Is France unique?

Quote:
Jeff, you have succinctly defined why we "Bush haters" feel so strongly the way we do.

Oh, I've no doubt. I’m not crazy about Bush and haven’t been for a while, but I’m certain if I were in your shoes I’d be completely ticked off. Because you live in a country that has by majority endorsed a candidate and policy you despise. I get that- but the system is working, just not in your favor. Fortunately for you, it looks like the majority of the country is agreeing with you now, which means you might be able to rectify the situation in just a few short years.

Quote:
Plain view? Hardly. Bush LIED to me, to you, to everybody in America to persuade gullible people to endorse his unwarranted, illegal war so that he was able to proceed with it, branding any and all dissenters as upatriotic.

What I meant was that for THIS term his attitude toward Iraq was in plain view. It seems to me all of the "lying" done about Iraq was done in the first term and it didn't upset the collective nation enough to vote him out. Like it or not, the American people endorsed continuing Bush's plan in Iraq by voting for him. I don’t know of any agenda he’s pursued in his second term that differs from how he ran in the second election. Yet the collective “we” voted him in. That’s what I meant by “plain view”.

Quote:
We are heading towards a global economic collapse the like of which the world has never seen, hastened in no small part by the Bush administration's ludicrous deficit spending policies. I want you to contemplate 30% unemployment, a tax base so shrunken that people will lose their homes because property taxes will skyrocket as they will be the only source of revenue left to the government and even that will not be enough to maintain essential government services like police... all this happening in a country where there are more handguns than there are people...

I agree that government spending is ludicrous, but it isn’t fair to blame Bush for it. Yes his administration has blown it on this front, but so have many who’ve gone before him. Democrats, Republican- it doesn’t matter. We have deemed more things critically important than we can afford, so we are gong to crater economy to get them (and yes, war with Iraq is one of those things).

Isn’t there a quote somewhere about the failure of Democracy being immanent once people realize they can vote themselves money?

But once again, this isn’t Bush or his administration (though I’ll agree they contributed); it is a foundational problem with our country. We can’t control ourselves.

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 11:32

Sorry, but with this discussion going on, I cannot help thinking about this...

Posted by: loren

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 16:26

Quote:

-Loren- The policies the "majority" supported weren't necessarily those having to do with the war... they were more likely things having to do with abortion, gay marriage, and business.

-Jim- Wind the clock back to November 2004 and vote: Bush or Kerry?
Wind the clock back to November 2000 and vote: Bush or Gore?

-Jeff- Bush in both cases because of the Supreme court. I don't like any of the choices, really, but given those that's the way I'd have to vote.

Wow... see... here's an example of what I said. I don't get it. It's this myopic view that scares the hell out of me. There's WAY WAY WAY bigger things, i.e. THE WORLD COMMUNITY, to worry about than if two same sex couples can marry or if a woman can choose to have an abortion. There are billions of other people out there that our international policies affect on serious life and death levels. Not to mention the amount of money this country is projectile vomiting to keep up an unjust war rolling. This is a snarky comment, but I hope there's enough money coming in from China when your Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade for all those unaborted fetuses to have an education and a job.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:07

Quote:
There's WAY WAY WAY bigger things, i.e. THE WORLD COMMUNITY, to worry about than if two same sex couples can marry or if a woman can choose to have an abortion.

I’m not worried about same sex couples when it comes to the supreme court, and I’m guessing you don’t share my belief that an unborn child is a defenseless human with as much a right to life as you or I. However, from my perspective, when the law allows people to take the life of any defenseless group, including unborn children, that is a HUGE priority, rivaling the importance of “the world community” issues. When the taking of defensless life is at stake, that is something that deserves our undivided (myopic if you will) attention.

I assume you don't agree with my belief that an unborn child is a person with a right to life, and therefore it is wrong for someone to end that life. Doesn’t it make sense, though, that if I start from there, defending that right with all means available is a natural consequence? If some other group of people (one you and I agree deserved the right to live) was being killed every day, you'd probably think that was a big enough issue to be on par with "the world community".

Now I will say that I understand the other side. If an unborn child is not regarded as equal in rights to the rest of us, then I see why other issues are far more important to address. It is a natural consequence of your premise.

But I feel it is not wrong to place such a high priority on the value of life when you start from the premise I do. If you feel my premise is flawed, let's talk about that, but don't accuse me of focusing too much on something when that focus is a natural consequence of my premise.

Quote:
I hope there's enough money coming in from China when your Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade for all those unaborted fetuses to have an education and a job.

There are plenty of people not getting the money they need in the world, but I believe they still have the fundamental right to live.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:24

We as a country wheighed the options and decided he was the person for that office

No... we as a country (no, let me re-phrase that: enough gullible people to create a 50.2% majority vote) believed and were taken in by the lies, deceit, and intimidation espoused by the Republican party.

I take little pleasure in the opportunities that come more and more frequently now, to remind acquaintances that years ago I specifically reserved the right to say "I told you so."

Yes, I am bitter. Bitter and very afraid.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:40

How about the twenty-five thousand civilians killed in Iraq? Are they less important?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:59

Quote:
How about the twenty-five thousand civilians killed in Iraq? Are they less important?

Of course not- but the question was never "unborn children vs. civilians in Iraq". These issues are far more complicated than that false dichotomy- even if that was how the election made it seem. These things are not decided by elections alone.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 18:39

The war in Iraq would not have occurred if George Bush (or some other oil man) wasn't in office in 2002. I feel pretty confident in that stance.

Your argument seems to be that babykilling would go on the decline with Bush elected. My argument is there would have been less death in Iraq with someone else (and I am taking the murderous Husseins into account). Seems like a pretty strong dichotomy to me. If anything, it seems weaker on your end.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 18:55

Quote:
The war in Iraq would not have occurred if George Bush (or some other oil man) wasn't in office in 2002. I feel pretty confident in that stance.

True, but the opposite is not true. George Bush being in office did not guarantee that the war would happen. It took approval of congress, which they gave. That's what I mean by things being more complicated than an election.

Quote:
Your argument seems to be that babykilling would go on the decline with Bush elected. My argument is there would have been less death in Iraq with someone else (and I am taking the murderous Husseins into account). Seems like a pretty strong dichotomy to me. If anything, it seems weaker on your end.

There are plenty of things Bush has done with which I do not agree. Unfortunately during the election we’re only given a binary choice and so we have to decide what issues we think are most important, and what will be best for the country (and the world) overall. I believe some good may yet come out of the war in Iraq if the people gain their freedom, so that question is murkier. I do not believe good can come from legal abortions in the US.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 18:56

Quote:
This is a snarky comment, but I hope there's enough money coming in from China when your Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade for all those unaborted fetuses to have an education and a job.

Of course, overruling R. v. W. will not lower the number of abortions (especially because it will go hand in hand with trying to stop things like contraception education in schools); it will only increase the number of women killed or rendered sterile by botched illegal abortions. But that will not stop religious right feeling righteous and self-satisfied about it...

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:01

Damn I'm pissy and argumentative.

This has nothing to do with France beyond my initial implication that I think that what's happening in France could happen in the US, based on my personal emotions, if for different reasons. The basis for those reasons is irrelevant.

As to whether or not it actually would happen I don't know. I often wonder about what impact the size of the US has on its populace. Nowhere else in the world is there a region so large with a unified language. (Might Russia? I don't know much about the languages throughout Asian Russia.) I think it's much harder for us to see each other as being vastly different when we share largely the same culture and it's so easy for us to communicate and travel. Compare that with Europe, a place with three-fifths the land mass and well over twice as many people. At the same time, it's easy for us to think of Europeans as different. They're inaccessible and most of them speak languages we'll never know. Even I am horribly US-centric because I don't know anything else. Cris can take a vacation and drive all the way around Europe, but similar people in the US will, at the extreme, visit some other states, and they're not really all that different. There isn't anything here that's been here for more than a few hundred years -- an age which to Europe is brand new.

