The comprehensive pro-choice/pro-life survey.

OK. Abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is threatened - or indeed her health, be that physical or mental health. It is acceptable when the foetus's life is threatened - eg. there are multiple babies in the womb, the foetus will not survive to full-term, the foetus will be born but have an appalling quality of life. It is acceptable for some deformities that would severely curtail the quality of life of the child - a mild cleft palette for example is probably not enough (but people should remember that a cleft palette is not always just a slightly split lip). When a pregnancy is the product of *any* rape - prosecuted or not - I find abortion completely acceptable. If the parents can't afford to raise the child then I consider abortion acceptable. Also when they are unfit to raise the child and when they realise they have made a mistake (but ths should never be a snap decision, perhaps based on changing hormones or hearing nightmare stories about births). I imagine there are plenty of other situations where I would consider abortion acceptable as well.

A doctor should give his consent for an abortion - here you need the permission of two doctors but that's really just a technicality. A woman may have underlying medical problems that mean that she cannot have an abortion and a doctor should be able to identify patients who have a harder time coping pschologically afterwards. Also, the mother should give her consent for an abortion - forced abortion is just wrong.

If people are serious about reducing numbers of abortions then good sex education and access to free birth control at least for minors would be a start. Better policing of rapes and good adoption services couldn't hurt either. Pregnancy counselling to my understanding is often carried out by pro-life groups who give graphic accounts of late-term abortions to women who would be having very early-term abortions (in other words they lie to scare the woman into not having an abortion).

I'm happy to have abortions occur at any time that the foetus/baby is in the womb. The latest date at which an abortion should be able to occur should depend on why it is wanted. A threat to the life or health (physical or mental) of the mother or foetus should allow for abortion even at a very late stage. However, at very late stages, it is more likely the baby will be delivered through caesarean section, but there may be cases where abortion is necessary. In other cases, I don't feel abortion is necessarily acceptable after the foetus could be born and have a chance of surviving and being normal. However, that's what I *feel* not really what I want the law to reflect since I would not want to stop my views on this to prevent other women with different views from having a choice. I don't think "abortion" is acceptable after birth, although perhaps euthanasia might be in the case of babies that will die in a matter of day/weeks having lived that short time in incredible pain and suffering.

My reasons for my viewpoint are just my general feelings and beliefs based on my personal philosophy that I have gleaned from many different sources, and from within.

My conviction is firm. I'm an opinionated sod and I don't mind making my opinions on this subject known. Discussing subjects like this is one of the best ways to get to really know a person.

I think the names pro-life and pro-choice are misleading - they imply they are mutually exclusive when they are not. Pro-choicers are still pro-life. Pro-lifers are still pro-choice, but they think that only one choice is morally justifiable and the other should be punished. However, regardless of my own sentiment, it's not up to me to decide if abortion is appropriate for others - I feel it should be available so that others can make that choice for themselves.

If abortion is made illegal, women will do it anyway and will die doing it. However, that alone is not reason for making it legal.

I see it as a women's rights issue. I want women to have control over their own bodies, as men do. It should be up to the individual woman. It's a hard enough decision to make, we should simply support them through it.

It would be best if society provided alternate birth-control methods (e.g cheap condoms), education, counseling, adoption and abortion services.

I find it disturbing that it seems to be mostly men passing laws restriction abortion rights, demonstrating against abortion, and blowing up abortion clinics.

I don't think any preventative methods should be "exhausted" BEFORE abortion is made legal. I think both abortion AND preventive methods should be used. This is one good survey otherwise.

Q1: B,C,D,E,F
Q2: A & B
Q3: A,B,C,E,H
Q4: A,B,and sometimes C
Q5: C I don't know
Q6: D
Q7: C
Q8: C

1) If the life of the mother is at *great* risk, not just like "her blood pressure is high"
2) Parent, doctor, spouce, or boyfriend.
3) None of those will prevent people from having (or wanting) an abortion. Of couse if they were stearlized, but that's not going to happen.
4) Teenager?
5) Nah..
6) Just the way I feel
7) Somewhat between moderately and firmly convinced
8) All of the above exept the God part


Great survey

oops, i meant
1 b and c if another fetus is involved, (otherwise, 'abort it or it might die' makes no sense.)
2 bc
3 abcdeg
4 e (but only in 1a conditions)
5 bc
6 dg
7 b
8 abdFghij
I only recently even heard the case that it was 'slavery to men and babies', and say to that 'complain to God'.

8f Though generally keeps my opinion to myself, since what I feel is not something that can be proved to others of different spiritual beliefs.
I also heard an interesting argument, that even plants have consciousness, it's a matter of how much, and that consciousness of a fetus may be much less. But then, humans learn so fast, 100's of thousands of things are probably learned while in the womb, though things so basic we take for them granted after birth.

I could also liken the issue to the right to cut off your leg, or commit suicide, which are issues that I don't think should be law either, in spite of my personal views.

The position of those who want freedom from the slavery of men or fetusus annoys me. It reminds me of the Philip K. Dick story in which a father (who couldn't do algebra) and his son 11 year old son (who knew calculus) were running from the law because the mother wanted to abort the son, and 12 was the legal age limit.

even more annoying to me are those who seem to suggest that abortion is preferable to birth control.

but most importantly in developing my view was the psychic connection I had with my own children in the womb, which later developed to a point of clairvoyance and such by the time my daughter was 2.
others won't have such experiences

I find it strange though that the primary pro-life types are raised on dogma, and are still trying to figure out if dogs and cats have feelings.

I see now that this survey is far from comprehensive. For instance, it asks no questions about what one thinks the law should be.

Although I'm pro-life, for personal ethics to mean anything, that means pro-choice needs to be a legal option; but then that should apply to murder too - do it not because it's the law, but simply because it's wrong.

As to the conspiracy theories, I notice that billboards in support of abortions occur in slums, and in nice neighborhoods, billboards go on about th virtue of raising families. I also hear from hospital staff that abortions are automatically brought to donor harvesting unless they are sure that someone has denied permission.

As to the options, except in the case of rape, I ask why is this happening in the first place? Don't people know that sex gets one pregnant? Isn't birth control available. If it's spousal/boyfriend rape in cases where a child can not be raised, then I say someone should be prosecuted. I wouldn't go as far as mandatory sterilisation or compulsory birth control, but all other preventative options should occur first.

1a is absolutely never? Abortion is acceptable at any time in the womb but only under absolutely never conditions?

These are mostly good options, but you didn't make certain distinctions, so my answers may not always really represent how I feel. There are certain times when an abortion may be appropriate, but isn't necessarily so. For instance, a late-term abortion may be appropriate when there's a life-threatening defect or if the mother's life is in danger, but it's not appropriate if the woman just changes her mind.

This is always a controversial topic.

I meant 1b, not 1a, and added c after reading your comment.

Wow. I was being cynical when I created the options 1-hijk. I had no idea a third of people actually felt that way. I must conclude that considering fetusus to be fellow humans is no longer a popular view.

I think 1hijk are more likely to be appropriate the younger the woman is. I envision them applying to teens, and to the very early stages of a pregnancy.

I am pro-life for biological-ethical reasons, so I put "philosophy." Is that close enough?

I can't say abortion is absolutely never apporpriate because there are rapes and incest issues. But I will say that even if the woman is raped she should seriously think about adoption.

Anyone considering abortion should be forced to watch this video:
http://www.cpforlife.org/HTMLobj-2633/hardtruth.wm...
IF that video doesn't move you in some way, then you don't have a heart.

The father of the baby should have a say in whether an abortion takes place. He did have a part in making the child. Just because he doesn't carry it doesn't make his decision any less important than the mother's.

Yes, I am pro-life. My mother was 17 when I was born. My dad was 18 and told my mom to abort me. She said no, and here I am. I firmly believe that pro-abortion people think I should be dead today.
There is a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. National Organization for Women is pro-abortion, Gloria Steinam is pro-abortion. Those people want more abortions to happen. The average woman is probably pro-choice.

