Nothing when you consider there are only sixty-one women in the House and thirteen women in the Senate. Wasn't this photo taken about a week ago? Even more interesting would be to see how each of the women voted. There are eighteen Republican women in the House and three in the Senate. All the others are Democrats.
That is the problem. You can bet if women were represented in Congress proportionate to the population this little scene would never be happening.
No, that isn't the core of the problem. Does the gender of the representative really change these values? I don't think so. It is a cockamamy notion that a man cannot understand the morality of the issue as well as a woman can.
Should a woman really be allowed to carry a heatlhy fetus to term just to abort it because such a procedure is less invasive and risky? And where is the line drawn anyway? I'd like to know how far we can go by law in aborting a fetus. Can a baby who is for all intents and purposes out of the mother, but still connected via umbilical, be classified as only partially-born?
Isn't there another long-winded thread on this topic. (I will admit to not having read it.)
Go even further and consider the improbable, hypothetical situation where a viable fetus unmistakably exhibits clear signs sentience. What then? Does being sentient grant you the right to live? Does having a heartbeat or synaptic activity?
No, that isn't the core of the problem. Does the gender of the representative really change these values? I don't think so. It is a cockamamy notion that a man cannot understand the morality of the issue as well as a woman can.
Not really, you have to put you in the place of others in order to understand their feelings. It's not a question of understanding morality, but of understanding feelings, and especially women ones.
Not really, you have to put you in the place of others in order to understand their feelings. It's not a question of understanding morality, but of understanding feelings, and especially women ones.
Powerdoc please realize I have great respect for you but I have to point out something that concerns me.
The whole topic of "feelings"
No matter what a belief, law or policy is there will be some that "feel" it (belief, law or policy) is "wrong".
Powerdoc please realize I have great respect for you but I have to point out something that concerns me.
The whole topic of "feelings"
No matter what a belief, law or a policy is there will be some that "feel" it (belief, law or policy) is "wrong".
It does not matter the belief, law or policy.
Fellows
I think you miss my point. I did not speak of moral, whose can be understanding by both sex equally.
I speak of feelings. When someone say he has pain, i can't feel it, i can't enter in his brain. If i want to understand his pain, i have to remember my own pain. The same apply to all feelings : in order to understand other peoples feeling, we have to share the same feeling (at a funeral for example) or to check in the memory in order to try to remember a comparable feeling experience.
As men should never became pregnant, we should never understand this particular feeling.
Feeling do not replace the laws, but laws have to take them into account , because moral deal with humanity. And humanity deals with our feelings.
Not really, you have to put you in the place of others in order to understand their feelings. It's not a question of understanding morality, but of understanding feelings, and especially women ones.
Then, if *anything*, the woman should feel even closer to the baby she's discarding than the man... but no...that apparently isn't the case. Whatever crazy notion anybody might have about metaphysical bonds between mother and child, those all go out the window when you consider the circumstances. We are talking about the termination of a viable fetus' life, aren't we? And that is in a literal sense too since partial birth abortions occur all the time later into pregnancies than when prematurely born babies have survived...
Which womanly feeling am I unable to grasp? The one that leads to the desire to terminate the life of a viable unborn child? You're right, I can't really grasp that.
Feeling do not replace the laws, but laws have to take them into account , because moral deal with humanity. And humanity deals with our feelings.
I believe I have a better understanding of what you wished to communicate in the first place. It was my misunderstanding. I would only suggest that I agree we should take feelings into consideration and we may "never" know the feelings of any other human on the planet. I am only saying that wisdom lead belief, law or policy over feelings. Here is an example. If a 5 year old boy has very painful feelings because his father will not allow him to have the keys to the car is that really important? The father has the wisdom to know that it is in the best interest for that child to not have access to that car because if the feelings of the child were to have greater importance than the wisdom of the father the child and others could be in great danger.
Then, if *anything*, the woman should feel even closer to the baby she's discarding than the man... but no...that apparently isn't the case. Whatever crazy notion anybody might have about metaphysical bonds between mother and child, those all go out the window when you consider the circumstances. We are talking about the termination of a viable fetus' life, aren't we? And that is in a literal sense too since partial birth abortions occur all the time later into pregnancies than when prematurely born babies have survived...
Which womanly feeling am I unable to grasp? The one that leads to the desire to terminate the life of a viable unborn child? You're right, I can't really grasp that.
My point was specifically linked to the fact that women could have a different advice, or feelings about this. Most women thinks that the child they carry in their body is their propertie, a part of them until the child birth.
This point is debatable, i'll admit, ( fathers should have something to say on this issue), but i just say in this specific topic, that the reason where no women appeared in the picture could be their possible different point of vue on that issue.
Fship thanks, i tried in this thread to have a general speaking and not a specific one on that issue. Anyway life is complicated, and in perfect word, abortion should not happen, nor suicide. The reasons are various, and the practical answers very difficult to bring.