I'm not sure what my point is, really, but I think this country makes us something wildly different from what Europeans are, both from psychology and logistics, both positive and negative. If this were to happen in the US, it would take a wildly different form.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:05

It also wouldn't make abortions illegal; it would just leave that decision up to the individual states. Chances are that it would remain legal in half or so.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:08

I'd like to respond to this whole "myopic" accusation again in a bit of a different way. When I look at these questions I am not blindly focusing on one issue to the exclusion of others. I look at all of the issues and decide what is most important because I only get to vote one way. In the end, I think the Supreme Court is so important because whoever the president is, he will be gone in a few short years. But the makeup of the Supreme Court will affect the US (and the rest of the world through influence) for a long time to come. I truly believe a conservative court is going to lead to a better nation and world than a more liberal one, so that is my choice.

I AM looking for a better nation and world, just like the rest of you. I do not ignore the issues in favor of blind religious dogma. I’m coming from a different perspective from many of you, but that doesn't make it a myopic one.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:49

It was also my experience that French police - 'ordinary', gendarmerie or CRS would appear in great numbers without an obvious reason. Sometimes they look like Asterix and Obelix, sometimes, like on Tour d'France finale, somewhat more, er, serious.

Tha 40% unemployment figure is probably right for some narrow groups (say, young blue-collar Africans) in some neighborhood. I think I noticed that Paris and surrounding is losing manufacturing jobs (while probably gaining white-collar ones), which particularly affects groups with lower education level. For example, Renault is dismantling its huge manufacturing facility on an island on the Seine near Sevres (photos, map). Cisco was supposed to build its European HQ there, but now somebody else is developing an office complex.

I worked for several months in Saint-Denis, consulting at SNCF (national railroads) IT (OK, I did not live there). While parts of the town are somewhat run down, government seems to be making large efforts at revitalization. It is nothing similar to devastated inner city districts or appaling high rise housings as found in some American cities, as some news reports would like us to believe. In general, I would say that city-owned apartment complexes function rather well (though perhaps not quite as well as, say, in Vienna), although recent events seem to suggest that the layer of normalcy I observed was only veneer-thin.

There are also many new office complexes in suburbs (in Saint-Denis I noticed, for example, a huge Gaz de France facility, Siemens tower etc), but judging by Metro traffic very few locals work in them.

I think that myth of lazy French is very much exactly that, myth. Granted, we Europeans generally think that if our government is not providing us with decent health care, education and social safety net then we don't need the government, but Europe is producing Airbuses, Bimmers and TGVs, after all. I was usually putting 50-hour weeks in SNCF, but I was rerely the last to leave our office.

Returning to your original question, I am affraid that most countries with high uneployment rate and wide gap between richest and poorest segments of society are tinderboxes similar to France. Of course, French heavy-handed assimilation policy does not help (try to send a document to a governmet office in Breton, Basque, Arabic or, for that matter, German).

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:54

Quote:
but I think this country makes us something wildly different from what Europeans are, both from psychology and logistics, both positive and negative

Viva la difference!

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:54

Quote:
It also wouldn't make abortions illegall it would just leave that decision up to the individual states. Chances are that it would remain legal in half or so.

Thank you for stating this. I had a post I was working on and you beat me to it. 39 states is what I've read (wherein it would be legal).

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:57

Is it being reported or represented anywhere about a religious element of the rioting? Is there any truth to some stories that it is young Muslims who are rioting? Is it germane?

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:15

Quote:
I think the Supreme Court is so important because whoever the president is, he will be gone in a few short years. But the makeup of the Supreme Court will affect the US (and the rest of the world through influence) for a long time to come.

Exactly, which makes the current state of affairs in travesty of justice called Supreme Court so serious. As I already noted here (earning me a carefuly worded remark on my naivete by Jim or Bitt

), one can bet with 90% probability how each of Justices will vote on any given case. Their decisions almost always reflect their, pardon the expression, values (a.k.a. prejudices). Which means that they don't give a damn for law or Constitution, just their personal prejudices or political agenda. At very best, the conservative ones play spiritual mediums trying to divine what plan a bunch of slave owners* had in mind 230 years ago for the premier nucler and high-tech superpower.

*) OK, probably not all of The Founding Fathers were slave owners, but you see my point.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:18

Quote:
Is it being reported or represented anywhere about a religious element of the rioting? Is there any truth to some stories that it is young Muslims who are rioting? Is it germane?

Many or even the most of rioters seem to be young Muslims, but the religion does not seem to be a significant factor, as far as I read.

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:28

Quote:
just makes it more dangerous.

Might be more inconvenient but not likely more dangerous for the woman. Obviously, it has exactly the same danger to the fetus as before...

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:42

Quote:
Might be more inconvenient but not likely more dangerous for the woman.

So, taking soon-to-be-clinic-free Mississippi for example... you are thinking that women living below the poverty line there will just hop on a Delta shuttle and fly to Syracuse if they decide they want an abortion?

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:51

Quote:
To continue this tangent, I've often looked at the recent civil unrests in Europe -- Yugoslavia comes specifically to mind -- and wondered how these people who formerly lived next to each other fairly peaceably for generations could suddenly come to the point of burning their neighbors' houses down.

Yugoslavia is a completely different matter, in so far that this was not the case of civil unrest, but aggressive war of one country against its neighbors and former members of the same union (although your question of how one could burn one's neighbor's house under any circumstances is still relevant in our case and bothers me, too, of course). You should have followed Milosevic's rise to power in late 80's: the similarity with Mussolini (more than Hitler) was uncanny.

There were no "centuries of hatred" between Serbs and Croats one often reads about (which makes it even more difficult to understand the bloodshed). The first conatact we had was when Serb refugees fleeing the Turks ware given some land in exchange for military duty in the border regions (a short Wikipedia article). But then, what possesed Italians and Germans in 1920's an 30's?

Blah, the layer of civilization is so thin...

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:58

Quote:
you are thinking that women living below the poverty line there will just hop on a Delta shuttle and fly to Syracuse if they decide they want an abortion?

I haven't thought that far in advance.

Maybe there could be a shuttle paid for by proabortion activists to pick women up once a trimester or something. Perhaps even the federal government could pay for it. Republicans would probably go for it since it would help keep the welfare costs down.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:59

Quote:
Their decisions almost always reflect their, pardon the expression, values (a.k.a. prejudices). Which means that they don't give a damn for law or Constitution, just their personal prejudices or political agenda. At very best, the conservative ones play spiritual mediums trying to divine what plan a bunch of slave owners* had in mind 230 years ago for the premier nucler and high-tech superpower.

I'm interpreting this statement as saying that you believe to it is bad for members of the Supreme Court to vote their values, but you also believe that it is bad for them to try and strictly interpret the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, what would you say is the correct way to decide law?

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 21:32

Quote:
I'm interpreting this statement as saying that you believe to it is bad for members of the Supreme Court to vote their values, but you also believe that it is bad for them to try and strictly interpret the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, what would you say is the correct way to decide law?

Obviously, voting one's values without regard for laws is wrong. But, starting every other opinion with "The Founding Fathers intended..." is also wrong, and just serves as justification for imposing one's conservative values. How do they know what Mr. Washington intended, and why would that be relevant today? What Justices have is a text, however ancient, brief, vague, self-contradictory, open to interpretation it might be. They cannot help but interprete it, and one's personal values are bound to insinuate themselves into one's reasoning, but that interpretation should be made in the context of today's world, values, problems.