Actually, I'm pro-choice, but frankly the choice comes when the woman is deciding if she's going to have sex or not. Once she decides to have sex, the choice has been made. Sex is not a riskless act. There are always consequences, but there will always be people who don't want to face those consequences, thus we have pro-choice and pro-abortion groups.

There is almost no one who is "pro-abortion." Semantics are very important in this case. I would highly doubt that even those who are "pro-choice" think you should be dead right now. They most likely think your mother should have had a choice. Which she did. What makes you say that NOW and Ms. Steinem want more abortions to happen? That's ridiculous.

Well I can honestly say that video didn't move me one bit. Perhaps it was because of the immensely biased and in some places lie-telling bit at the beginning. Or perhaps it's just that I'm not naive enough to think that aborted foetuses are going to look like anything other than aborted foetuses, so it doesn't shock me. Not to mention that aborted monkey foetuses would have similar looking hands.

I don't think I'm heartless. No, I'll go further than that, I'm not heartless. I just think I'm more likely to be moved by a video of a woman talking about how she was forced to carry a child that she didn't want.

* * When is abortion appropriate? * *
- it is at the hands of the mother and as long as the reason is good enough for her, it should be for EVERYONE else, because the child is part of her.

* 2 * Which levels of consent should be required for an abortion? * *
- none

* 3 * Which preventative alternatives to abortion should be exhausted before legalizing abortion? * *
- almost all of them listed

* 4 * What age of a fetus is acceptable for abortion? * *
- anytime while still in the womb

* 5 * Which conspiracy theories do you feel are involved in the pro-choice movement? * *
- The pro-choice movement is sponsored by the bio-tech industry as a source for stem-cell harvesting. - sound believable

* 6 * What are the reasons for your viewpoint about abortion itself? * *
- I don't want to sound like a zealous feminist, but since the baby is part of the woman, she may choose to whatever she wants with it

7 * How strong is your conviction? * *
- I was always pro-choice and I'm firm about it

Pro-choice advocates ignore the fact that there is a party involved unable to make a choice, and that individual faces the biggest loss of all.

The argument that if abortion was illegal people would perform illegal abortions is insane. It's like saying if the death penalty was revoked the public would kill the criminals themselves illegally and this is a good reason to maintain legal murder.

1. if the mother's life is at risk
2. ultimately it's the woman's decision, but if she's married her spouse should surely be involved.
3. sex ed, free birth control, free counseling
4. 8-10 weeks max, unless a woman has a life threatening health problem later on
5. i don't think ther are any conspiracy theories involved
6. I'm a woman, and i feel regardless of what i'd do, only a woman can really decide what to do with her body.
7. firmly convinced, i guess
8. I'm not deciding something like that for others, and if it were illegal more women would end up dying from botched abortions not performed in the correct environment.

wow, what a survey!
unfortunately, i have never formed a firm opinion on the subject.

1 - When is abortion appropriate?

When the pregnant woman decides it is.

2 - Which levels of consent should be required for an abortion?

If the pregnant woman is of the age of consent for sexual activity, then her consent should be the only one required. If she's under the age of consent, then parental consent should be required.

3 - Which preventative alternatives to abortion should be exhausted before legalizing abortion?

sex ed, free birth control, strict police prosecution of rape, and pregnancy counciling should all be done no matter what. None of them should be a prerequisite to abortion being legal, though.

4- What age of a fetus is acceptable for abortion?

Within the second trimester.

5 - Which conspiracy theories do you feel are involved in the pro-choice movement?

None.

6 * What are the reasons for your viewpoint about abortion itself?

Personal philosophy.

7 - How strong is your conviction?

I've put a great deal of energy into understanding my convictions, and I stand by them strongly. I'm willing to talk about them and explain them. I've also contributed to support women's reproductive rights, and I'm sure I will again in the future.

8 - What is your feeling on the pro-choice and pro-life movements?

The names are misleading, Pro-life is a choice, Pro-choice is about having control, it's not my position, if abortion is illegal, people will continue to do it anyhow.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and I firmly support your mother's right to keep her child. Claiming that I would have wanted your mother to abort her fetus is a violent misrepresentation of pro-choice, and you know it. Shame on you.

I'm afraid that most of the options didn't really provide the kind of response I would have to the questions. So I will tackle them here and now:

1) When is abortion appropriate?

I think an abortion is appropriate when a woman who is pregnant and has examined all the possibilities available, decides that is what she wants to do.

2) Which levels of consent should be required for an abortion?

I think that the doctor who is going to perform the abortion should consent to their own involvement in the procedure. I don't believe that doctors should be coerced into it against their better judgement. I think it is a nice idea for the "father" to be consulted, but that depends on circumstances and I don't think that it is a necessity.

3) Which preventative alternatives to abortion should be exhausted before legalizing abortion?

While some of those (sex education, birth control, pregnancy counseling, family assistance, sustainable employment, adoption services) are good things and should be available, they needn't be "exhausted before legalizing abortion". Some of the other options mentioned there are just silly.

4) What age of a fetus is acceptable for abortion?

I don't know. I can only say that time is an element and it should be done as soon as possible.

5) Which conspiracy theories do you feel are involved in the pro-choice movement?

I don't know. Not those ones.

6) What are the reasons for your viewpoint about abortion itself?

I'm not sure. About the same as anything else I guess. A combination of personal experience and talking to people and reading things...

7) How strong is your conviction?

Moderate.

8) What is your feeling on the pro-choice and pro-life movements?

I can understand both. I think they both present valid arguments. I find that they both tend to get too emotional about the issue and it hinders their ability to see the other side's point of view. I picked the f & g options. Although I tend to side with the pro-choice stance in terms of believing that abortion should be legal, I actually find them to be much more annoying. I describe myself as "pro-death". I don't think that there is anything particularly wonderful about killing unborn children. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

I know two women who have had ten or more abortions. One of them told me that she asked to have her tubes tied after each one, but the doctor always told her to wait and reconsider. I disagree with that.

You know kristal, I have very strong views about abortion that come from many different reasoning. I will illustrate just one now; I am a grown (even considered old by some) woman and only recently have I discovered what really happened to my maternal grand-mother, whom I've never known. My mother's tongue has loosened in recent years (so had my mother-in-law's for that matter - must have something to do with aging...) and I discovered that my grand-ma didn't die of being "worn out" from all the children she bore (she was Catholic damn it!) as I was led to believe all my life. My Mom told me (after quite a few drinks) that she remembers the bloody sheets removed from her Mom's room after she died. Of course no one spoke of abortion, it was such a criminal act at the time, but I believe that it was an act of desperation on my grand-mother's part. She was past 40 years of age and her youngest was my aunt Kay at 3 years old. I'm sitting here, trying to remember who my aunts and uncles were from this very dysfunctional part of my family and I can only think of 9 of them. My Mom was in her 20s when she lost her mother and her youngest sister was only 3! It's really sad to think about. I now understand why my mother's life seemed to happen only when she met my father. There are no existing pictures of her life before she met him; she buried everything in her mind. She was an Irish miner's daughter from Nova Scotia and was lucky enough to find her "ticket" out of that life when she met my Dad. I knew my Dad and she really did strike gold! That French Canadian farmer's boy was the best thing that ever happened to her!! It saddens me to think that my mother might have suffered such hardships and it revolts me that I never knew my grand-mother because, in an act of desperation, she tried to abort herself and died of it. In her time, the fudging all mighty Church ruled even in your bedroom!! She must have been quite desperate to try to abort herself but she was certainly worn out by all those children and working to keep a decent house living with a miserable, drunken miner. I met my grand-father and he was a bitter man... I can't even blame him for that. How different would things have been if the likes of Margaret Sanger could have preached to those poor people trapped in their fudging religion?? I might have known my grand-mother - I'm sure she was a beautiful woman because she lives on. My sister Kathleen is said to be so like her, so much so that people who knew my grand-mother say that she is the spitting image of her and my daughter is so like her aunt Kathleen; she could be her daughter. They are both classic beauties... My sister is almost 50 and she is still a beautiful woman - too bad she has so many fudging hang-ups!! If truth be said, so does my daughter!!
Sorry to dump on you like this, I've had a couple of beers so I guess I'm feeling a little maudlin...

