Golf courses are a waste of space and should nearly all be turned into public parks.
All religions are bullshit, some are benign bullshit, others aren't.
Golf courses are a waste of space and should nearly all be turned into public parks.
All religions are bullshit, some are benign bullshit, others aren't.
I also agree with CatInASuit about Rights and Privileges.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
I have people agreeing with me, ah well, let's try something more controversial.
Abortion should not be used as a contraception. Discuss.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
The most obvious reason it shouldn't be used as such is that it poses a health risk to the woman that is (presumably) higher than other forms of contraception.Originally posted by CatInASuit
Well, I agree with you. if you are engaging in heterosexual vaginal intercourse, you must be open to the possibility of pregnancy. Condoms, IUDs, spermicide and other forms of contraception are perfectly fine but they are not perfect. There is a chance of failure and you should be open to that chance. If pregnancy occurs, you owe that child their life and if you're not willing to give it then you should not be having sex.
I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.
As birth control fails, I assume you are saying that abortion should be for cases where BC failed or cases like rape. Not many would disagree with you on this.
I'll go a step further. I am against abortions in the third trimester unless the mother is endangered or the baby clearly and seriously malformed.
Sticks, there is always a chance that birth control may fail. And are you considering an embryo or fetus a child?
This is the unfortunate truth of it. Penis-in-vagina sex makes babies. It's quite good at making them, in fact, even when you use all sorts of methods to try to prevent that.
You appear to be saying that elective abortion is always wrong. Are you saying you'd support banning elective abortion?
I know that Myrna, and yes I am.
I would say that, yes, elective abortion is always wrong. Babies are the price that comes with sex. If you are not in a place to care for a child then you are not in a place to have penis-in-vagina sex. There are lots of fun and degenerate ways to orgasm, You'll survive without this particular one. (That's the general you.) As for banning it? No, I'm not going to advocate for it because, frankly, I feel like it's not really my place as a gay man. But I don't think very highly of people who do get them.
I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.
I agree with that too.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
Abortion is ill.
Damn this place really isn't the dope. I tend to agree with you.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
So married people should never have penis-in-vagina sex because the possible consequence of that, despite proper birth control, is pregnancy? You'd rather a baby be born into complete and total poverty because two people who have promised to spend their whole lives together have one night of passion? A miserable life for a child, who could be under nourished and improperly cared for due to the age of the parents, or their maturity level, or simply where they are in their life, is acceptable as a price for standard intercourse?
Man, I guess that's one perk of being gay. You never have to worry about the possible effects of pregnancy on your life, your health, and the long term plans and goals of your family. I guess since you never had a pregnancy scare and known in your heart of hearts that you couldn't afford a child--a pregnancy scare that's the result of a normal, healthy relationship with your spouse--it's easy to take a pretty black and white view about proper sexual behavior.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
I don't really care to argue the point with him because I am fairly sympathetic to anti-abortion views even though myself I'm pro-choice. I have several pro-life friends and I think that's fine.
But I do think it's really facile for a gay guy to come in and cheerfully recommend that straight people just totally avoid the most standard of sex acts.
Honestly I am against abortion too but I remain pro-choice as birth-control is not taught well thanks to the religious right that also fights abortion rights. Also birth control does fail and I would prefer a world were people did not bring kids into it before they were financially ready, especially teenagers. Obviously with my views, first term abortions are the preferred greatly and third term is abhorrent to me. I have a niece that was 2 months premature and a nephew over 2 months. Both are now great adults. Well the nephew is in college, so nearly adult.
My friend and I developed the Helen Clark principle:
If an ugly woman achieves success, you know she is talented. A beautiful woman might have gotten to the top by sucking dick, or flirting, or by receiving favours. An ugly woman with power, like former NZ PM Helen Clark, has clearly earned it.
Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.
I think I've seen old pictures of her where she looked fairly good, actually. She may not look great anymore but most people don't by that age.
look! i'm controversying, i'm controversying!