It's late and I am not thinking very clearly, but let me just say that I would expect of nine top judges in the country to agree on constitutionality of a given law more often: the Constitution is the same, the logic has not changed, and they live in the same world.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 22:15

Also, I think your average innercity and/or trailer-trash slut will think twice about mashing it with every cock in sight after the first time she has to stick a coat hanger up her dirty box in a dark alley.

It´s so much easier to pay $200, get some free pain-pills and sit on your whored out ass collecting a welfare check from Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Heather

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 22:43

Quote:
Also, I think your average innercity and/or trailer-trash slut will think twice about mashing it with every cock in sight after the first time she has to stick a coat hanger up her dirty box in a dark alley.

No one wants to hear about your mother Billy.

Posted by: Gallagher419

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 23:27

Quote:
In the USA this type of event happens every time a sports team loses (or wins) a major title. Nothing justifies the wanton destruction of property, but at least it's not sparked because of a soccer game.

Seems to me that someone has forgotten that there was a riot in Vancouver after a Stanley Cup loss and there was also a riot after a Gun N Roses concert in Vancouver as well!

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

Posted by: Mataglap

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 23:30

Quote:
Also, I think your average innercity ...

*plonk*

Thank you for making my life better by demonstrating how ignorable you are.

Posted by: Heather

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 00:40

Quote:
You´re my mother?

Are you an inner city minority?

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 01:48

Quote:
I haven't thought that far in advance.

Guess not.

Quote:
Maybe there could be a shuttle paid for by proabortion activists to pick women up once a trimester or something. Perhaps even the federal government could pay for it. Republicans would probably go for it since it would help keep the welfare costs down.

Glad this is worth a smiley for you.

I was probably being too clever in my rhetorical question of what some impoverished female citizens of Mississippi might do. I am going to make a wild guess, though, based on your carefree answer, that you have probably never watched a teenager die from septic shock.

Years ago, many years ago, I made a deal with some female coworkers: I would keep my residual Catholic reservations and opinions about abortion to myself if they would agree to stop lecturing me about my obligation to flee to Canada to avoid the draft. You see, I did not think it was their place to lecture me, them not having received their notice yet.

I really don't get the male willingness to weigh in so heavily on how women must behave, what women must do. Is this Saudi Arabia? And the hypocrisy and blindness. The most righteous, vehement pro-lifer won't have to look too far to find a friend or relation who has had an abortion but who did so in secret. But they'll never realize that. They'll just keep picketing to make sure the young women of Mississippi behave according to their rules.

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 13:27

Quote:
I really don't get the male willingness to weigh in so heavily on how women must behave, what women must do.

I never stated my position on abortion. You are leaping to conclusions. I was simply stating that there are alternatives for people in places like Mississippi. I don't care that much about it since I've never been involved (like you say that I know of). If I were pressed for my opinion I would say I have always thought it was a little strange how that the little trip from the uterus to air could make so much difference. That thought however is simply because I remember when my wife was pregnant with my kids we would drag out this some incredible pictures in some book or other) about their development. Ironically that book was filled with high contrast pictures of dead fetuses... just beautifully shot somehow backlit against a jet black background.

I think it is exceedingly strange it is used as birth control because people won't use real birth control (due to ignorance and poor education largely insisted upon by perhaps well meaning but ill informed religious groups). I say perhaps well meaning because I am convinced that there is an element of mean spiritness in the religious right's dogged insistence on the issue. When I see protesters, I know damn well there are some that have taken advantage of Roe vs. Wade in their own past. Would I want my teenage daughter (if I had one) to have that option available... hell yes. Would I prefer she didn't have to have one either through birth control or abstinence ... double hell yes.

As you are no doubt are aware, poverty has being studied to death. I cannot decide whether I agree with the latest studies or not but the one I find most intriguing is to not treat it as a social condition but as a series of small individual choices. Statistically speaking, most impoverished people are women and children. Also, statistically speaking, if women graduate from high school, do not get married in their teens, do not have children out of wedlock and get a job, they have a 90-95% chance of not being impoverished. How to convince people growing up in poverty to make those decisions will have to be determined by smarter people than me.

To that end: however, I support free federally funded abortions for impoverished women... the whole nine yards. I was reasonably serious about the charter jets to these 11 states to pick up women in need of abortions if that is what it takes. I can't tell you why (since I think it is pretty close to murder (say 6")) but the alternatives (with all their ramifications) are just as bad.

I did watch my mother die of septic shock if that counts.

Posted by: Tim

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 14:30

Quote:
No... we as a country (no, let me re-phrase that: enough gullible people to create a 50.2% majority vote) believed and were taken in by the lies, deceit, and intimidation espoused by the Republican party.

I'm still amazed, even after all the time since the election, that people don't believe there were other issues. Apparently, the only thing people care about is abortion, gay rights and how to proceed with OIF (and why doesn't anybody care about OEF anymore?).

- Tim

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 15:03

Quote:
I never stated my position on abortion. You are leaping to conclusions. <snip much>

That may be true. And I would almost verge on apologizing if I didn't reread what set my comments off:

"Might be more inconvenient but not likely more dangerous for the woman."

I thought, and still feel like this was pretty flippant, never mind wrong. Leaving aside all of the woulda-shouldas of birth control and sexual behavior, I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense. This is of course unless their daughter becomes pregnant in which case I figure that there is a 1-in-20 chance that their doctor will decide that their are clinical indications for a little <nudge-nudge, wink-wink> dilation and curettage.

I am not certain, but I'm guessing that women have been having abortions since long before Jeff's Christian god was invented and that they will likely be having them, albeit perhaps with some more advanced RU486, long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame. In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.

I mention Mississippi. Mostly because it was featured in a news story about the success of anti-clinic activity. It is not inconceivable to me that in the not-too-distant future, the Mason-Dixon line will become significant in yet another way.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 15:47

Quote:
I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense.

This is not my position. I believe in forms of birth control other than abstinence and don't believe that they should be relegated to only married people. People should make their own decisions about sex and protection.

Quote:
long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame.

We'll see . . .

Quote:
In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.

Regarding your accusation, I am not cavalier about anyone's individual freedom- unfortunately it seems that there are two freedoms to protect- that of the child and that of the woman.

I absolutely agree that making abortion illegal and then feeling the work is done is wrong. The women we're talking about need help and protection- that is our collective responsibility. And if you mean to imply that there are no Christians helping these women then you are mistaken. There are plenty, it's just that unfortunately, like most of society's needs, the need is overwhelming and these organization's efforts fall short. But sacrificing the freedom and life of the child is not a good way to meet those needs.

You claim that women's lives will be more dangerous if abortion is outlawed and I think you're right. Would unborn children's lives be less dangerous? I think so, though certainly some would still die.

And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

Posted by: peter

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 16:02

Quote:
Would I want my teenage daughter (if I had one) to have that option available... hell yes. Would I prefer she didn't have to have one either through birth control or abstinence ... double hell yes.

Same here -- although I follow news stories and BBS threads about gay rights in the US, that's because I think gay rights is a shibboleth of a free and fair society rather than because I have any personal plans to become either American or gay. The issue of abortion rights, on the other hand, is closer to home: my (unofficial, secular) goddaughter is growing up in the United States, and although she's way too young still for this to be an immediate issue, Supreme Courts last for ages and it genuinely worries me that in seven or so years' time, if the right-wingers get their way, she might not have access to impartial abortion advice, proper clean medical abortion facilities, or for that matter HPV vaccine.

Peter

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 16:27

I seem to remember a ship set up out of Ireland for Irish women to have legal abortions in international waters.

Posted by: peter

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 16:47

Quote:
I seem to remember a ship set up out of Ireland for Irish women to have legal abortions in international waters.

That ended up not working out, except for shaking up the debate in Ireland a little. Other BBC stories I found while searching, put a figure of 6,000/year on the flow of Irish women into private British hospitals for abortions.