Suffice it to say that to me; abortion is just another hurtle to conquer in the struggle for life. Have you ever considered to odds that brought you here in the first place? Think about all the matured ova that have been flushed with every menstrual flow - think about all the sperm that's been wasted (God knows where!) - think about the one single link way back in your ancestry that could have died before conceiving... The more I think of it, the more I understand what a miracle it really is that I am here, now, telling you this; such incredible odds. Every sperm and every ovum has the potential for life - should they all be granted the same right to life? If yes, then this whole planet's population should be in jail if abortion’s laws are taken to the limit because; what and where is the limit to life?

I made it through your whole first paragraph, sympathetic to your experience, with no certain conclusion about your view. I was just getting a hint that what you were leading up to was 'safer' abortion. Her experience was awful, and I wouldn't want anyone to go through it, but you seem to be making the same conclusion I find abhorable, that abortion is an acceptable means of birth control. I think the traditional catholic stance on birth control is insane. Although I would still prefer to see adoption as a risk even of having sex with failing birth control, I'm at least willing to shift my consideration in the event of failed birth control. But if they didn't even use it, such as when drunk at a party, I put it on the same scale of lack of responsibilty as having gotten drunk at a party and accidentally having shot someone in the arm.

As to the wasted ova/sperm issue, those are no more alive than the enzymes in our spit. They propel, but they don't grow or feed as even macrophages do. It's when they join that mitosis begins, and they truly become alive. and miraculously still, in spite of those 40,000 ova and millions of sperm, typically only one pair will mate at a time. There is a difference between stopping something from occuring, and stopping something in progress, especially when it's the existence of life. I don't take damaging plants or insects lightly either, and I certainly don't eat meat of the sort I could pet and get an emotional reaction from. I'm not so crazy about the day-after pill, and certainly, even without the psychic communication bond, I'm sure long before a fetus leaves the womb, that they at least reach the consciousness on an adult pet rabbit.
The point of mitosis, at fertilization, is a clear point of demarcation. Everything after that point is on a sliding scale of degrees of development and human consciousness. The (cynical) Philip K. Dick argument is that once you are on that scale, there's no end, i.e. possibly aborting teenagers. I find your last sentence confusing, and am not sure if you are making the same point or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by hurtle either, as in not accepting it, or accepting it. If the latter, then although I can say that it's an intriguing prospect that a woman is granted not only the power of creation within her body, but that of death as well. But if that's what you mean by a hurdle, then I'm worried, because the same analogy could be extended to peoples right to carry hand-guns, each of us granted the responsibility of letting our neighbors live or die. As I contemplate merging with God on more than a personal level, that concern comes up there too, for I believe tht creation is made of the conscious play of God, that God is all of life & joy, and all of annihilation and misery, and that to merge with that consciousness, I could no longer strive solely for life and joy.
Ya know, tring to see where you're coming from, I've had my share of failure and misery, asking god why, and yet somehow the philosphical notion of 'the struggle for life' is not a way of looking at life that I've ever really considered. Most of the time I see every detail event of life falling into place like a jigsaw puzzle, and so when I do find myself struggling, I feel I'm 'lost' to the spirit of living harmony, not that life is naturally a struggle.

Yep, I'd say in general you are a person guided by philosphy.

Well at least we agree on something. (You can probably tell by some of my options) And it was heart-felt with a sound argument. Although someone could claim that if you weren't here, you wouldn't be complaining about the prospect of not being here, or even that others would take your place, and even that you might instead have become one of those others. I actually do believe in those arguments, but that doesn't change my view that it's a human consciousness were talking about curtailing. That issue though brings up another one, and that is what are we to do if we ever develop the technology to maintain somewhat senile living brains for centuries.
Technically, incest has a worse rap than fact. It takes two generations of close incest to get like a .07% percent chance of deformity. The first generation is negligible. The two main biological risks of incest are that it multiplies prominence of traits, good ones or bad ones, and that it increases the odds of recessive genes appearing. Negative traits tend to be carried by recessive genes, and they don't manifest if you mate with a person with a dominant gene in the same position. It's physically bad for society when done over generations in small hebrew tribes, or in some small back-woods community, which alas, is also where it's most likely to occur. There were some animal studies suggesting that the trend actually reverses if a population gets too small and needs to survive, but I didn't get a full understanding of it.

That brings up yet another issiue though. In my college child psychology and development course, I got the feeling that there is a move to diagnose fetuses for potential abnormalities, and that other than being prepared (as one is with an ultrasound to know what clothes to buy), that the main reason someone might want to know such a diagnoses is to abort. Again, we're back to a sliding scale. Does one abort for retardation? How about for gender (as was popular during the 'one child per family' law)? or for eye color? Worse yet, I can imagine insurance plans not willing to pay for delivery of a child known to later expect hospital complications. Following that logic, diagnoses may one day extend as far as predicting the career potential of a fetus, at which point the insurance company or government might do a cost-analysis of the likely revenue/maintenance of a life, then decide to abort upon that data. - You probably didn't need to hear that 'Brave New World' horror story. It sounds awful, but keep in mind that just a decade ago most people were against the notion of cloning body parts, and now it's like a natural part of life in the cartoons kids are raised on.

Uh, the whole reason abortions became legal was because women were having them done illegally. It's not like some lawmakers just up and decided for the government help kill the unborn because it'd be fun. I agree with you about the party with the most at stake getting a raw deal, though.

I like your angle on the 'beacuse it is part of her'. I was nearly dumbfounded though when I talked to a cousin who claimed that whole experience for her was like that of having an alien being in her. I would have expected it to feel closer than any other mate or family member.

What your saying makes sense to me, but your example won't illustrate it too well with those who don't entirely abstract the 'concept' of the metaphor, and happen to be for the death penalty. A simpler argument would have worked, that murderers will murder anyhow, so why not make that legal?

Perhaps you've forgotten. It's minced-meat man's first birthday today. Oh wait, that's right, he was aborted before he ever took his first steps out of the fridge.

Krystal, the part of my fingernail that keeps it growing is alive and a part of me. Should we incarcerate the person who tortures me for killing my nail growth or for torturing me? All cells are alive and I see no difference. Both the peanut and the shrimp are alive for me; one has the potential and the other is already here. Which one has more of a right to life? Why have we humans put our lives above all else? What makes ours more valuable? Are we not creatures of this planet, just as an amebae is? Who the fudge are we to give ourselves so much importance? We are nothing more than animals that share this planet with a gazillion other life forms, come and gone. Who made us first? We, in our never ending, preprogrammed quest for our survival. We, with our self-centered beliefs. We, with our brained-washed self-importance. We, who are made up of carbon atoms like most everything else that has ever lived on this planet; a recycled mishmash of elements that have been in existence for ever, in many different forms. We, who but borrow the elements that make us up in our very finite lifetime and return them to where they belong when we die. Having said that; all the humans, kittens, gorillas, tomatoes, trees, giraffes, spiders, fish, shellfish, sharks, sponges, birds, celeries ( I can really go on here...) that have not come to be just have not "borrowed" elements from this planet but the potential for all of them was here. No matter what stops a particular life form is not tragic since everything that would have made up the creature is here with us and has always been anyway. The cliché question is often, "But what if that particular pregnancy would produce another Einstein or Amadeus?" My answer is; "So what?" We'll never know and really - does it matter? Einstein is of this century - many have people lived and survived without him for thousands of years! Like, really! So what? We don't need Einstein’s to reproduce our species; we've been doing real well without him! Are we hoping to breed a creature that could find the solutions to the world's problems? Dream on - our species is just another successful one in passing - another will take our place. In couple of billion years, when our sun burns out... What the hell difference is if going to make?
Awww.... We're so self-centered that we can't see the trees for the forest! We really are not that important, the only important thing is to take advantage of the life we get while we are here - nothing else. It's all finite and we get bogged down but such unimportant things. Why should I waste my energy to fight and make this woman have a baby she does not want, regardless how she got pregnant? Why should I cry for her unwanted baby? What about all the lives that were extinguished in the German concentration camps, or those in Central America, or in Zambia, Uganda, South Africa? What to do with all the people dying all around the world today, for no good reason? Why do we cry for something that should have been intentionally expelled from a body and oops - conception? Let's fight for that creature's right to life!! While an incredible amount of already born people are dying of hunger, being massacred, tortured and children are being shot like unwanted dogs. What the fudge are we crying about?