Last edited by Sarahfeena; 16 Feb 2010 at 10:43 PM.
Why is the top of her head that ugly?
Welcome to Mellophant.
We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.
Sticks, when do you think the fetus is a person? Is this a soul thing? I don't generally consider the first trimester to be a human yet. Second trimester is clearly not viable. Third is.
Inspired by just having read the thread on the BNP...
I think the UK should have a proportional representation system of voting.
While that's 'controversial' as in, some say yes and some say no, it's not particularly 'edgy'.
Where it gets edgy is here:
1) I'm as anti-racist as they come.
2) I understand that a PR system would end up giving the BNP around 6 seats in Parliament (as at 2009), and they'd regularly have a handful, as opposed to the zero they will consistently have under winner-takes-all.
3) I'm OK with that.
My thoughts on this were that Abortion should be a last resort. It should not be used as a general form of contraception.
If the mother's life is in danger, the pregnancy is the result of rape the fetus has abnormalities, then abortion should be allowed, possibly even encouraged.
In terms of people who decide on a night of passion and decide not to bother with protection, then you know the risks.
Even if you decide to not to take protection on the night, there is still the morning after pill. If you make the effort to use protection, and it fails, fair enough then you at least tried. If you can't be bothered and after a couple of months realise something is wrong then you why should you use abortion for birth control.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
Objection!!!
PR is one of the worst forms of voting that goes. It normally leads to hung govenments and general stasis, and would be especially bad in Britain.
First Past the Post voting, at least, leads to a strong mandate for the government, and is normally as fair. At least it would be if they redrew the constituencies in Britain along population lines.
Transferable Voting is better, where the second and third votes for people are transferred from weaker candidates to the stronger as they are knocked out.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
I'm 100% certain things are different in the UK, but in America, there's not always the morning after pill. There are pharmacists who think it's a form of abortion and will refuse to fill prescriptions. Also, that shit ain't free. The government isn't giving it away to people who think their condom failed. Meanwhile, if you're on two forms of birth control (and I know many people who don't want children are) and the condom fails, do you rush out to take the morning after pill (if you can afford it and get it in your area)? Or do you just home that the backup plan worked?
It's lovely that so many people have such black and white views of when it's acceptable for a woman to do anything with her body. But sometimes, there's a lot of gray in the spectrum. It's impossible to say just who is worthy of having their bodies and life's spared from the short-term (perhaps fatal) consequences of pregnancy and the long-term (also perhaps fatal) consequences of birth. Sure there are women out there who aren't responsible and "deserve" to be punished (as now both Sticks and you have implied) but there are different circumstances for each individual person. Even though sex is a universal, "women" aren't a monolithic block that you can just wave your hand at and say "Abstain or take the morning after pill. It's not hard!"
Last edited by pepperlandgirl; 17 Feb 2010 at 10:50 AM.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
Pep, CIAS said, "If you make the effort to use protection, and it fails, fair enough then you at least tried." so he is saying if you made the effort to use BC and it fails, then abortions are OK. At least that is how I read it. He seems to be saying "If you have unprotected consensual sex, no abortion for you!" but if you are responsible and use protection and it fails, abortion is acceptable.
He can say if I am reading him correctly, that is how I read it though. I will say I still don't agree as it is unenforcible but to me it is a fair guideline.
That's not how I read his final paragraph, Jim. He seemed to be saying that if you used protection, and it failed, then you're supposed to use the morning after pill. His final sentence seems to have a typo, but it looks like he concludes that if 1) your protection fails and 2) you fail to use the morning after pill then 3) you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion "months later" to end the pregnancy.
But even your interpretation is essentially "And here's the subset of women who don't deserve to be punished for sex" and you'll forgive me if I'm not impressed with that argument.