Peter

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 17:51

Quote:
this was pretty flippant

Perhaps it seemed flippant. It certainly wasn't meant that way. I think the whole abortion issue is so full of hypocrisy as to not even be a real debate.

Back to your orignal question "Is France unique?" Not intending any smugness or joy in the position that France now finds itself, I do think it is more than symbolic that it can be summed up with the image of a French muslim throwing a molotov cocktail made with a French wine bottle filled with gasoline refined from oil from a muslim country.

I suspect there is a larger religious element to the rioting than is being admitted to by the French. I also suspect there is a simmering general resentment by French muslims over the continuing attempts by the French to secularize muslims. They, the French, are likely fomenting the very thing they are trying to supress.

Wasn't it just a year ago when the French banned head scarves by muslims in public schools? With that simple edict, aren't the French stigmatizing muslims within their country. Is that law symbolic of the French attitude towards an element of their own population? How is a muslim supposed to reconcile the conflict between their religious beliefs and French law?

Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 21:05

"I support fourth trimester abortions."

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 21:05

Quote:
Wasn't it just a year ago when the French banned head scarves by muslims in public schools? With that simple edict, aren't the French stigmatizing muslims within their country. Is that law symbolic of the French attitude towards an element of their own population? How is a muslim supposed to reconcile the conflict between their religious beliefs and French law?

French banned all relgious symbols in public schools, thus, theoretically, making oppression equal for all. Is headscarf more important to a Muslim girl than yarmulke to a Yewish boy (belonging to some of more fundamentalist sects)? Christian cross probably is less important to its wearer. Anyway, I agree that the state being separated from religion means it should not care whether schoolkids wear some religious symbol or other.

That said, I don't think that religious freedom should be absolutely unrestricted. For example, I think that perpetrators of clitorectomy should be prosecuted as if they mutilated their victim in any other way, religion and custom or not. I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, at least in the part about human rights always trumping freedom to exercise religious rites.

But I really believe this is much more about unemployment and general feel of lack of future than religion.

Posted by: Geoff

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 23:37

Quote:
I can easily see this happening in Belgium as well. More specific in cities like Antwerp and/or Brussels where also a lot of immigrants live. There already have been some small riots in the past few nights, as per France's example. (on a -for now at least- smaller scale)

I've just started working for a client in Brussels this week and got home tonight for the weekend. While I didn't personally witness any sign of trouble, there was quite a bit of chat around the lunch table about it for a day or two, and it sounded like there was some sporadic and organised disturbances, with half a dozen or so cars burned not far from my apartment or the client's office, by all accounts.

I'll be back again on Monday, and travelling to and fro between now and Christmas. Having been to university in Belfast, you'd think I wouldn't be too worried about 'a bit of local difficulty', but I suppose it goes to show how things have changed at home over the past decade when I say I was more than a bit concerned... You used to be able to set your calendar by where the latest riot was

Of course, some idiot somewhere in Belfast is going to want to break France's new 'car torching record' more than likely

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 01:58

Quote:
Quote:
I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense.
This is not my position. I believe in forms of birth control other than abstinence and don't believe that they should be relegated to only married people. People should make their own decisions about sex and protection.

I remember other posts, I think, where it was clear this is not your position, and you have taken a great deal of care to outline the exceptions you take to the positions of other Christians that I would lump (in a somewhat uninformed way) into the "religious right". That being said, you pretty clearly told us that, electorally speaking, you are pretty much aligned with the folks I call by that name. Same omnipotent god, right?

While this last question may verge on mockery, it is a serious question in my mind. If a large group of people are worshiping a "one, true deity", how is it that the omnipotent deity does such a crummy job of communicating what the rules are? Maybe God needs to stay more on message. Hire Ari Fleischer.

It's not like this is the exclusive dilemma of right-ish Christians in the US. Think of the many Catholic gays working to have Rome accept them whilst being condemned by those they'd like to bond with. Hasn't God heard of the franchise model? Spin-offs? Targeted marketing?

Quote:
Quote:
long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame.
We'll see . . .

I don't mean to predict that this is going to happen any time soon. We'll both be dead and some N of us (point estimate=1, 99% confidence interval: 0-2) will be in heaven before that happens. Christianity, in its uniquely American form, certainly has a grip here in the US, tho' we'll see how that holds out as our country declines. And Catholicism, while diminishing in Europe, certainly has a lot of legs around the world. When we tune in from heaven, though, I'm guessing that we may find that the divine belief system with the longest legs will be Islam. Now, they may all worship the same Allah, and I wouldn't be too concerned, but I'm afraid that the mullahs that prevail could be the ones who want to take away and burn all the electric guitars.

I wonder if Allah knows he has a communication problem.

All this being said, I think if you take the long view, Allah's warm-up jacket will wind up in that display case, too. People will stand there and ask: "Allah, how could you have ever left the Red Sox?"

Quote:
Quote:
In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.
Regarding your accusation, I am not cavalier about anyone's individual freedom- unfortunately it seems that there are two freedoms to protect- that of the child and that of the woman.

I absolutely agree that making abortion illegal and then feeling the work is done is wrong. The women we're talking about need help and protection- that is our collective responsibility.
And if you mean to imply that there are no Christians helping these women then you are mistaken.

Not for a moment would I imply that. Thanks to various TV news magazines it is clear to me that there are more than a few people of faith who are doing extraordinary things. Idealistic belching aside, I am no secular saint. Call me self-absorbed. When am I going to take a developmentally disabled FAS baby from Mississipi (or elsewhere) into my home? Not soon. Maybe when I hit Lotto and can employ a pair of au pairs. So I *do* look to those of you who profess your collective responsibilty to the unborn to continue to carry more than your share of this burden. I admire your willingness to sacrifice for this principle.

Quote:
There are plenty, it's just that unfortunately, like most of society's needs, the need is overwhelming and these organization's efforts fall short. But sacrificing the freedom and life of the child is not a good way to meet those needs.

You know, of course, that some folks don't accept your basic assumptions re "life of the child".

Quote:
You claim that women's lives will be more dangerous if abortion is outlawed and I think you're right. Would unborn children's lives be less dangerous? I think so, though certainly some would still die.

What is almost ironic is that I think, thankfully, that you have been outflanked by (shudder) science. Now some folks in Kansas might not want to admit it, but it has been shown that a certain chemical compound, RU486, has been shown to be an effective, easy to employ abortifacient. I mean, the DEA hasn't done much to limit the flow of cocaine, so why should I think that the FDA will fare any better in limiting the flow of this compact, non-habit-forming drug across our borders. And I am really hoping that these smugglers succeed in Mississippi, as I see that event as much preferable to the prospect of deaths from amateur abortions that you, on balance, seem willing to accept.

Quote:
And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

This, I would like to think, in our current society, is a false dichotomy. I'd never contemplate this, nor would I want to. It is worth noting that there have been cultures/societies that have practiced infanticide (to survive, it is said). Not sure if this still goes on, but I know this has been the case with some tribes in my lifetime. Well, for better, I think, we did not put the 82nd on alert and invade those folks and kill all of them to prevent them from practicing infanticide. Maybe we had gentle encounters with those societies and nudged a little bit and said "Hey, there's a better way....let's increase your crop yield. Oh, and girls are just as cool as boys".

All of that aside, I think that your positions are based on an artificially bounded conception of life. If, in the broader historical context of women, pregancy and women's right to self-determination, you are willing to argue that women shouldn't be free to employ an early-stage abortifacient like RU486, then all I can conclude is that your "life" definition is simply something based in mysticism, based on a particular deity franchise. You know how much weight that carries with me.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 02:28

My take on the situation in France is that it´s a fierce battle between the French and the muslims, and one of them has to lose in the end. Looks like a win-win situation.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 02:45

Quote:
Anyway, I agree that the state being separated from religion means it should not care whether schoolkids wear some religious symbol or other.