Do you understand my comment in qual now? I really don't like this type of question because nobody seems to be able to look at the big picture. We're just too self-centered, especially on this part of the globe...

*shrugs* That doesn't bother me.

Your fingernail is not an independent organism. Of course an embryo relies upon its environment, but so do adult humans. I never placed humans above animals. If I had my way, there would be a solid greenbelt from argentina to alaska so we wouldn't hinder so many of their migratory lives. I do think we are capable of more responsible decisions than them though. I don't use the Einstein argument because I value all people equally in most deeper respects. In my comment to Glassa I speak against those who would be preferential to raising Einsteins. You didn't see the same distinction as I do, which is that I am not concerned about what could be, but rather with what already is. I have no problem with a person kicking empty space on their floor, the absence of a cat, but I do have a problem with someone kicking an actual cat. I believe in consciousness and soul, that something above our mundane consciousness is also experiencing abortion. I've had experiences which suggest we individually carry the memory of many life-times, but I've also had experiences which suggest that is all ultimately one soul, and that one soul ultimately experiences all life, and all death, hence, by that argument, I am willing to accept abortion as a natural part of life and order in the universe; by the same token however, I am willing to accept reckless sanctioned murder in the streets as a natural part of life and order in the universe..
And no, I still don't get your point, because I'm uncertain if you accept all those lives that were extinguished in the German concentration camps, or those in Central America, or in Zambia, Uganda, South Africa, and all the people dying all around the world today, for no good reason, as a natural part of life and order in the universe, or something you feel we should fight about. Personally, I'm a peace activist, and do what I can about such things, yet on the other hand, I also accept it as the natural order of God's play of consciousness, in which I, for the sake of ego experience, play the role of good guy, when in fact notions of good and evil are delusions, it all coming from God, and all returning to God, continuing through diverse intergalactic experiences through eternity. As long as I'm down here playing a part though, I'll continue to strive for the things I imagine to be good. I don't really know the point at which consciousness begins, but I'd rather play it safe. I'm not of the opinion that it is better to kill a three year old than a teenager, nor that it is better to kill a three month old (in the womb) than a three year old. Like Zang, there are times I may grimace and say 'Well, alright', but I still consider it a murder. There was a time a few years back when I was telepathically experiencing executions and accidents, and I can't say I enjoyed it.
As I said though in my initial comment I voted for 8f) 'Regardless of my own sentiment, It's not my position to decide if it's appropriate for others.', but then, I have also very seriously considered whethar or not law enforcement should exist, or whethar we should leave murderes and victims in the hands of their own karma. Also, I'm coming from a standpoint of soul concerns, which I don't really expect everyone else to believe in, nor necessarily feel they should believe, even if it's true. (Delusion/ignorance is the source of the creation-drama). I will offer my opinions and hope to change sentiments, but I make no claim that my relative mortal views are absolute truths. This survey probably constitutes half of all I've ever spoken on the subject to anyone; the other half being former SC surveys. What inspired this survey was that my peace coalition put a 'March for Womens Lives' on the unendorsed section of our weekly event calendar, which prompted one of long-standing active members to resign. A lot of the march was broadcast on my activist radio station, and I found myself annoyed at the frequent suggestion that abortion is no differnt than birth control. I suppose there are also those who would liken capital punishment to birth control 'Oops, we made a mistake, time to recall this one.' Capital punishment too is on a relative scale (the exact same scale, if you ask me), and one could be asking about circumstances ie 'When is it ok to abort an adult? 1a) If they murdered intentionally... down to 1g) If they get more than three parking tickets, or 1m) When no one likes them or cares to hire them anymore.'
Uh, your comment in qual? This one? '.... Too much information... Too much information... Maybe I'll take the time to read this one!' You were making a point about the big picture there? No, I don't understand how that relates at all.

But I was so looking forward to celebrating his birthday, hence it marked in my calendar (actually it was May 3rd). Alas, I'm sure I expected this. I didn't think he'd have it together enough to make a get-away before his creators and captors, and enemies conspired against his existence.
At least I didn't start knitting him sweaters and having hopes of his one day making the football team at Oxford.
Perhaps one day he'll come back to earth as a petrie dish and contribute to a cure for some horrific virus.

E.coli perhaps?

I can understand her point of view. How old is your cousin?

Oh yeah... I didn't post what I first wrote in qual! You should have been there!

"The argument that if abortion was illegal people would perform illegal abortions is insane"

I know this will sound awful!
But if someone is stupid enough to try to perform an abortion on herself, then she deserves whatever complications come about, including death. It's only fair. There are no safe abortions.

I think that if abortions were illegal, there would still be people with medical degrees performing them illegally. I don't think women will perform them on themselves or that all the people performing them will be using coat hangers in back alleys. I think there would be doctors and other medical professionals performing them illegally in sterile clinics.

1. When is abortion appropriate? (k) For whatever reason they choose. I am pro-choice and someone can have an abortion just cos they don't fancy having a baby on Tuesday.

2. Level of consent (a) None at all. A woman should be able to walk to the nearest doctor, hospital or drop-in clinic and demand one there and then.

3. Which preventative alternatives to abortion should be exhausted before legalizing abortion?

(a) Comprehensive sex education programs.
b) Free birth control.
c) Intensive police safety and strict rape prosecution.
e) Free Pregnancy Counseling.

But it should be there anyway - and still be legal regardless.

4. What age of a fetus is acceptable for abortion?

(c) Whatever British doctors say, which I think is 26 weeks.

5. Which conspiracy theories do you feel are involved in the pro-choice movement?

(c) None at all.

6. What are the reasons for your viewpoint about abortion itself?
Its a feminist issue. Its a social freedom issue.

7. How strong is your conviction?
(c) I am firmly convinced. And I really won't budge on this issue.

8. What is your feeling on the pro-choice and pro-life movements?

(a) I'm aware they deliberately changed their name from Anti-abortion and Pro-abortion to make it sound less aggressive. Words are powerful.
c) Pro-choice is mostly about having control of one's body, and not being a slave to others.
e) Abortion should be legal because otherwise only the criminal or wealthy can have abortions.
g) If abortion is made illegal, people will continue to do it anyhow.


(k) Other. Because the issue is a war against Patriarchy. And any woman who does not politically support Pro-choice politically is a sell-out to the patriarchal society that have dictated how society should be run to meet its own needs.

men are usually the initiators of sex.
men are usually the ones who would rather not have kids.
men are usually the doctors.
men benefit from abortions. they get to have sex without having babies.
men have, over the years convinced women that it's normal and typical for a woman to want sex as bad as a man does.
i think women are being brainwashed and taken advantage of here.

pro-choice

I agree she can't have it both ways. It's one way or the other.

"Because the issue is a war against Patriarchy"
Oh, so abortion is a fight against men? That makes no sense at all. Men aren't the ones who made our bodies this way. What's with the hatred of men anyway?
And what's this about being a slave to others? Most women consider their bodies to be magical when they're pregnant. They describe it as a miracle. Nobody's forcing a woman to keep the baby.
The real slaves are the silly Catholics who don't believe in birth control at all. Who the hell needs 10 kids?????

26 weeks is over 6 months gestation. The baby can most likely survive on it's own at that point. But I guess it would be easier to kill it.
My mom had a baby at 6 months. He would've survived if he hadn't had other problems.

Sex is not a riskless act. There are always consequences, but there will always be people who don't want to face those consequences, thus we have pro-choice and pro-abortion groups. You must be one of those who don't want to face the consequences of life.