Anyway i will try to give a specific answer on the specific subject of abortion for diseases, i will just tell my personal experience, me and my wife. During the pregnancy of our first daughter (it's her birthday today), the echographist scary the hell out of us, declaring that the lack of ossifications of the nose bones, and some retard in the choroids plexus of the brain was bad, and that amniosynthesis was mandatory.We even feel that we annoyed her (the classical don't take care of others meds, problems will occur : something is false in my personal experience).
My wife was mentally destroyed, and me either, but i tried to be strong in order to help my wife. We decided, that if the child was trisomic that we don't have the courage to keep it (some parents do, love their childs, but it's a terrible burden also, something that we don't wanted). My wife was raised and is still consider helself as a christian, but she did not change this point. We where not ready to face the education of a trisomic, and we where not ready to give our child to an institution (better kill my self than give one of my child to an institution). If the child was born trisomic, we will have accepted it, and educated it.
Luckily the chromosomic exam was normal , and we never have to do this choice, but anyway we have considered it. When i remember this story i am terribely happy to have childs in good health. This is just my personal experience, an experience that i do not wish people to share, even if the end was a very happy one.
I didn't know how we have react, if our child was trisomic, and that the law obliged to keep it. I must admit that i am not particulary proud to admit that we do not wanted to keep a trisomic child, but it's the truth. And being honnest is more important than giving to others a false image of morality.
And being honnest is more important than giving to others a false image of morality.
Powerdoc I have great respect for your story. It is very great for you to share it. You did not have to but you did add understanding to the table. Thank you for your honesty.
What's wrong with the picture is that they're smiling, because inside they're disappointed that they no longer have the issue for fundraising, they just have a law that only goes about 1% in the direction they want to go.
But they should chin up, because the law will almost certainly be struck down by the supreme court. Then you'll have your fundraising issue back again twice as strong, fellahs!
Powerdoc I have great respect for your story. It is very great for you to share it. You did not have to but you did add understanding to the table. Thank you for your honesty.
I hope your daughter has a wonderful Birthday!
Fellows
Thanks Fship, i think she had a wonderful birthday.
No, that isn't the core of the problem. Does the gender of the representative really change these values? I don't think so. It is a cockamamy notion that a man cannot understand the morality of the issue as well as a woman can.
Should a woman really be allowed to carry a heatlhy fetus to term just to abort it because such a procedure is less invasive and risky? And where is the line drawn anyway? I'd like to know how far we can go by law in aborting a fetus. Can a baby who is for all intents and purposes out of the mother, but still connected via umbilical, be classified as only partially-born?
Isn't there another long-winded thread on this topic. (I will admit to not having read it.)
In the 50 years I've been alive I still don't understand everything about a woman's feelings. Anymore than a woman can fully understand a man. We're different that's just the way it is. Anyone who says anything else is selling something or just terribly naive.
About this...... more Bush damage but I imagine he just lost the woman's vote. As far as a fetus humanity starts at self awareness. Until then it's just tissue. There is also the issue of what kind of life will an unwanted child have?
That is the problem. You can bet if women were represented in Congress proportionate to the population this little scene would never be happening.
Women aren't represented because they either don't run or aren't voted in. Not my fault. And senators are supposed to be old. Afterall, the word "senator" is latin to begin with, and it is derived from "senex" which means "old man."
Anyway, there's been a steady drop in people who consider themselves pro-choice ever since this "partial birth" abortion debate has been stewing. People have begun to identify abortion with that issue, and most people are against it, so more people have been saying they are pro-life in the past 5-10 years. Now that they won't have that issue, the pro-lifers won't be happy.
Women aren't represented because they either don't run or aren't voted in. Not my fault. And senators are supposed to be old. Afterall, the word "senator" is latin to begin with, and it is derived from "senex" which means "old man."
Sure, and there aren't more female CEO's because they don't apply and aren't qualified....
My point being that it is a regrettable situation that is slowly changing. Not "blaming" anyone.
It remains the great irony (or bitter injustice) of the "abortion debate" that almost all of the principals are men. More women in Congress, people who themselves may have had to have an abortion or might be obliged to consider one in the future would allow for a little more nuance in regulating the procedure, don't you think? Like if you watched form the sidelines while a bunch of woman expounded on the pros and cons of circumcision, waxing elequent on the sancity of the foreskin, god's plan for the penis, etc. Look at that picture up top again and imagine it consists of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstien, etc. beaming as they sign the "Foreskin Control Act of 2003". Cool with that?
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
Nothing when you consider there are only sixty-one women in the House and thirteen women in the Senate.
That is the problem. You can bet if women were represented in Congress proportionate to the population this little scene would never be happening.
Originally posted by addabox
That is the problem. You can bet if women were represented in Congress proportionate to the population this little scene would never be happening.