As much as I consider myself an aggressive "separation-of-church-and-state" guy, I have felt like this is a place that France has maybe gone too far to its own detriment. I didn't send them an email to say "Bad France!" -- I mean, it's not my country -- but I will say I was concerned. I guess I could say I see what they are getting at, but let's be real.

In a devil's advocate mode, and knowing that we don't have the same immigrant dynamics in the US as are found in Europe, I wondered what we would think if France did *not* take this position and if 12-year-old school girls started coming to class in burkas? Not inconceivable, is it?

If you didn't know me, you might think I wasn't a sexist pig. But I am in my own harmless (I hope) way. Still, there are a number of things in this world that I think are completely f'ed up, with making women wear tents being high on the list.

So, I am concerned that France has gone too far, but I can also see some merit to the notion that France has avoided some bad things by a matter of degree. Feel free to convince me that France could simply pass an anti-burka ordinance.

The recent political bashings aside, I find the comparison of the relative tribulations of the USA and France interesting. We have guns. They have cigarettes.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 03:17

Quote:
I truly believe a conservative court is going to lead to a better nation and world than a more liberal one, so that is my choice.

I struggle with the idea that a conservative approach in court (or government) leads to much of a better anything. Conservatives want to reduce abortion. Great. So do liberals. The difference, from what I can tell, is that liberals accept abortion as a necessary evil born (if you'll pardon the pun) from a lack of education. The liberal approach is to educate people so that they can make choices that don't lead to abortion, and thereby decreasing the need for abortion. The conservative approach of banning it outright is tantamount to sweeping the problem under the carpet -- the problem is still there. The next conservative approach (which I don't think you agree with, but is espoused by Bush and many, many other conservative leaders) is to preach abstinance (which is a good thing), but limit sex-education in schools, not to mention decrease the availability of birth-control in general, at the same time (which is a bad thing). The birth control pill would still be illegal under a conservative court. With the conservative approach, abortions become more prevalent, not less, as it creates an entrenched feedback loop.

To me, the only way you can get eradicate abortion is through education, and that will never happen with a conservative government. Voting for anti-abortion governments, IMHO, does nothing but prolong the problem.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 03:22

Quote:
I think that myth of lazy French is very much exactly that, myth.

In my experience, I've found that said myth is typically perpetuated by a group of people that haven't realized that "increased work hours means increased productivity" is also a myth.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 03:28

Quote:
That said, I don't think that religious freedom should be absolutely unrestricted. For example, I think that perpetrators of clitorectomy should be prosecuted as if they mutilated their victim in any other way, religion and custom or not.

And do you hold the same view of male circumcision? Do we prosecute all the Jews?

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 03:42

Quote:
And do you hold the same view of male circumcision? Do we prosecute all the Jews?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Gotta jump in. *Totally* different thing, I think.

As a practicing isexual, I can say that I have no beef with my (Catholic) parents who had me snipped because they thought it was the hygienic thing to do. They weren't trying to make sure that I avoided sin/fun -- and they didn't -- rather that our family doctor had some funny, unscientific ideas. Jewish circumcision rite may not seem like the smartest thing now, but I'm not sure that it materially reduced any male's fun quotient.

OK, ruin my weekend. Say "Jim, if only you knew!!!"

I think that female circumcision is a whole different beast, fun reduction-wise. You might say that there are some tribes who -- in the vein of tribal infanticide -- just don't know any better. But those tribes now have cell phones and satellite dishes.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 05:15

Quote:
And do you hold the same view of male circumcision? Do we prosecute all the Jews?

See Jim's answer. (It's a pleasure to see Jim active here again, BTW!)

No, we don't prosecute for Jewish (or Muslim) circumcision (there is only male circumcision; 'female circumcision' is euphemism), nor for those face scars that some Sudanese (and I suppose other) boys get as a sign of manhood, not even for ear pearcing (for earrings) that some my relatives do to their one or so year old daughters.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 05:34

Quote:
So, I am concerned that France has gone too far, but I can also see some merit to the notion that France has avoided some bad things by a matter of degree.

Yeah, things are rarely simple, are they...

This reminds me of a case of bigotry we had here in Croatia recently. We have mandatory national photo ID cards, issued by our equivalent of DHS (police, actually). Some local police clerk refused to let some Muslim woman wear her headscarf on the photo taken for that ID. It was funny to read verbal gymnastics the guys employed when trying to explain why said Muslim girl cannot wear her headdress on ID photo, while Catholic nuns can.

Quote:
The recent political bashings aside, I find the comparison of the relative tribulations of the USA and France interesting. We have guns. They have cigarettes.

Heh.

Ah, Paris and Athens are among the last places where I could have my small cigar after a meal in a nice restaurant... Well, one has to die of something, doesn't one? And frankly, I think that the mentioned meals do more harm to me than cigar...

(In my case heart is a clear favorite, in a very little part helped by that small amount of nicotine, carbon monoxide etc; cancer is faaar beyond.)

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 05:34

Quote:
As a practicing isexual

Time out. What is a practicing isexual?

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 12:02

I think he's referring to onanism.

-Zeke

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 13:40

Quote:
My take on the situation in France is that it´s a fierce battle between the French and the muslims

There are some studies, based on United Nations population studies, that show you might be correct except it is not a fierce battle at all. It is a sex battle... more precisely a birth battle. Supposedly birth rates in Western Europe among non-muslims is somewhat below 2 births/woman... Belgium is at 1.65 and France is below 1.85. Muslims in Western Europe have birth rates of 3-4 births/woman. Supposedly by 2050, Western Europe will have been "conquered" by Islam without a shot being fired.

Couple this with the historical marginalization of Muslims in Europe and a trend (a reaction to that marginalization) among younger Muslims to an more orthodox lifestyle and you have France in real crisis long before 2050.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 14:15

Quote:
Now, they may all worship the same Allah, and I wouldn't be too concerned, but I'm afraid that the mullahs that prevail could be the ones who want to take away and burn all the electric guitars.

Switch to acoustic.

Posted by: peter

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 14:33

Quote:
Supposedly by 2050, Western Europe will have been "conquered" by Islam without a shot being fired.

They used to say that about Catholics, though: Catholics outbreed Protestants by a factor of about three in every generation, which, as evolutionary advantages go, is beyond colossally favourable. The entire biomass of the planet would long ago have been converted into Catholics if it were not for the broad and flowing river of people leaving the church, or at least abandoning its teachings on fecundity.

Peter

Posted by: blitz

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 15:04

Quote:
They used to say that about Catholics

The Mormon's sort of tried it in the US. One of my favorite Mark Twain Quotes:

"Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter. I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge headlong and achieve a great reform here - until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly, and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No - the man that married one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure - and the man that married sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 20:32

Well, one has to die of something, doesn't one?

Sure, Dragi -- die of whatever you want!

Just don't smoke your awful cigars around me and take me with you!

(Juussst kidding! I am pretty confident that you would never light up in the vicnity of anyone who really objected)

tanstaafl.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 20:39

Quote:
I think he's referring to onanism.

-Zeke

My, my, my! You *have* been touched by His Noodly Appendage!

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Is France unique? - 11/11/2005 23:54

Not to mention that these are the folks who are already cutting maternal and child health programs, medciaid for uninsured children, food stamps, welfare, etc....unborn life is sacrosanct, but once they're born, if they're poor, to hell with them (that's what we're consigning many of them to--on earth). When I see more pro-life types adopting a crack baby, or one damaged by poor maternal nutrition, or any of the lost souls in foster homes, I'll have a little more sympathy for their concern for the unborn!