My mother didn't want me at first. Her life is much fuller since she decided to have me though.
And she's the one who told me that.

How many pregnancies are actually planned anyway? Not many I'd guess.

The only person who forces a woman to do anything is a rapist. If she didn't want to become pregnant, then she shouldn't have made the choice to have sex. There is a risk with it, and we all have to face that risk whether we want to or not. It's called maturity.

"Claiming that I would have wanted your mother to abort her fetus is a violent misrepresentation of pro-choice, and you know it. "

I never said you were pro-abortion. Groups like Planned Abortionhood are pro-abortion. Their livelyhoods depend on how many abortions they perform on a daily basis, so of course they want more to happen.
Groups like the National Organization for Women are pro-abortion. Somehow they get a weird sense of power and get off on being able to kill babies. Those are the same "women" who believe that all sex is rape (a spokesperson made that claim a few years ago).

Those are the types of people who think I should be dead. NOT YOU!
And BTW, I'm not a fetus. And I'm not part of my mother's body either. I never understood that part of the selfish whiney arguement "It's myyy booooddddyyyyy!" Fine, carve yourself up with razors for all I care, burn yourself with acid, suck the brain out of your own head, but don't do it to a baby.

Does anybody give a damn that the heart starts beating at the 8th week and the fetus CAN feel pain? But as long as the "woman" is the only thing that's important, I guess that doesn't matter.

Well I'm glad your mother was able to make a choice. That's what it comes down to. I'm certainly not saying that your mother should have aborted you, I'm saying that the option should have existed for her to do so. She chose to have you and that's great - but how happy would you have been growing up knowing that your mother chose to abort you but was prevented from doing so legally? She might have resented having to carry you for 9 months and then look after you, so not love you or take good care of you.....Or you could have ended up in the adoption system which works out great for some kids but terribly for others.

As for women making a choice when they have sex then that's fair enough I suppose *if* they've had access to good sex-education programmes (which is something that a lot of pro-lifers seem to oppose along with condoms in schools). Yes, virtually every teenager is going to know that sex can lead to pregnancy (though certainly not all), but the number who still believe myths like you can't get pregnant the first time, you can't get pregnant when the woman is on top, you can't get pregnant underwater, and so on is astounding. Not to mention using birth control properly requires something of an education - condoms are only 99% effective when used properly and it's not that hard to use them incorrectly. As for birth control pills, a lot of women think that if they take them then they *can't* get pregnant - they don't realise that if they have a slight temperature, or they're stressed, or they're sick, or they haven't eaten right that day, etc. that the pills might not work.

But even if people have had access to good sex education programmes, accidents and mistakes still happen. The occasional one night stand under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The man who seems like an angel until the first time he hits you. The married couple who think the woman is too old and already have 6 kids and no money. The time you get just that bit too carried away. The condom that just so happens to have a microscopic hole or tear in it. The woman who takes her birth control pills, has sex and *then* throws up when it's too late to use another form of protection.

And you seem to be forgetting that maturity comes with age and experience. How can you deny an abortion to someone who is too immature to have a baby, who shouldn't have been having sex in the first place but was too immature to *realise* that they weren't mature enough? What about people who have mental problems who will never be mature enough? A friend of mine has had 4 babies already, two of them stillborn, she has the mental age of a child and lacks the faculties to say no - if she were just a bit more intelligent, she would probably have asked for an abortion before it was too late.

Do you give a damn that the lamb you probably ate for dinner last night had been born with a beating heart and was able to feel pain when it was slaughtered for your pleasure? I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference

I apologize. I completely misread something you wrote earlier. I shouldn't have jumped all over you like that.

I don't like the idea of people profiting from performing abortions, either.

I thought e.coli was a beneficial sub-system, and not a virus. I also hear it has been modified to eat oil spills and such. On the other hand, a bit after I left a fast-food chain, they made news with an e.coli outbreak. When I later returned, they were practically handling boiled tongs with boiled tongs, and yet, as I recall before leaving the first time, we had cut down on maintenance costs of the grease-traps, by using a product poured down the drain of the food-prep and dish sink, made of.. dramatic pause... E. Coli ! !
There was a sci-fi novel written by John Brunner, required reading in a class of mine, called 'The Sheep Look Up', which was exactly about that concept of industry obliviously contaminating itself.

This was eight years ago. That would have made her 28 at the time. She's had a second child since.

Raving into the ether, are we?

That's a lame argument. Besides the ethical concerns, I agree that any abortion is a risk to the mother; but your argument is like saying that if stitching gaping gashes were made illegal, then anyone who stitches their own wounds and gets an infection gets what they deserved.

E.coli is a bacteria - I was just using it as an example of a pathogen known to be found on raw meat. It isn't usually bad but some strains are awful. It's similar to meningitis which something like a third of people carry in the backs of their throats. It's very rare for it to enter the bloodstream but when it does it's nasty.

I have got to find that Sheep Look Up book! In my stats lectures, one of the examples that keeps coming back to haunt us is sheep look up rates (along the lines of how many times a day to they stop eating and look up). One fo my friends is even doing her undergraduate project about sheep look up rates! I imagine the book has nothing to do with it, but it's funny all the same :_)

...uh... That's it exactly!! You're getting to know me too well!

Always appropriate unless the fetus is really developed and doesn't have any major deformities. Don't abort anything with a brain. Anything else it's fine. If you don't feel right, whatever the reason, with a child then don't have it. There's a lot of people suffering around because their parents didn't abort them.
No consent other than the one of the pregnant woman, but of course she should talk with her parents, boyfriend, father of the child, doctor (of course). if she's a teenager I don't care. She can have a tutor for legal matters, but it should be her decision. Unless she's mentally ill or really young (under 14). Sex education of any kind and free birth control should be legal. Abortion should be legal as well, but it should be always considered the last chance. Girls should be educated to take the pill or whatever, they should be educated not to get pregnant casually. But abortion should still be legal of course. Only it shouldn't be encouraged or taken lightly.
2-3 months is the max for me. Unless there are really really medical serious circumstances. But abortion over 3 months is baby killing.
I have no opinion over the whole pro-life/pro-choice thing. I base my idea on my upbringing, what my parents especially my mother taught me, intuitive feelings and my own personal philosophy. I'm firmly convinced and give my opinion when the issue comes out, but I'm in no way an activist. I would really like people to concentrate more on birth control of any kind than abortion, really. It's like taking painkillers instead of treating the disease. Useful and should be legal, but it shouldn't be the "ideal" way.

People will get abortions if it was illegal. They will have to deal other than with the obvious mental and physical stress of having an abortion also with serious medical dangers and guilt. It's obvious that abortion needs to be legal.

Child rape is currently being performed illegally. Is that a good reason to make it legal?

True. Sometime people have to go without or make sacrifices for their children. It's a shame such actions aren't always extended to the unborn.

I later used the fact that child rape is currently being performed and that fact does not make it a moral move if child rape was legalized to prevent illegal child rape.

It's something I just can't understand with the left (but I can't understand anything the left advocate anyway) - the left fight tooth and nail to end the death penalty because they object to the killing of violent criminals, but at the same time they push for abortion. Strange.

It's strange to me too. Equally strange are the fundamental christians who oppose abortion, but support capital punishment; although the latter view makes a bit more sense - equal opportunity until you blow it big time.
One difference on this issue between the left and the right seems to stem from from whethar people believe fetusus are people or not, and that seems almost incidentally related, except that fundamental christians tend to be right wing.
It just now dawns on me that this is so because fundamentalists are coming from a hierarchy of god and clerics, and in general, have fitted this sentiment to a reverance for hierarchy in society in general. The right wing ideology is based on faith in leaders. In contrast, the fundamental unifying principle of the left wing is grass-roots society, where power lies only in the congregation of individuals, and not leaders. Somehow though, unborn children are looked upon not as individuals, but as more outsiders to the individual. When leftists are spiritual, it's towards new-age sentiment, which should suggest that unborn souls are just as important, but leftist spiritual-thinking starts with the premise that anything goes, that there are infinite spiritual truths for each individual, that none may dare declare what is right for another. It's not like the rightist ideology, that there is one absolute truth which all must abide by. At least that's the way it is here. I seem to recall that over there, general packages labeled as left and right seem to have traded some of their components with each other compared to here. ...but then I take that with a grain of salt, since I heard it from you, and you're the first person I've ever heard claiming that it was socialists, not capitalists driven by envy rather than non-materialism. Now that I think of it, your arguments are inconsistent, because you've also declared self-interest as the only viable motive for effective social-systems. That seems to me to suggest that you are more concerned with winning an argument, than accurately representing an ideology. Well, I've strayed off the abortion topic, so hopefully if you respond to my digressions, we can contain it within the survey already saturated with that debate.

