, whether it's the people that act like gay marriage will destroy straight marriages (with half of marriages ending in divorce, giving another 2-3% of the population the chance to marry is like adding a drop of water to a flood) or the people who refuse to settle for civil unions with the same legal protections as marriage, calling it "separate but equal"; if it's the same legal protections, what difference does it make whether people call it marriage or not?

"But it does take away important family protections, health care insurance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making authority, from all unmarried couples, gay and straight."

Because its mostly about this. At least to me.

It's like...you did not want to get married simply because your husband had a mountain of debt. It would force all those debts upon you if you got married to this person, and you'd get your car taken away etc to help pay it off. Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is how my roommate explained it to me through her parents.

o.o I don't know much about the marriage issue specifically in Florida, but it seems to me like both sides of the gay marriage debate make a bit too big a deal of it, whether it's the people that act like gay marriage will destroy straight marriages (with half of marriages ending in divorce, giving another 2-3% of the population the chance to marry is like adding a drop of water to a flood) or the people who refuse to settle for civil unions with the same legal protections as marriage, calling it "separate but equal"; if it's the same legal protections, what difference does it make whether people call it marriage or not?

"But it does take away important family protections, health care insurance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making authority, from all unmarried couples, gay and straight."

Because its mostly about this. At least to me.

It's like...you did not want to get married simply because your husband had a mountain of debt. It would force all those debts upon you if you got married to this person, and you'd get your car taken away etc to help pay it off. Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is how my roommate explained it to me through her parents.

Actually, I wasn't referring so much to the specific amendment itself as the general issue of gay marriage... as I said I don't know much about the specific issue in Florida. Though for what it's worth, the idea of taking "family protections" away from unmarried couples doesn't sound very appealing to me either...

At least you got amendments.

New York doesn't need any.

Sure it does!
http://ballotpedia.org/wi...ew_York_Proposal_1_(2008)

"But that's a different story, since it's not about protecting the rights of the fetus but the feelings of the husband."
The point of my analogy there was that men are emotionally affected by abortion. I believe the effect on them to be less than the impact on women. There was no more significance to my statement than that, so I presume we misunderstood each other at this juncture.

"Again, until the aspect about the fetus itself is adressed, one could say what she's doing isn't being done just to herself but to the fetus as well."
One may say only the mother is affected; another may say both mother and fetus is affected. There is no substance to either side, so neither side can be proven wrong. The only thing that isn't cutting it, then, is invoking an argument where each side brings its own facts to bear witness.

"Fair enough, though I'm more so saying that dismissing moral perspectives from men, or from woman who've never been pregnant, (as opposed to dismissing the moral perspectives on their own merits) doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. And are you saying this as a guy or as a girl?"
Ah, this is where I was unclear. I conflated men with the moralistic argument because I see men as less likely to experience pregnancy and abortion for themselves. I usually imagine proponents of the moral argument as crusty old men of legislatures who are entirely removed from the impact of pregnancy and abortion. Men and moralistic arguments are not interchangeable, as I have probably suggested. Let me be clear: the moral argument doesn't mean anything to me, regardless of gender. I happen to consider it ironic when men use that rhetoric, however, for reasons I will outline below. As for my gender, establish some relevance to the discussion and I might answer.

"There is also a "possibility" that men may know that experience firsthand at some point; ever heard of male pregnancies?"
I have, but I've never heard of abortions in these male pregnancies. Unless there are many cases of aborting male pregnancies, this is an argument that falls short because we have always been on the subject of abortions. The problem I have had all along is that anyone who deliberately became pregnant is more than likely not angling to get an abortion, but it is often characterised that way by traditionalists who are usually (but not always) male. I'm willing to wager that male traditionalists don't volunteer for experiencing firsthand pregnancy, and consequently don't understand the intricacies of the matter. That's an unpleasant experience, and denying anyone pregnant the chance to abort the fetus is certainly intrusive. That is where I have a problem with men in particular talking about this kind of thing as though they know better.