No, that isn't the core of the problem. Does the gender of the representative really change these values? I don't think so. It is a cockamamy notion that a man cannot understand the morality of the issue as well as a woman can.
Should a woman really be allowed to carry a heatlhy fetus to term just to abort it because such a procedure is less invasive and risky? And where is the line drawn anyway? I'd like to know how far we can go by law in aborting a fetus. Can a baby who is for all intents and purposes out of the mother, but still connected via umbilical, be classified as only partially-born?
Isn't there another long-winded thread on this topic. (I will admit to not having read it.)
Originally posted by Eugene
No, that isn't the core of the problem. Does the gender of the representative really change these values? I don't think so. It is a cockamamy notion that a man cannot understand the morality of the issue as well as a woman can.
Not really, you have to put you in the place of others in order to understand their feelings. It's not a question of understanding morality, but of understanding feelings, and especially women ones.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Not really, you have to put you in the place of others in order to understand their feelings. It's not a question of understanding morality, but of understanding feelings, and especially women ones.
Powerdoc please realize I have great respect for you but I have to point out something that concerns me.
The whole topic of "feelings"
No matter what a belief, law or policy is there will be some that "feel" it (belief, law or policy) is "wrong".
It does not matter the belief, law or policy.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Powerdoc please realize I have great respect for you but I have to point out something that concerns me.
The whole topic of "feelings"
No matter what a belief, law or a policy is there will be some that "feel" it (belief, law or policy) is "wrong".
It does not matter the belief, law or policy.
Fellows
I think you miss my point. I did not speak of moral, whose can be understanding by both sex equally.
I speak of feelings. When someone say he has pain, i can't feel it, i can't enter in his brain. If i want to understand his pain, i have to remember my own pain. The same apply to all feelings : in order to understand other peoples feeling, we have to share the same feeling (at a funeral for example) or to check in the memory in order to try to remember a comparable feeling experience.
As men should never became pregnant, we should never understand this particular feeling.
Feeling do not replace the laws, but laws have to take them into account , because moral deal with humanity. And humanity deals with our feelings.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Not really, you have to put you in the place of others in order to understand their feelings. It's not a question of understanding morality, but of understanding feelings, and especially women ones.
Then, if *anything*, the woman should feel even closer to the baby she's discarding than the man... but no...that apparently isn't the case. Whatever crazy notion anybody might have about metaphysical bonds between mother and child, those all go out the window when you consider the circumstances. We are talking about the termination of a viable fetus' life, aren't we? And that is in a literal sense too since partial birth abortions occur all the time later into pregnancies than when prematurely born babies have survived...
Which womanly feeling am I unable to grasp? The one that leads to the desire to terminate the life of a viable unborn child? You're right, I can't really grasp that.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Feeling do not replace the laws, but laws have to take them into account , because moral deal with humanity. And humanity deals with our feelings.
I believe I have a better understanding of what you wished to communicate in the first place. It was my misunderstanding. I would only suggest that I agree we should take feelings into consideration and we may "never" know the feelings of any other human on the planet. I am only saying that wisdom lead belief, law or policy over feelings. Here is an example. If a 5 year old boy has very painful feelings because his father will not allow him to have the keys to the car is that really important? The father has the wisdom to know that it is in the best interest for that child to not have access to that car because if the feelings of the child were to have greater importance than the wisdom of the father the child and others could be in great danger.
It is a balance.
Thank you for your reply
Fellows
Originally posted by Eugene
Then, if *anything*, the woman should feel even closer to the baby she's discarding than the man... but no...that apparently isn't the case. Whatever crazy notion anybody might have about metaphysical bonds between mother and child, those all go out the window when you consider the circumstances. We are talking about the termination of a viable fetus' life, aren't we? And that is in a literal sense too since partial birth abortions occur all the time later into pregnancies than when prematurely born babies have survived...
Which womanly feeling am I unable to grasp? The one that leads to the desire to terminate the life of a viable unborn child? You're right, I can't really grasp that.
My point was specifically linked to the fact that women could have a different advice, or feelings about this. Most women thinks that the child they carry in their body is their propertie, a part of them until the child birth.
This point is debatable, i'll admit, ( fathers should have something to say on this issue), but i just say in this specific topic, that the reason where no women appeared in the picture could be their possible different point of vue on that issue.
Fship thanks, i tried in this thread to have a general speaking and not a specific one on that issue. Anyway life is complicated, and in perfect word, abortion should not happen, nor suicide. The reasons are various, and the practical answers very difficult to bring.
Anyway i will try to give a specific answer on the specific subject of abortion for diseases, i will just tell my personal experience, me and my wife. During the pregnancy of our first daughter (it's her birthday today), the echographist scary the hell out of us, declaring that the lack of ossifications of the nose bones, and some retard in the choroids plexus of the brain was bad, and that amniosynthesis was mandatory.We even feel that we annoyed her (the classical don't take care of others meds, problems will occur : something is false in my personal experience).