I think the people using the 'legalizing what would happen anyhow' argument , are really masking that they don't really consider it immoral in the first place, but don't want to admit to such, and prefer to make their position look like (or even feel to themselves like) one of generosity.

On the contrary, the right wing ideology is based on individual responsibility for actions which means that an innocent who has done nothing wrong should not be punished by death for the actions of the parents who should face up to the result of their actions and at least allow the child they created a life. By the same token, death sentences are given for the most heinous crimes which also supports the ideology that people get rewarded for their works and take individual responsibility for what they do. The right seek small government and more emphasis placed on the responsibility of individuals.

With the left (I know you won't agree) but many believe they are morally bankrupt, ("anything goes")seeking to remove all responsibility for the actions of individuals and instead blaming "society" for their behaviour which is why criminals need protecting and unborn children are expendable. There is also the Marxist hatred of religion and all it teaches in the mix too. Marxism is nihilism. Firstly, the communists saw religious hierarchy as a challenge to the power of the state. Secondly (and more controversially)with no religion teaching good and evil, mass murder becomes a legitimate tool for the expansion of Marxist ambitions. "Violence in itself is not evil: it depends on what its purpose is. In the hands of socialists it can be a progressive force" - Soviet Secretary Boris Ponomarev.

The right on the other hand believe in justice with a measure of mercy, but also, mercy must have a measure of justice, which means responsibility. The 'fall of man' in Christianity is all about free agency and associated individual responsibility for that freedom.

How ironic that Marx, a hater of religion, said;
"With disdain I throw my gauntlet
Full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this Pygmy giant
Whose fall will not stifle my ardour.

Then will I wander godlike and victorious
Through the ruins of the world,
And, giving my works and active force
I will feel equal to the creator."

Bit of an egomaniacal fruitcake no?

Well, that's a different angle to look at it from.
We have a saying here 'The democrats (left wing) want to know what's in your wallet, the republicans (right wing) want to know who's in your bed, and the libertarians care about neither'.

It's not so black and white. I see how you can say that the right wing is more in support of individual responsibility, but at the same they believe there should be a single standard of law and behavior that applies to everyone, preferably the bible. I's a liberal view to suggest that every community should decide for themselves if they want martial law, abortion, or public nudity. The right wing is economically freedom-of-the-individual, and ethically one-code, while the left wing is economically one-code and ethically freedom-of-the-individual. Libertarians (which I am not), are are both economically and ethically freedom-of-the-individual. The communist nations you complain of (which I don't subscribe to either) were both economically and ethically one-code.

Yeah, that's scary Marx stuff. He had a few good points, but in general I don't agree with him either. As I said in my discourse a few days back, the implementation of his ideology was maintained in Stalinism-Leninism through the intentional crippling of society, Something you observed even earlier than I. {I have to reinvent the whole wheel myself to make such observations}. I don't like power-of-the-state. I'm definitely not an anarchist either. Rather I am for grass-roots cooperatives, where power branches out collectively from the concentricity of individuals. One has to go to obscure places like greenland or old native american cultures to find that ideology in action.; places where nothing could be gained by becoming the king of a vaster empire. My ideology is similar; to behave as if their were nothing to be gained from extending ones empire, because to do so in a post-frontier modern world means invasion of someone elses existing potential empire.

I have a seen a few of the lowly leftists you speak of, who feel society owes them everything without having to bear personal responsibility, and they should be taken care of. Fortunately these people are also too lazy to be politically active, and think someone else should be representing them too. On the other hand, there is the right wing which not only succeeds in legalizing their own empirical successes, but also shape the economic laws everyone else must abide by too. Aside from that though, liberals tend to believe that life is more about social freedom than economic freedom, so while the right wing campaigns for libertarian business law, like lower taxes, the left wing campaigns for behavioural freedom, like pro-choice, gay rights, anti-capital punishment, etc. It's not so much moral bankruptcy or lack of personal responsibility as much at is that no individual or group has a right to decide what is moral for others, and that individual responsibility should be left to individuals, not decreed by social law (which would make it not personal responsibility, but mindless behavior). It is the liberal position that everyone is self-responsible for being a good citizen, and that society should reward good citizens with a good living. The foundation of this notion is that society is trustworthy and generous. The foundation of the right-wing ideology is absolutely contrary to this, that society is neither generous nor trustworthy, and laws have to be created to enforce social behaviour and ensure that individuals can compete for their own economic survival. It is a fear driven ideology, which is why Bush so adamantly markets the notion of perpetual fear. You don't trust human-nature either, so it makes perfect sense that you side with right-wing ideology. Both of our systems are based on 'what would work best if everyone was like me'. Alas, the sad truth of it is that there are probably 7 billion ideal systems, ranging from what would work best if everyone were a psychopathic serial killer to what would work best if everyone were Mother Theresa.

In theory, the ultimate capitalist leader is no less psychopathically Machiavellian than what you ascribe to Marx, the only difference is in whethar the motive is profit or ideology. Besides, killing people isn't very communist-socialist anyhow, unless you plan to kill them all. You still treat me as buying into stereotype generalities lock,stock,&barrel. A lot of what Marx had to say was brilliant observation and theory. Same with Einstein. If Einstein had also added 'kill them all', it would not discredit the brilliance of his other work.

more than a bit.

alas, marx was clearly coming from more than a live-and-let-live philosphy. There was a subtextual motive of power which allowed this force to propogate in the first place. My system isn't exactly live-and-let-live either. It would have to propagate internally with the power of spread generosity, while defending itself externally from those who do not believe in live-and-let-live.

I suspect that most of the worlds greatest thinkers were also fruitcakes or dysfunctional in some respect.

Before abortion was legal, a woman seeking an abortion would often end up going to a quack butcher, which could lead to the death of both mother and child. This is how it became a rights issue: the law was preventing the choice of taking one life and was consequently losing two. This choice became the focus of the movement, and it eventually became legal.

The problem with child rape is that the kid has every opportunity to disagree with your choice to destroy them, as the fetus does not. It'll be tough to get it legalized, but it is possible. You just need a democracy that has a vastly majority population with this attitude, then wait for a time when kids come to expect it so it isn't technically rape anymore. Then it'll be legal. God, that's sick, but possible.

Anyway, the reverse is true too. You want abortion illegal again, just get huge majority in your view. A democratic state is not designed to be moral. That's the church's job, and it isn't democracy's fault that it failed to keep everyone in line (I think a factor is that Western churches (especially Christian) consider science a threat, which erodes their power, whereas the Eastern religions do well (Islam is the fastest growing religion) because they integrated science into their worldview early on.).

Legality becomes a moot point. Abortion existed long before it became legal, simply making illegal again doesn't really solve anything. Ultimately, you want a society where women would never think to destroy a fetus. This means you need a society with more self-discipline across the board: no more rapists, no incestuous creeps, encouraged adoption, communal support for the mother, etc., until all the reasons are gone.

I like your perspective, not confusing one domain for another. I think Kaleb has a different view of law, but I'll let him speak for himself on that.