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Is France unique? - 12/11/2005 00:10

The right will go after each hold-out state, piece by piece. They are already doing it with issues like"intelligent" choice/evolution...they are well organized at a grassroots level, (starting with school boards, for example). Some states will be hold-outs, but we can't ALL live in California--even if CA secedes--so we'll be back to rich or at least comfortable women going where they need to go (it once was Sweden, pre-Roe vs. Wade) and poor women will be back to having no choice but bringing another child they can't adequately feed or care for into the world. Especially, as was pointed out, since these same folks also oppose sex education and in many cases contraception.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Is France unique? - 12/11/2005 00:31

And retroactive birth control...like for the father of 4 kids I'm working with who tried to burn the house down around his family.....or all the guys who kill their families and then themselves (why not START there?) I am back to being daily reminded why some people don't make the choice to graduate from high school, such as, both parents are in jail, they're living with their grandmother who can't get them up in the morning to come to school; their parent(s) are high on meth, they're too bruised from last night's beating to let the school nurse see them....most of us lead pretty comfortable, well-insulated lives. And even in the US, Canada, and Europe, many people don't have that luxury. These kids are just trying to SURVIVE, though why they'd want to, with the lives they lead, always amazes me.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Is France unique? - 12/11/2005 00:46

In California, where WASPs are now the official minority, girls DO come to school in headscarves and something like burkhas, and it generally seems to work--so do a few of the teachers. Not that CA is hate-crime free, far from it, but for the most part, choice of clothing (except when too scanty) passes unremarked. Multiculturalism, separated from poverty, seems to work pretty well. And most of the men who do commit hate crimes, if not actually impoverished, feel dispossessed.

Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Is France unique? - 12/11/2005 04:35

Bruno: "Is being shipped off to Iraq a suitable outlet for the frustration and anger in today's youth?"
America's youth are too blissfully placated by free pornography on the Fox television network and all those drugs that "aren't really harmful"

bitt: "every time I see a "W" bumper sticker, a nearly unbridled hatred wells up in my stomach and heart, and I wonder about Yugoslavia less and less."
Gah, that's a good and frighteningly true point. That second civil war is brewing; but this time instead of a societal clash, a holy war.

Jeff: "it is a foundational problem with our country. We can’t control ourselves."
What humans can control themselves? It's a foundational problem with our species. We're all animals.

canuckInLA: "The liberal approach is to educate people so that they can make choices that don't lead to abortion, and thereby decreasing the need for abortion."
Preface: My hardline stance is for education. But I have the hunch that politicians, whether liberal or conservative, want to keep people ignorant. It nicely obscures government atrocities when citizens are flooded with social disease. And I speculate that governments (and religions) love overpopulation; more people to control.

blitz: "Time out. What is a practicing isexual?"
<ignorant> Wait, is that like iTunes? </ignorant>

Wow, time for bed before I say anything else stupid like "Do humanity a favor, spread bird flu."

P.S. kayakjazz: Well said, all of it.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 12/11/2005 18:26

Quote:
Sure, Dragi -- die of whatever you want!

Just don't smoke your awful cigars around me and take me with you!

(Juussst kidding! I am pretty confident that you would never light up in the vicnity of anyone who really objected)

Ah, food is more likely to do me in than cigars. And, as I said in a previous thread on second-hand smoke, one doesn't fart in company, so why would smoking near someone who complains be any better?

Incidently, I find that smoking feels better in clean, slightly chilly air - perhaps it's an effect of contrast? Or perhaps I am just fooling myself, shivering on my office's balkony in shirtsleeves, with a mug of coffee and cigar?

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Is France unique? - 12/11/2005 18:30

Quote:
That second civil war is brewing; but this time instead of a societal clash, a holy war.

Yeah, that is the real clash ot civilizations: organized, repressive religions vs. the civilization.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 01:00

Quote:
That being said, you pretty clearly told us that, electorally speaking, you are pretty much aligned with the folks I call by [the religious right]. Same omnipotent god, right?

Only because I was given a binary choice. And I believe it is probably right to lump me with the religious right, but if I am aligned it is spiritually, not politically. There are plenty of things I'd vote against that "the religous right" wants as a rule, but generally I'm not given that option. I've lamented this as a dissapointing part of the process many times before.

Quote:
If a large group of people are worshiping a "one, true deity", how is it that the omnipotent deity does such a crummy job of communicating what the rules are?

I don't believe God has done a crummy job of telling us the rules; rather it is we that have put the barrier of sin between us so that we have difficulty understanding.

And there are many who claim to follow Jesus with whom I do not align myself at all, including spiritually (these very same would probably feel the same way about me). Jesus makes it very clear in the NT that just because someone claims to represent Him or doing things for Him, it doesn't mean that they are.

Quote:
You know, of course, that some folks don't accept your basic assumptions re "life of the child".

Right, which I have stated many times. But really this is off point from what I've been trying to say. My whole argument here has been that I have started with a premise and acted logically from that premise. If you disagree with my premise it's one thing, and I think that's the discussion we ought to be having, but I take exception to telling me that my actions are wrong without adressing the premise from which they flow quite naturally.

I believe a LOT of the abortion topic gets mired in highly charged accusations and self rightousness, on BOTH sides, when the dicussion really ought to be about "when does life being" and "at what point does life become a person deserving protected under the law". Because if the answer to those questions leaves with abortion taking an innocent life, it is clear that the law should not allow that. If, however, we agree that abortion is not taking an innocent life then it is equally clear that no one should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

Quote:
What is almost ironic is that I think, thankfully, that you have been outflanked by (shudder) science.

I have not been outflanked by science, and if I had I wouldn't shudder about it. While Science may inform these questions, it cannot answer them because we are dealing with a moral issue. Science can tell us all about a form of life, but it is left to us to agree whether that life is worth protecting. We did not free slaves because of science, though science could give us all the clues to determine that the color of a person's skin does not change the fact he or she is a human. Many groups of people throughout history that have been unjustly hurt and killed, fiannly becoming liberated not because of science, but because people were enlightened and saw the truth of the moral issue before them.

Quote:
amateur abortions that you, on balance, seem willing to accept

"Accept" is too strong a word, I think. There are MANY wrongs in the world that I cannot stop. People are dying of aids in Africa, and while my church has built an orphenage to aid young children who've lost their parents, we do not have the power to stop the spread of HIV. We could possibly take the strong measure of killing everyone who test positive, but that is not an acceptable answer, as much as it hurts my heart to see what Aids does to these people. Similarly, I think we should do all we can for women receiving dangerous abortions, I don't see allowing the killing of innocents as being an acceptable solution.

Quote:
Quote:
And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

This, I would like to think, in our current society, is a false dichotomy. I'd never contemplate this, nor would I want to.

I know you wouldn't- my question is WHY you wouldn't. Protecting life only because it is ouside of the womb seems rather arbitrary to me. Is life two weeks before birth nonexistent and life two weeks after precious? My wife was born over a month premature and could have easily been aborted, yet clearly she had all of the qualities necessary for life and protection under the law- with the exception that she was in the womb rather than out of it. Would it have been OK for her parents to take her life? Under the law the answer is "yes", as long as they did it while she was still inside. I'm not OK with that, and I'm not OK with a society that allows that to happen.

Quote:
I think that your positions are based on an artificially bounded conception of life

And I think that yours are artifically bounded at birth.

Quote:
If, in the broader historical context of women, pregancy and women's right to self-determination, you are willing to argue that women shouldn't be free to employ an early-stage abortifacient like RU486, then all I can conclude is that your "life" definition is simply something based in mysticism

This all comes back to the question of the premise. When do YOU think a life becomes a human enough to be worth protecting under the law?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 01:05

Quote:
Voting for anti-abortion governments, IMHO, does nothing but prolong the problem.