"No doubt, but it's not so much about how one lives in ways that are only affecting themselves as in ways that are affecting others, or in this case, the fetus; until the aspect of the fetus itself is adressed, labels like "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" just don't cut it."
Again, an argument that doesn't cut it. Until more learned people than us come to a conclusion about where life begins, it would fruitless to labour over this point. We can argue the selfishness of the act, but that benefits us not.

"In any case, why is "health of the mother" looked at differently than "health of the people with diseases curable through ESCR"?"
Unless I'm misinterpreting this and your last statement, I'm not the person you should be asking about this. How and why camps choose their talking points on stem cells is their decision, but this is just dredging an off-topic issue.

There was no more significance to my statement than that, so I presume we misunderstood each other at this juncture.

... fair enough, I was just trying to point to the difference between husbands trying to protect their own emotions and anti-abortionists trying to protect the fetus, but at least you're willing to concede misunderstanding, which doesn't seem so common on this site...

One may say only the mother is affected; another may say both mother and fetus is affected. There is no substance to either side, so neither side can be proven wrong.

Wait... what? The fetus IS going to be affected since that's what's being terminated in an abortion... though come to think of it, I guess I might have misworded my earlier comment, but my point was that so long as the fetus is being affected, the relevant issue should be whether or not a "fetus" should have rights within the law to be protected at the expense of others, and why.

As for my gender, establish some relevance to the discussion and I might answer.

Actually, I didn't think you wouldn't want to state your gender, but if you don't want to state it don't. That said, I'd like to explain why I brought it up. I've noticed that even men use labels like "anti-choice" (the first time I came across that label was in a "letter to the editor" in which the person writing to the newspaper had an apparently male name; granted it might not necessarily have been male) and even women like Elizabeth May can be hated by men and women alike for holding the views of "woman-hating neanderthals" like in the page I linked to earlier on; by the way did you click that link? It's just that when people say it's more ironic when men express moralistic views I sometimes wonder whether the people saying so are male or female themselves.

Unless there are many cases of aborting male pregnancies, this is an argument that falls short because we have always been on the subject of abortions.

Not necessarily. The point I was making was that if it's a "possibility" that a woman who, for example, doesn't plan on reproducing, would get pregnant, it's also a "possibility" that a man could get pregnant.

I'm willing to wager that male traditionalists don't volunteer for experiencing firsthand pregnancy

How is being anti-abortion "traditionalist"? For what it's worth, I think "tradition" sounds pretty meaningless when you take into account that some things were considered non-traditional before they were considered "traditional" so I'm no traditionalist; granted I'm not an anti-abortionist myself either but I doubt one would need to be "traditionalist" to be one; just because traditionalists tend to express anti-abortion views, doesn't mean anti-abortion views are traditional; the idea of avoiding something because it's been associated with tradition sounds like reverse conformity if I've ever heard it, and that's coming from me. In any case, as I said earlier, the arguments should be refuted on their own merits rather than for who they're from...

Until more learned people than us come to a conclusion about where life begins

o.o Such as neuroscientists, maybe? Granted, I guess their conclusion wouldn't be so much about life itself as about certain aspects of it like consciousness, but criteria like those are criteria that I think would have a more socially meaningful standard on which to say where "life" begins in the sense of "life" such as in the sum of one's experiences rather than in the biological classification of life. They might not be sure, and they might never be completely sure, but who would be better to ask than the scientific community? We ask climate scientists about global warming, why can't we ask neuroscientists about fetus consciousness?

Unless I'm misinterpreting this and your last statement, I'm not the person you should be asking about this.

Well, the statement I'm making is that there seems to be a double standard between the idea that anti-abortionists "just don't understand" the perspective of the mother (maybe they don't, but my point was more so about whether or not that was relevant to their argument) and the idea that anti-ESCR people "just don't understand" the perspectives of those with diseases it can cure, an argument that seems much more rare to hear expressed.

How and why camps choose their talking points on stem cells is their decision, but this is just dredging an off-topic issue.

But how much more off topic is it than specific arguments within the abortion debate? The very reason I even brought it up was for the sake of comparison with ESCR, and if I recall correctly thread branching is allowed in MFC...EDIT: Fixed wording.

Fetus. [/House]

~Tobe

Rhymes with Diabeetus [/Brimley]