I am a "silly Catholic" and I am pro-choice. Just because I am Catholic does not mean I necessarily believe in all the teachings of the Church. I can make my own decisions. I have also used birth control in the past and have my tubes tied. So your are wrong about Catholics, Glassa and your bias is showing!!!!!
I also don't have 10 kids and no one in my family does either. You make Catholics sound like we are all just sitting around barefoot and pregnant. I can tell you have kept all your parent's points of view. That's unfortunate for you. You need to leave your home state and see the rest of the world sometime, you may be enlightened.

I'm glad you at least can see why I loathe Marx so much. It's a shame someone I thought had a brain in his head - Zang - is a Marxist, blind to how much of a monster he truly was.

I don't agree with your assertion that the left don't seek to regulate the behaviour of others. Where does political correctness and the "thought police' come from? Affirmative action is legistated racism that does not come from the right. Who is trying to force people to use less fossil fuels through taxation and regulation despite the entire assertion that humans are causing global warming being impossible to prove and based on false and incomplete science? Regulation demands big government which is what leftists seek.

MArx was hardly a genius. His primary point, that humans are divided into the bourgeoise and proletariat who are in conflict at all times is false. It ignores much and assumes more. Everything else he predicted failed to come to fruition. Only capitalism provided the wealth he assumed could only come from socialism. I don't think power with Marx was subtextual. He advocated the forced confiscation of property. Power was central to his ideology. Gulags aren't needed in a society where power is shared.

I agree with everything you said except the Muslim thing. Perhaps at one time Islam embraced science but today Islam is regressive and sinking further into ideological fanaticism. At least Christianity tolerates teh science that contradicts its position. Islam condemns to death those who argue against it using logic and science.

I think that argument is poor. You are saying that because there is so much death and destruction on Earth we shouldn't worry about abortion. You've got to start somewhere don't you?

It's subtextual in the way power is subtextual to Bush's campaign for democracy.
He's most famous for his 'dialctic' which could be applied to many systems besides politics, but his more brilliant stuff, which was too complex for me to remember well without some reminder of the premise, was about labor and equality trends. Alas, his answer was like the Kurt Vonnegut short 'Harrison Bergeron' in 'Welcome to the Monkey House', where everyone was crippled to ensure equality.
I think the left can be said to view it as 'The one should be diverse' (same being, diverse faces), while the right says 'the diversity should become one' (seperate beings, common law) and come up with things like 'One World Government' is the work of Satan, while the left sees that more as Godly. Secrecy and competition are rightist thoughts, an environment with no need for laws is leftist thought. In leftist thought, the goals of society supercede those of the individual, so yes, framed that way, it can be said offer less freedom. Whatever freedom it offered would be the same across the board. The left asks for equal environment, the right asks for equal behavior.
Poor-houses aren't required where power is shared either.

The thing about the left I don't like is that they are all for diversity until you are a white male English speaker from the west. Then you are considered the enemy and something to be rejected and hated. The left is not about equality, they are about destroying the status quo, even if the replacement ideology is a proven failure. Australia's last Governer General (the representative of the Queen in Australia) was chosen as an Anglican minister. The leader of the Green Party - slightly left of the Bolsheviks - proclaimed that because this man was a white, male, Christian, he was a poor choice in a multicultural country. The fact he lives here is enough qualification to represent the Australian people fails to dawn on the left. You see how the left never sees people as individuals? They always judge people on what sex, race or religion they are. Right now, in the loony left mind, the best way to show how non-bigotted they are is to find people who they consider belong to a majority group and unload every sort of venom they can on them, deny them rights that others have, and ridicule them when they call for equality, even calling them racist or sexist! The way the left have installed their twisted world view is through legislation. They make it law to discriminate then threaten people who call for total equality with lawsuits. It is illegal to treat people the same in the west because of leftist policy. It is also against the law to use land you have paid for as you see fit because of leftist policy. The right do see people as seperate beings with common law. The operative word being 'common', or the same across the board.

One world government Godly? That would depend on the government wouldn't it? I don't know about the left, but the right don't trust governments at the best of times. Imagine having the entire planet governed by a small committee. If you think a socialist government would spread the power think again and look at history. How many Russians were asked about the cold war? They were kept in the dark and fed bullcrap. Power corrupts. It's far better to spread power at least to the level of individual countries. Imagine a soviet central government in Brussels deciding policy for Aboriginal application of tribal law in the Northern Territory of Australia.

In political issues of race and gender, Aus seems 30 years behind us. Our right wing establishment is clever enough to placate the masses with PC tokens who are in fact quietly more right wing than the average white male.
I like to think my circle is above that, though the fringe of my group is still into symbolic representation. Empty symbolism is even worse though.
Affirmative action has pretty much been disassembled here already. I'm with the people who believe it failed because it's administration wasn't handled by those who even seemed to understand it's modus operandi and goal. I think others who have given up on it also see that it didn't get a chance to change the underlying causes, and probably wouldn't if administrated similarly again.
Leftists aren't centrists. The right, rightfully, fears a central kabal running human kind. The left are looking to have the world govern the world, with NO dominant or competing factions. No nations, no corporations, no religious descrimination. The right see one world government as arising from one faction gaining absolute dominance. As every socialist here has told you repeatedly, modern socialism is the inverse of the centrism which destroyed china and the USSR. They want far more total widespread democracy than the right, which considers democracy to impede political, corporate, and individual social liberty. The grass roots component of modern concentric socialism would be like our (seemingly discarded) 10th ammendment, in which local rights supercede federal rights. (the diversity of the one). You describe the nightmare the right fears, not the live-and-let-live goal of the left.
It's interesting. The more I examine left vs. right, the more I see it like two columns of a jigsaw puzzle, making incursions into each others motives and policies at every issue. That one/all metaphor helped me see that it stems from two seperate interpretations of what the nature of this same universe is, so the deeper and wider you examine it, the more it's really the same.

Why? And have more people on this overburdened planet?

It's a FACT that there is more than enough food, energy and space for all the people and more. The problem is distribution. It is a misinformed LIE to say the planet is overpopulated and the best way to solve this perceived problem is by scraping children alive from their mothers. It is a FACT that the number of extinctions has actually fallen even though there are more people now. It is a FACT that commodity prices have fallen relative to the value of the dollar. If there was a shortage of commodities due to overpopulation, the price would be rising. You need to stop swallowing all the lies idiots like Greenpeace spew and start dealing with facts.

Affirmative action failed because it used force. It failed because it's basically flawed - trying to solve a problem by using the same problem.

Socialists aren't for huge central governments? That seems to fly in the face of history and socialist dogma. The firther left you go the more power is concentrated in government. The free market is free because government does not control every aspect of it like socialists and fascists do. The left, even "neo" socialists, do not want freedom like this. They need a huge beauracracy to oversee the confiscation of excess that comes about as a product of harder work or inovation so it can be distributed to the parasites. You believe in something that cannot be called socialism because it would require the absence of most basic human drives and characteristics. That's where all of Marxs theories failed to develop as he thought they would.

Take a plane that has depressurized. The capitalist mother inhales a surplus of oxygen so she can then use the mask to keep her baby alive without passing out herself. The socialist mother sees inhaling an excess of oxygen as decadent or whatever, so fails to flood her blood with enough. She seeks to share the oxygen with the baby before her position is safe and so she passes out. The mask falls from the babies face with the mother's hand and both suffocate - but at least they're equal right? The fact that people aren't that stupid means their basic instinct is contrary to socialism. That is why you need a governing body to force people to act in a self destructive and eventually a socially destructive way.

It's against the nature of half the people out there (well, probably more) but not all of them. It's more like religion that asks that everyone transcend their lower nature, not build laws around it. Law exists in capitalism to defend those who have more, law exists in socialism to defend those who have less. The need for law isn't the issue here. Socialists would probably be content and leave it alone if wealth was disporportional, but power was equal, but that's not how it is. Bill Gates has far more chance to change a law or broadcast an ideology than Fred Smith or his dad could ever achieve. Btw, except for his ruthless tactics, I really don't have anything against Gates, he's just convenient for demonstrating concepts.

Gates has got more to lose than Fred Smith too.