Last edited by pepperlandgirl; 17 Feb 2010 at 11:15 AM.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
I'll not only forgive you, I agree. I almost feel like only women should be allowed to vote on this subject. A male's opinion seems less valuable and thus I vote pro-choice despite overall having a dislike for abortions or at least abortions after the 1st trimester. Not my body, shouldn't be my decision if that makes sense. In the end I think each woman should have to make this (hopefully) hard choice on her own. What I am really in favor of is far more and cheaper birth control.
There seems to be an attitude in both Sticky's and CIAS's posts that if a woman is on birth control and it fails, or even if she isn't, and she gets pregnant, of "oh yeah, you made your bed, I guess you're stuck with this babby".
Well, that is a horrible way for someone to come into the world. Let's leave aside the physical, emotional, and financial drain on the mother and the permanent change it would make in her life. Would you want to be the child that was born just because your mother messed up and she had to grudgingly accept you as penance?
All this talk about well, if she does this this and this then I guess she can have an abortion, but she really should have done this are ridiculous. It is none of your business why someone has an abortion. And I love you Sticky, but I have to agree that it really is slightly insulting for someone who will never have to be involved in a decision such as this to spout off about what should and should not be done.
If that's what he thinks I think that goes beyond "controversial" -- it's a baby, it's not a punishment. If abortion is immoral, then it's immoral totally independent of whether or not mom and dad "deserve" to be stuck with a child. Nothing about mom's actions affects whether or not abortion constitutes murder.
It also has the probably counterproductive effect of allowing a woman who is sufficiently together to buy condoms to not have a child, while forcing a mom who's too dumb or shortsighted or indigent to get birth control to have a baby. That's probably not the desired outcome for society.
I don't know if that's what CiaS meant but if he did that's a position that needs some real rethinking.
This is actually a good point, it is why I hated the old pre-Clinton, Johnson Welfare system. Welfare Babies really did exist in the old system and this was an extremely bad form of social engineering. Free Birth Control up to and including Tubal ligation and Vasectomy should be covered by welfare and any government aided insurance program.
Mea Culpa: I'm arguing for the sake of it. Being honest, I don't agree with the viewpoint, a lady's body is hers to do with as she pleases. I also think the two doctor's rule is dumb as well.
I think my argument may have been misinterpreted as well.
The argument was that if you are using birth control (of any form) and it fails, then there should be no problem with an abortion. However, if you spend all your time having unprotected sex without a care in the world over several months, and then suddenly become pregnant then why should you be allowed an abortion.
However, both Exy and Myrnalene have pointed out good reasons as to why this state of affairs is not a good thing for the mother, child or society.
However, I do have a question? Is the morning after pill not considered part of Birth control in the USA? Or is the fact that some pharmacies refuse to perscribe it on religious grounds more serious than it is made out to be. In the UK, pharmacists get struck off for that.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
It is up to the Pharmacist here. There are pharmacies in this odd country that choose not to sell condoms too or restrict who they sell them too. I ran into one of those a long time ago in liberal progressive New Jersey even.
The morning after pill has generally been harder to get a hold of than is justifiable in this country for what I think are two reasons -- one is that people tend to confuse it with the medical abortion pill (RU-486 or mifepristone) and the other is that there's been a serious effort by anti-abortion activists to make it more difficult to get a hold of.
Their claimed justification is that there's a theoretical risk that in a very small percentage of cases, the morning after pill may act by causing a fertilized egg to fail to implant (which, I believe, would not medically be considered abortion anyway, but it is to pro-life activists). Its main mode of action, however, is by stopping the release of an egg in the first place and making the environment more hostile to sperm cells. And it's only a theoretical risk -- there's no direct evidence. (It's also possible the birth control pill, again very rarely, may do the same thing.)
Groups like Right to Life have now started advocating against birth control and the morning after pill using this as their justification. Some states have passed laws making it permissible for pharmacists to refuse to prescribe these drugs under so-called "conscience clauses". Given the minute, remote, theoretical risk under discussion, though, I'm pretty dubious as to their intentions. The cumulative impact is that the morning after pill in particular took a lot longer to be made available over-the-counter than it should have been (it took until years after the FDA recommended it), and many pharmacies refused to stock it, and it has been hard to get a hold of particularly for women in rural areas or who don't have a car and can't easily visit several pharmacies.