Once again it's the binary choice problem. You make some good points and all I can say is that I see taking it one step at a time because that's all my binary choices afford me. If RvW gets overturned then there's a whole other set of battles, and on this I'd probably be aligned against many of my companions in "the religious right". Unfortunatly that's just the way the system works.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 01:13

Quote:
When I see more pro-life types adopting a crack baby, or one damaged by poor maternal nutrition, or any of the lost souls in foster homes, I'll have a little more sympathy for their concern for the unborn!

Agreed, but it's the stories of hipocracy that get the press. I know of many Christians with a similar outlook to myself who've adopted those very children- their stories vary rarely get told (and in one case that is very personal to me, was twisted to make the parents look bad even though they were the most unbelievably selfless and loving parents to their adopted children that I've ever met)

Even so, I agree that we can do better.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 01:21

Quote:
Jeff: "it is a foundational problem with our country. We can’t control ourselves."
What humans can control themselves? It's a foundational problem with our species. We're all animals.

Well yes, kind of my point. Deomcracy is ultimately doomed (I think) because of this foundational problem with our species. If we can't control ourselves, how do we think we'll govern ourselves?

The problem is that if there is a form of government that isn't suceptible to the limits of humanity, we haven't found it. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do. Unfortunatly, because it's the best (and I believe that), many people assume that it is perfect and the natural order of things (God ordained even), none of which is true.

Knowing the limitations of Democracy is the first step to keeping it successful. I am afraid most people in the U.S. don't even consider the limitations and dangers of Democracy- the natural result is that we fall victim to those limitations and dangers. National Bankruptcy is probably the most obvious threat and one we are realizing very quickly.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 02:44

Quote:
My wife was born over a month premature and could have easily been aborted

Assuming you mean legally aborted, you're wrong. Seven months gestation is generally considered the outside limit for legal abortion in the US. Roe v. Wade states that a fetus may not be aborted if it is viable outside the womb, even if it requires life support technology, and specifically mentions 6 to 7 months as the time when that's possible. Medical technology has improved a good deal in the intervening 32 years and earlier dates are possible now. But no one would suggest that an 8-month fetus even begins to fit in the realm of legally abortable, now, back in 1973, or when your wife was born.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 05:51

Quote:
one doesn't fart in company

Oh. Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong...

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 11:10

Quote:
Assuming you mean legally aborted, you're wrong. Seven months gestation is generally considered the outside limit for legal abortion in the US. Roe v. Wade states that a fetus may not be aborted if it is viable outside the womb, even if it requires life support technology, and specifically mentions 6 to 7 months as the time when that's possible. Medical technology has improved a good deal in the intervening 32 years and earlier dates are possible now. But no one would suggest that an 8-month fetus even begins to fit in the realm of legally abortable, now, back in 1973, or when your wife was born.

You are right- I didn't know that. I'm not sure why I didn't know that, but a quick bit of googling shows that I've been laboring under a false understanding of Roe v Wade for a long time. Thanks for setting me straight.

Posted by: peter

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 11:43

Quote:
When do YOU think a life becomes a human enough to be worth protecting under the law?

Once it's outside the womb -- then it's gaining its own experiences and becoming its own person. Before then foetuses are fungible IMO: one can easily knock up another one that's just as good. But I'd settle for "could survive unaided outside the womb".

But if Roe vs Wade says that foetuses which could survive outside the womb with medical intervention can't be aborted, then the controversy is already over: the anti-abortion lobby can sit back and grab a beer, as there seems little doubt that medical advances will one day push that date right back to fertilisation. Plus it seems weird to pin a point of ethics to a moving target: do abortions which were previously ethical become retrospectively unethical as medical technology improves?

Peter

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 17:19

Plus it seems weird to pin a point of ethics to a moving target: do abortions which were previously ethical become retrospectively unethical as medical technology improves?

And in a tangentially related vein, I've always been bemused by the hyprocisy of people who are adamant that abortion is murder, an absolute evil that must be stopped at all costs... oh, wait, except in cases of rape or incest where apparently those fetuses are not deserving of protection.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 17:36

Quote:
Plus it seems weird to pin a point of ethics to a moving target

Quite simple. Since it seems little doubt that medical advances will one day push that date right back to fertilisation, pin it to a stationary target such as fertilisation. Problem solved.

Quote:
And in a tangentially related vein, I've always been bemused by the hyprocisy of people who are adamant that abortion is murder, an absolute evil that must be stopped at all costs... oh, wait, except in cases of rape or incest where apparently [i[those fetuses are not deserving of protection.

And I, coming from a viewpoint opposing your own, find this equally disgusting.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 17:47

Since science will someday not need for a womb to be involved at all, let's make masturbation illegal. Menstruation, too. And since science will someday be able to use random genetic material from parents instead of eggs and sperm, let's make sneezing illegal. And skin flaking. And hair loss.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 18:03

Quote:
Since science will someday not need for a womb to be involved at all, let's make masturbation illegal. Menstruation, too

<sarcasm>Great logic.</sarcasm>

Quote:
And since science will someday be able to use random genetic material from parents instead of eggs and sperm, let's make sneezing illegal. And skin flaking. And hair loss.

Cloning is a whole different set of ethical issues. I'm sure that wherever my position ends up on those issues, it will be to value human life.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 18:05

Quote:
<sarcasm>Great logic.</sarcasm>

About as good as yours, in my opinion.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Is France unique? - 14/11/2005 19:06

Sure. Unless you take into account the fact that whether or not a womb is present has nothing to do with fertilisation. Nor does masturbation or menstruation. Basically the whole argument is a non-sequitur. I get what you're attempting to think, but it just doesn't work without sperm fertilizing an egg unless you get into cloning.

And yes, following that to the logical conclusion, I think throwing away fertilized eggs in the process of in-vitro is wrong too.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Is France unique? - 15/11/2005 04:45

One of these moments I am going to go find a few threads about France and respond to those, But I think I can only take on one before nap time.

Can we have a new rule? Like the one regarding how far a thread may go before somenody mentions Nazis? Just substitute abortion or Bush. It would be too conceited to make it Hogan's Rule....and I'm not quite sure what the rule should be. Just that there should be a rule.

Quote:
Quote:
That being said, you pretty clearly told us that, electorally speaking, you are pretty much aligned with the folks I call by [the religious right]. Same omnipotent god, right?
Only because I was given a binary choice. And I believe it is probably right to lump me with the religious right, but if I am aligned it is spiritually, not politically.

Not having much of an opinion of spirituality, I don't tend to separate what people do -- how they vote, say -- and what supernaturally-driven beliefs/values they hold or espouse. So I am thinking my lumping is OK.

Quote:
There are plenty of things I'd vote against that "the religous right" wants as a rule, but generally I'm not given that option. I've lamented this as a dissapointing part of the process many times before.

As much discomfort with this dilemma as you have consistently expressed, I would expect you to abstain or something. Yet you would still vote for the guy that got thousands of fully-grown, way-past-full-term humans killed for a lie.

Quote:
Quote:
If a large group of people are worshiping a "one, true deity", how is it that the omnipotent deity does such a crummy job of communicating what the rules are?
I don't believe God has done a crummy job of telling us the rules; rather it is we that have put the barrier of sin between us so that we have difficulty understanding.

I think that any devout atheist would take you to task for a bit of circular logic. The notion of the hard-to-understand all-powerful deity has seemed absurd for many years. If we have a hard time understanding him, how do we know he's all-powerful? Or all-loving? The guy could be Norman Bates for all we know. Freaking sadist! Torturing people with the unknown, he is!

Quote:
And there are many who claim to follow Jesus with whom I do not align myself at all, including spiritually (these very same would probably feel the same way about me). Jesus makes it very clear in the NT that just because someone claims to represent Him or doing things for Him, it doesn't mean that they are.