My wife was mentally destroyed, and me either, but i tried to be strong in order to help my wife. We decided, that if the child was trisomic that we don't have the courage to keep it (some parents do, love their childs, but it's a terrible burden also, something that we don't wanted). My wife was raised and is still consider helself as a christian, but she did not change this point. We where not ready to face the education of a trisomic, and we where not ready to give our child to an institution (better kill my self than give one of my child to an institution). If the child was born trisomic, we will have accepted it, and educated it.
Luckily the chromosomic exam was normal , and we never have to do this choice, but anyway we have considered it. When i remember this story i am terribely happy to have childs in good health. This is just my personal experience, an experience that i do not wish people to share, even if the end was a very happy one.
I didn't know how we have react, if our child was trisomic, and that the law obliged to keep it. I must admit that i am not particulary proud to admit that we do not wanted to keep a trisomic child, but it's the truth. And being honnest is more important than giving to others a false image of morality.
Originally posted by addabox
That is the problem. You can bet if women were represented in Congress proportionate to the population this little scene would never be happening.
Well, perhaps we should mandate that through legislation then.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
And being honnest is more important than giving to others a false image of morality.
Powerdoc I have great respect for your story. It is very great for you to share it. You did not have to but you did add understanding to the table. Thank you for your honesty.
I hope your daughter has a wonderful Birthday!
Fellows
But they should chin up, because the law will almost certainly be struck down by the supreme court. Then you'll have your fundraising issue back again twice as strong, fellahs!
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Powerdoc I have great respect for your story. It is very great for you to share it. You did not have to but you did add understanding to the table. Thank you for your honesty.
I hope your daughter has a wonderful Birthday!
Fellows
Thanks Fship, i think she had a wonderful birthday.
Originally posted by Eugene
No, that isn't the core of the problem. Does the gender of the representative really change these values? I don't think so. It is a cockamamy notion that a man cannot understand the morality of the issue as well as a woman can.
Should a woman really be allowed to carry a heatlhy fetus to term just to abort it because such a procedure is less invasive and risky? And where is the line drawn anyway? I'd like to know how far we can go by law in aborting a fetus. Can a baby who is for all intents and purposes out of the mother, but still connected via umbilical, be classified as only partially-born?
Isn't there another long-winded thread on this topic. (I will admit to not having read it.)
In the 50 years I've been alive I still don't understand everything about a woman's feelings. Anymore than a woman can fully understand a man. We're different that's just the way it is. Anyone who says anything else is selling something or just terribly naive.
About this...... more Bush damage but I imagine he just lost the woman's vote. As far as a fetus humanity starts at self awareness. Until then it's just tissue. There is also the issue of what kind of life will an unwanted child have?
Originally posted by addabox
That is the problem. You can bet if women were represented in Congress proportionate to the population this little scene would never be happening.
Women aren't represented because they either don't run or aren't voted in. Not my fault. And senators are supposed to be old. Afterall, the word "senator" is latin to begin with, and it is derived from "senex" which means "old man."
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Afterall, the word "senator" is latin to begin with, and it is derived from "senex" which means "old man."
Heh, I never knew that.
But yes, it's true, men and women don't differ hardly at all in their attitudes about abortion. People differ much much more on the basis of:
race: more Whites are pro-choice than minority groups
religion: non-religious more pro-choice than religious, Catholics more pro-choice than protestants - I find that interesting
income: richer people are more pro-choice
education: better educated people are more pro-choice
Most numbers from here.
Anyway, there's been a steady drop in people who consider themselves pro-choice ever since this "partial birth" abortion debate has been stewing. People have begun to identify abortion with that issue, and most people are against it, so more people have been saying they are pro-life in the past 5-10 years. Now that they won't have that issue, the pro-lifers won't be happy.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Women aren't represented because they either don't run or aren't voted in. Not my fault. And senators are supposed to be old. Afterall, the word "senator" is latin to begin with, and it is derived from "senex" which means "old man."
Sure, and there aren't more female CEO's because they don't apply and aren't qualified....
My point being that it is a regrettable situation that is slowly changing. Not "blaming" anyone.
It remains the great irony (or bitter injustice) of the "abortion debate" that almost all of the principals are men. More women in Congress, people who themselves may have had to have an abortion or might be obliged to consider one in the future would allow for a little more nuance in regulating the procedure, don't you think? Like if you watched form the sidelines while a bunch of woman expounded on the pros and cons of circumcision, waxing elequent on the sancity of the foreskin, god's plan for the penis, etc. Look at that picture up top again and imagine it consists of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstien, etc. beaming as they sign the "Foreskin Control Act of 2003". Cool with that?