No he doesn't. Living on the street or dying would be the same for either. You know, there's a basic human spiritual theme which seems to repeatedly breeze past you unseen.

" It is a FACT that the number of extinctions has actually fallen even though there are more people now"

Where did you read this?

Yeah, I'd like to know where that came from too. It may be that species which ended directly in the hands of man may have diminished since the 30's, and that we are betting at recording loss of species, but the fact remains that, for whatever reason, species are dropping like flies in the past couple decades.

Do some research for yourself. I'm tired of trying to convince people who have already made up their minds based on what crazies like Greenpeace come out with.

When was the last time you heard of a species becoming extinct? If they are dropping like flies, where's the news? When humans first started travelling the world and bringing foreign species like cats and rats with them there was a burst of extinctions. They were almost inevitable, unless humans refrained from all travel.

The original claim of 40,000 species lost every year came from a guy called Myers in 1979. He *guessed* that in 25 years, 1 million species would be extinct due to human activity. That works out o 40K per year. The figure was a complete guess, yet that doesn't stop morons from still believing it as fact. In 1980 a report backed by the WWF the author asserted that by the year 2000, 15-20% of all species would be extinct.

That's fantasy. Now for the facts. Although Brazil's heavily populated coast has resulted in the almost total clearing of the Atlantic Rainforest (12% remaining in fragments) the Brazilian Society of Zoology analysed all 171 known Atlantic forest animals and found they "could not find a single known animal species which could be properly declared as extinct, in spite of the massive reduction in area and fragmentation of their habitat."

The World Conservation Union keeps data relating to extinct species. Although predictions for ectinctions are high, the facts prove different. The Union states that in areas where habitat has been reduced "it must be assumed during this contraction, very large numbers of species have been lost in some areas. Yet surprisingly there is no clear-cut evidence for this."

Despite the facts, and the apparent failure of these expected 40,000 species extinctions per year to actually be happening, the facts don't seem to matter to people who parrot the fantasy. There has been more extictions since humans began travelling the world. There is also a background extinction rate that has always been there. Both of these added together come nowhere near what the scaremongers have put forward as estimates. What is also ignored by the environazis is the fact that most of the extict megafauna was killed out by pre-industrial and pre-capitalist humans, and that these humans were not all westerners. When Europeans colonised New Zealand, the native Maoris were beginning to show the signs of protein deficiencey. They had hunted to extinction most large birds and had to rely entirely on fish since New Zealand has no mammals.

I'm not denying there are extinctions, but whay the hell does the green left have to lie in order to gain support for their cause? Don't you ask yourself if a cause is worthy of our attention, why does it need to be exaggerated thousands of times?

*rolls eyes*

hmm, i must have been tired 'getting better' became 'betting'.
I recall blue butterflies as a kid. Six species of blue butterfly in california are endangered now, and I haven't seen any of them since I was a kid. How's that make news? 'Fewer people have seen blue butterflies lately. George Schmedley called our hot-tip line, saying that he once saw one daily in his garden, and now hasn't seen one for two months. When reporters inquired through street interviews, they found that most people recall having seen blue butterflies, but not since they were young.' Get the point? Diminishing species aren't news events. It would take the last one dying in captivity to make the news. Also, an agency wanting press is often required. The endangered stink-footed toad may not have an advocacy group that wants to make news. LA was crawling with flies, toads, and lizards when I was a kid, besides lots of butterflies, None of which I've seen in recent decades. I could blame it on living in a different neighborhood, but I live next to a creek now. That should give me some species visibility. Pre-capitalist humans? Socialist humans may wipe out their local hard-wood forest, but it takes capitalist humans to conquest out someone elses hard-wood forest.
I rarely even eat fish, and I'm doing ok.
I bet if I asked a thousand of my neighbors about blue butterflies, only two would comment that they were aware of their dissappearance before being asked. Know one pointed it out to me either. I just noticed animals in general in decline, and did some research, which led to finding a listing of specific examples I could concur with.

Wow! Thats a big question/opinion. This always 'gets me' -making judgments on who/who doesn't get to choose.. My best friend was raped on a regular basis by her father when she was a young teen..I wasn't about to be the one to decide if her abortion was 'right' or not. Sometimes, life really SUCKS no matter what choice is.

Thanx for nothing...

There are too many human beings anyway. But the principal reason that I support the parents' choice about abortion is that I don't believe that the early fetus is a person. I believe that the soul enters the fetus late in development - so I don't see early abortions as infanticide. Because of this belief I support abortions for all kinds of reasons - but the ones that are especially compelling are when the child was created by a violent act such as incest.

The fact that there are less species within greater LA when comparing today to the LA area 500 years ago doesn't surprise me or worry me. LA is a big city with 13 or so million people living in a relatively small area. Do you expect buffalo to roam the freeways? Of course in LA things might be different now than when you were a kid but what about in Yosemite or even in the farming areas? LA isn't the world.

Don't talk to me about the record of socialists and the environment. Socialists ruined their environment everywhere they ruled. The only socialists who didn't were the Nazis and they were anti-human too.

If you want to believe everything idiots like Greenpeace come out with and never bother to check for real facts that's not my problem Irene. There are people who have seen the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and are now saying it's factual. This is the kind of insanity Greenpeace breeds with it's baseless scaremongering.

I'm comparing to 15 years ago, not 500 years ago. Big difference.
Even the kids here are full of pesticides.
I wasn't making any sort of socialist/capitalist point about diminishing species (at least not in this or the last comment), I'm just saying that public awareness of it is much slimmer than the truth rather than more exxagerated. Perhaps your environmentalists can afford more advertising that ours can, and your tv news isn't about new products. Speaking of advertising, I noticed something about the newspaper today. Photos on the front page are in color. From their on out though, all the other color pages are advertisements, except the special inserts like the travel or fashion section (which are in a sense ads too).
But since you bring it up, The existence of places like Yosemite is due to socialism. If Kodak had their way, the trails would be full of billboards. Whenever we got a particularly capitalistic president, like Reagan or Bush, federal land resources get sold to private enterprise. Now it may be possible that the selling of those preserves in turn bought some time for unprotected third world resources, but I'm sure that wasn't the reasoning.

Since you bring up Greenpeace to Irene, it dawns on me that I haven't even heard much from them in many years.

I'm still curious to know where you read that information...

Yosemite might owe its existence to socialism (I doubt capitalism was totally absent from the decision though), but vast swathes of Africa are still national park due to the potential of making money through enticing western capitalist rich tourists. If the world was socialist, there would be communal farms in national parks and nuclear power plants on the rivers.

Every few weeks I visit the Greenpeace site for a laugh at the stupidity.

I can see only one reason for capitalism having less impact upon resources; Whethar one person, a family, or the whole neighborhood owns a car, they will probably vote to use it for buying groceries, and not to go cross-africa racing or use it as a submarine. A single owner could polish the leathar daily, or paint grafitti on it and use it for reckless driving; Resources owned capitalistically, however, are more likely to be owned by those who covet them most, rather than have some national average attachment to th resource. Whethar their motive is to profit or preserve is still up for question. A national park bought by an exotic hardwoods wholesaler is going to be worse off than those who would put campgrounds between the exotic trees. Socialism does not necessarily mean dictators like Mao who can not singlehandedly know the value of all national resources, yet pretend to anyhow.

Ah, so your the one keeping Greepeace alive. If you really cared about the world having some common sense, you shouild join THEM. They have the idealism and marketing, you claim to have the knowledge they lack and need. To be an opposition helps no one.

I used to be fully pro-choice.. until I became pregnant.. Then I became very confused for a long time. I don't want people who shouldn't be parents having children.. but I don't want them using it as a birth control method. I don't agree with any abortions that are done after the first trimester, but really I don't agree with anything done after the first 3-4 weeks of pregnancy.

My feeling is--you had sex.. now you have to raise the child right or learn how to not be selfish and give it up.

Pro Choice is not Anti Life; I base my opinions on medical knowledge as well.

I'm just going to say I'm pro-choice and leave it at that. I found all the choices confusing and overly complicated. If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have it.