All sorts of people across the spectrum there, I'll agree. I'm just having a hard time coping with the notion that so many of the devout are happy with having voted for a war criminal.

Well, I mean, shit, we *hung* Tojo, right?

Quote:
Quote:
You know, of course, that some folks don't accept your basic assumptions re "life of the child".
Right, which I have stated many times. But really this is off point from what I've been trying to say. My whole argument here has been that I have started with a premise and acted logically from that premise. If you disagree with my premise it's one thing, and I think that's the discussion we ought to be having, but I take exception to telling me that my actions are wrong without adressing the premise from which they flow quite naturally.

I believe a LOT of the abortion topic gets mired in highly charged accusations and self rightousness, on BOTH sides, when the dicussion really ought to be about "when does life being" and "at what point does life become a person deserving protected under the law". Because if the answer to those questions leaves with abortion taking an innocent life, it is clear that the law should not allow that. If, however, we agree that abortion is not taking an innocent life then it is equally clear that no one should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

I think that the world would be a better place if fewer women found it necessary to contemplate an abortion. I will opine on women's turf that much. To that end, I think efforts like sex education, contraception and generally helping young, often very poor, people envision a life with more choices and self-determination would be good. Now a good chunk of the folks who pulled the lever for Bush would like to reduce family planning to a less practical, more spiritual process. It can be called absurd, but I do *not* have a hard time imagining some of those folks defining "life" as beginning at spermatogenesis/oogenesis -- *just* so they can makesure that nobody has any extra fun!

Quote:
Quote:
What is almost ironic is that I think, thankfully, that you have been outflanked by (shudder) science.
I have not been outflanked by science, and if I had I wouldn't shudder about it.

I should have made "you" more general -- say the entire body of people that voted for Bush. And those people in Kansas

I *do* believe that you have been outflanked, though. In some ways I am less concerned about those anti-clinic forces in Mississippi and elsewhere. With RU486 and the drugs that will inevitably follow, it will be quite possible for a woman to make a personally pragmatic decision on Thursday and stand in the same pews with you on Sunday, with no one else the wiser.

Quote:
While Science may inform these questions, it cannot answer them because we are dealing with a moral issue. Science can tell us all about a form of life, but it is left to us to agree whether that life is worth protecting. We did not free slaves because of science, though science could give us all the clues to determine that the color of a person's skin does not change the fact he or she is a human. Many groups of people throughout history that have been unjustly hurt and killed, fiannly becoming liberated not because of science, but because people were enlightened and saw the truth of the moral issue before them.

You can find good and bad science without too much trouble, and I wasn't trying to make too much of an inherently virtuous role for science in this issue. Just couldn't help making fun of those folks in Kansas on the way to saying that the position of abortion foes is going to continue to erode in the face of pharmacology.

Quote:
Quote:
amateur abortions that you, on balance, seem willing to accept
"Accept" is too strong a word, I think. There are MANY wrongs in the world that I cannot stop. People are dying of aids in Africa, and while my church has built an orphenage to aid young children who've lost their parents, we do not have the power to stop the spread of HIV. We could possibly take the strong measure of killing everyone who test positive, but that is not an acceptable answer, as much as it hurts my heart to see what Aids does to these people. Similarly, I think we should do all we can for women receiving dangerous abortions, I don't see allowing the killing of innocents as being an acceptable solution.

I don't think you answered my original point. Why is "accept" too strong a term? History has shown that women have gotten abortions under the most difficult and often dangerous circumstances, notwithstanding the ill will or good will of their oft-religiously-inspired advisors, benefactors, oppressors, and/or parents.

As much spiritual inspiration as you take in protecting the "innocents", it strikes me as an other-worldly tilting at IUDs. Women are going to continue to have abortions and one question is how safe they will be. On the basic elements, you seem aligned with those folks in Mississippi on making sure that abortions performed to some community/insurable standard are not available, just those that have a much higher chance of killing a woman.

And, I forget if you answered this question: Am I right in thinking that you would prevent RU486 from being distributed if you could? Even if it were only to be legally prescribed within, say, two weeks of intercourse? Ah, looking below it looks like you *would* prevent same.

Quote:
Quote:
And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

Quote:
This, I would like to think, in our current society, is a false dichotomy. I'd never contemplate this, nor would I want to.
I know you wouldn't- my question is WHY you wouldn't. Protecting life only because it is ouside of the womb seems rather arbitrary to me. Is life two weeks before birth nonexistent and life two weeks after precious? My wife was born over a month premature and could have easily been aborted, yet clearly she had all of the qualities necessary for life and protection under the law- with the exception that she was in the womb rather than out of it. Would it have been OK for her parents to take her life? Under the law the answer is "yes", as long as they did it while she was still inside. I'm not OK with that, and I'm not OK with a society that allows that to happen.

Quote:
I think that your positions are based on an artificially bounded conception of life
And I think that yours are artifically bounded at birth.

Quote:
If, in the broader historical context of women, pregancy and women's right to self-determination, you are willing to argue that women shouldn't be free to employ an early-stage abortifacient like RU486, then all I can conclude is that your "life" definition is simply something based in mysticism
This all comes back to the question of the premise. When do YOU think a life becomes a human enough to be worth protecting under the law?

I would tend to lean toward the "viability" notion that courts have leaned on, as problematic as that is and will continue to be.

I have never worked with a truly anacephalic infant. They don't live long. I have worked with one or two who were pretty close. If their mothers had received some sort of prenatal care and in the course of that -- based say on an ultrasound -- made a decision to abort a little on the long side, I think I would understand. It is ironic that the most brain-dead child I ever worked with (aged six or seven at the time IIRC but essentially brain-dead at birth) was born to a zealously religious mother who kept her alive -- kept the insurers and the lawyers going and kept the two-shifts-a-day nurses coming -- by sheer force of will. That was her choice.

Anyhow, my opinion hasn't changed much. To my jaundiced, aspiritual eye, your morals and ethics appear grounded in mysticism. Women have miscarriages quite frequently. Sometimes women weren't quite aware they were pregnant. Some of these occasions might be greeted with a "Whew!" Many other times this a very sad event for people trying hard to have a child or just really let down after the elation of a pregnancy. And it can be a horribly sad and aweful situation in the case of a stillbirth.

These aren't all the same to me, though. By the very strict notion of spritually-driven "innocent life", I'm guessing that first woman should feel guilt for uttering "Whew!" and that the sad, disappointed 5-weeks-gestation miscarrying woman should be obliged to have a full funeral ceremony. I don't think so.

Is France unique?

Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 00:59

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 01:45

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 02:54

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 03:31

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 07:18

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 08:10

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 08:26

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 08:32

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 08:36

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 08:36

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 12:50

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 12:57

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 13:15

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 13:24

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 13:27

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 14:04

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 15:40

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 15:50

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 15:53

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 16:55

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 17:22

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 17:34

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 17:56

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 18:38

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 18:42

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 19:04

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 19:09

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 19:10

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 19:18

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 19:24

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 19:30

Re: Is France unique? - 08/11/2005 22:13

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 01:13

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 02:16

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 02:30

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 02:40

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 04:45

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 04:49

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 09:05

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 10:08

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 10:13

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 10:19

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 10:36

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 10:44

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 10:51

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 11:23

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 11:32

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 16:26

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:07

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:24

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:40

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 17:59

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 18:39

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 18:55

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 18:56

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:01

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:05

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:08

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:49

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:54

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:54

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 19:57

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:15

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:18

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:21

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:28

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:42

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:51

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:58

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 20:59

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 21:32

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 22:09

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 22:15

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 22:43

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 23:27

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 23:30

Re: Is France unique? - 09/11/2005 23:58

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 00:40

Re: Is France unique? - 10/11/2005 01:48