The anti-abortion movement has ALWAYS targeted birth control, they just usually do it on the down-low to try and sneak it by before anyone notices.
Somewhere, I have literature from the early 80s that clearly states that the goal is to eliminate abortions first, and then all non-barrier birth control.
Because anything non-barrier can abort a fertilized egg. Same reason they've pushed so hard for the "life begins at conception" idea.
Be aware what you're supporting.
Just sayin'.
All places of worship - outside of an individual's home - should be left open as shelters for the homeless after dusk.
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
What's your reasoning? Why not say the same for banks, or schools, or businesses that close at say - 5:00 PM?
Churches are tax exempt.
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."
find me at Goodreads
So are 501(c) corporations. Shall we open up the offices of the Red Cross, too? Or maybe PETA? How about the AFL-CIO?
Seems like an easy solution. Lets do away with that but not force them to stay open.
Nothing would thrill me more than forcing PETA to give charity to humans, but my real opinion is that churches shouldn't be tax exempt.
Why not? Most churches I know do enough of what I'd call charitable works to put them at least on par with the March of Dimes for any standard of good works you care to name. For that matter 501 (c) (10) recognizes tax exempt status for Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations. I cannot think of a single church that wouldn't qualify as that, even if you took away their inclusion under 501 (c) (3).
Now, I don't know how 501 (c) relates to property taxes, if at all. There it might be more justifiable to me to consider taking away church's tax exemption, because it may not be part and parcel of benefits that accrue to other charitable or non-profit organizations. But simply talking about taxing churches without revamping the whole of the 501 (c) codes seems more about targeting specific groups that have earned the ire of the individual advocating that course.
Well first there is Scientology to consider getting this same tax break. Second the RCC shuffles a lot of money out of the communities, usually poor to who knows where. I am not even sure about the rest of the groups. A church could set up a 501c3 for its Food Bank/Kitchen if it raises money for it. But I have never liked the blanket Religion is tax free laws.
What Exit? sums up my view fairly well. For their charitable works they can set up a 501c3, but there's no reason why the church itself should be able to escape taxes on everything.
Because they purport to be in the business of caring for the poor and needy, and even if they don't have money falling out of their ears, like the more well-established religions, they claim to have love and empathy in abundance. Therefore it is sorta the least they could do to ease the burden in some places and contribute to the welfare of unfortunates.
Plus, they tend to have a lot of benches to sleep on.
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
Jim, Zuul, you're ignoring that 501 (c) organizations don't have to be charitable. My understanding is that many college fraternities and sororities are 501 (c) organizations. (Under 501 (c) (7) and (10))
Just for example: do you really think that Scientology wouldn't be able to justify a claim under the 501 (c) (10) category?
To be exempt under IRC 501(c)(10), a domestic fraternal society, order, or association must meet the following requirements:
1. It must have a fraternal purpose. An organization has a fraternal purpose if membership is based on a common tie or the pursuit of a common object. The organization must also have a substantial program of fraternal activities.
2. It must operate under the lodge system. Operating under the lodge system requires, at a minimum, two active entities: (i) a parent organization; and (ii) a subordinate organization (called a lodge, branch, or the like) chartered by the parent and largely self-governing.
3. It must not provide for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to its members. The organization may arrange with insurance companies to provide optional insurance to its members without jeopardizing its exempt status.
4. It must devote its net earnings exclusively to religious, charitable, scientific, literary, educational, and fraternal purposes.
5. It must be a domestic organization, that is, it must be organized in the United States.
I grant it would be harder for the Catholic Church to qualify, because of the ties to Rome. Having said that, without looking at the actual code (Which I'm not going to do for you, nor anyone else - sorry I'd never wake up if I tried that.) I'm not sure that you couldn't set up an ARCC, that were the national organization, and which then paid a 'fee' to Rome for the privilege of being the duly appointed representative of the RCC in the US.
And neither of these changes in filing status would require either organization to change a damned thing they do on the ground.
Loki, you are right, I did not realize that. So the Elks and etc. are tax exempt too? I never really thought about it. Still seems wrong for the RCC and Scientology among many others to get the tax exemption.
ETA: Note I pick on the RCC as I am ex-RCC. I pick on Scientology as we know why L. Ron founded it. So long haning fruit if you will. I am aware Buddhists and Muslims temples have similar issues and I imagine that many Jewish and Protestants groups do to.
Last edited by What Exit?; 18 Feb 2010 at 02:44 PM.
They're many poor churches that can't afford even that. Providing the homeless a place to sleep is an expensive proposition. You have to have security to keep them from killing each other, robbing you blind or setting the church on fire. And your going to have a healthy cleaning bill for all the piss, shit, vomit and trash they leave around.
Welcome to Mellophant.
We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.
At least it would keep all that activity off the streets, and besides, I'm sure the respective congregations would help out in those departments.
( Funnily, Earth, Wind and Fire's "Fantasy" is playing on my Jango music station at this moment.And even funnier, the next track is "Heaven" by Talking Heads. Okay God... I'll back off.)
Last edited by ivan astikov; 19 Feb 2010 at 03:16 AM.
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
Loki, since I think a lot of organizations should pay taxes that don't now, present laws about those organizations don't dissuade me.
I'm going to revive the abortion stuff again. Sorry, folks, but I suspect my own stance is more extreme than everyone else's except perhaps one other person here.
You should always be able to defend the right to your bodily autonomy, even if that requires lethal force. The only laws governing abortion should be guarding against inhumane and unnecessarily cruel methods (these laws would cover late-term abortions except under certain medical situations). The question of whether or not the embryo counts as a human being is irrelevant in my mind: the woman's right to her body takes precedence.
If someone tries to rape you or kidnap you or enslave you, you should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend your body up to and including lethal force. It does not matter if you are in a relationship with someone, if you have consented to something before, if you are halfway through with the act. It is always your right to say, "No. Get out of my body."
To say that there are circumstances where some women should be denied abortions is to say that there are some circumstances where having sex is such a vile crime it justifies taking away "the perpetrator's" bodily autonomy. Does the sin of having sex justify being basically enslaved and forced to have another person in your body for nine months? To have your hormones, your body and the size of your brain (the link is a PDF) changed, some of which will alter you for the rest of your life?
I can be disgusted with someone's reasons for having an abortion, but I'll defend her right to her body with my dying breath. I dislike a medical procedure that involves death, but bodily autonomy is too important to me and I cannot deny anyone a right to her own body. In a perfect world, abortion would never happen because there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but a world where every pregnancy is wanted will never come to pass. There will always be situations that change. There will always be someone a couple of months into a wanted pregnancy who will find herself for one reason or another unable to bear seeing the pregnancy out.
We should always, all of us, have the right to say, "No. I don't want this in my body." Perhaps someday we'll be able to remove unwanted embryos and fetuses without killing them, but unfortunately today the only way to give a woman back her body is by aborting.
Zuul, what about thrid trimester? The fetus is now viable with medical help? What about after 8 months where the fetus is usually viable with minimal help or even none? I think there comes a point where the mother needs to finish the job and give the baby up for adoption as the fetus is viable and killing it would be murder. Exceptions of course where the fetus is question is clearly deformed badly or the mother is endangered. The mother should of course come first. But if no danger or serious deformity, the baby should be carried to term in my opinion. I'm not going to rally for a full ban of third trimester abortions, I would never align myself to the so-called Pro-Life groups. But there comes a point where the mother to be has waited too long. To me it seems to be third trimester.
Posting rules
Reply with quote
