Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Asian people are distinctive looking.

i can generally tell Japanese from Vietmanese from China from Korean. They really are pretty different looking-

And lots of Asian nationalities hate the Japanese- I was in Seoul working with a Korean law firm on the double super important patent matters that are my stock in trade- The guy was surprised that I had spent the weekend travelling on my own on the subway- huh? He told me that the week before he was working with a Japanese lawyer and travelling on the subway- people glared at him- and one came up and said "Why would you help one of them?" You can only expect a certain level of treatment when you enslave a people and then kill and rape millions- contrast from freeing a people who had been enslaved and were being raped and murdered, all by thier government.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
I appreciate your honesty.

The abortion issues sucks. I think there are two questions that define the abortion issue.

1) If abortion is illegal, what sort of penalty do you give a girl who has an abortion?
2) If abortion is legal, for someone who kicks a woman in the stomach trying to terminate her pregnancy, can you only prosecute them for assault and battery?

I think most reasonable people would say that if a woman has an abortion they should not be prosecuted for murder (or prosecuted at all for that matter). On the other hand I think most reasonable people would like to prosecute someone for murder when they assault a woman with the intent of ending her pregnancy.

These two "reasonable" positions seem to contradict eachother. I would like to keep abortion legal, but on the other hand I am glad that Scott Peterson got convicted of a double murder.

Its sometimes hard to say what one would do unless one is directly confronted with the situation. In this case, her daughter-to-be isn't even unwanted. She wants to have a baby, and she wants to have this baby.

But you get that "what if", and its at the very least an uncomfortable feeling. Selfish maybe? Judgemental? I didn't even know what kind of guilt to feel. It seemed like Sidd's impression was the same... the whole conversation can be a bit much.

So its not to say she would have had an abortion; rather, its just not to say that she wouldn't have had one either. There are definitely Catholics we know that have willingly and knowingly had handicapped kids. But the decision fits into the rubric of what the mother expects to do with her life. Its one thing for a stay at home mom to think "well, I have 4, maybe this one just counts as 2 more" or something like that. Its another for a working woman to think "how the hell can I raise a handicapped child when I'm supposed to be at work 8 hours per day for the next 25 years".

As for the hypotheticals, I think it will mostly fall on the person who commits the act of violence, not on the person who willingly submits her body to the act (unless someone induces their own abortion... yuck). So little if any in #1, but throw the book at the doctor the same as in #2.

Anyhoo, if Hillary was serious about it (greater efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies), than its probably the only thing I would ever giver her credit for. The thing is though, if she takes affirmative steps that haven't been taken before, its gonna be a whole lot of credit I'm giving her. The whole issue is just that troubling to me. Taking a softer tone and emphasizing reducing the basic demand for abortion (down 40% already in the last 10 years), is a great affirmative step for the Dems to do. If they were able to say that they are the only ones doing anything practical (i.e., that works), it would probably given them a pretty decent inroad into the cultural conservatives.

Of course, there are a few other things they could do too, but the last time stated thoughts on the subject (a few months ago), a riot broke out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Its sometimes hard to say what one would do unless one is directly confronted with the situation. In this case, her daughter-to-be isn't even unwanted. She wants to have a baby, and she wants to have this baby.

But you get that "what if", and its at the very least an uncomfortable feeling. Selfish maybe? Judgemental? I didn't even know what kind of guilt to feel. It seemed like Sidd's impression was the same... the whole conversation can be a bit much.

So its not to say she would have had an abortion; rather, its just not to say that she wouldn't have had one either. There are definitely Catholics we know that have willingly and knowingly had handicapped kids. But the decision fits into the rubric of what the mother expects to do with her life. Its one thing for a stay at home mom to think "well, I have 4, maybe this one just counts as 2 more" or something like that. Its another for a working woman to think "how the hell can I raise a handicapped child when I'm supposed to be at work 8 hours per day for the next 25 years".

As for the hypotheticals, I think it will mostly fall on the person who commits the act of violence, not on the person who willingly submits her body to the act (unless someone induces their own abortion... yuck). So little if any in #1, but throw the book at the doctor the same as in #2.

Anyhoo, if Hillary was serious about it (greater efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies), than its probably the only thing I would ever giver her credit for. The thing is though, if she takes affirmative steps that haven't been taken before, its gonna be a whole lot of credit I'm giving her. The whole issue is just that troubling to me. Taking a softer tone and emphasizing reducing the basic demand for abortion (down 40% already in the last 10 years), is a great affirmative step for the Dems to do. If they were able to say that they are the only ones doing anything practical (i.e., that works), it would probably given them a pretty decent inroad into the cultural conservatives.

Of course, there are a few other things they could do too, but the last time stated thoughts on the subject (a few months ago), a riot broke out.

In my opinion the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is contraception. It seems to me that a large swath of the pro-life group insures a high number of abortions by preventing the distribution of condoms. I think planned parenthood does the best job of trying to reduce abortions and most social conservatives just get in the way of their efforts.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my opinion the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is contraception. It seems to me that a large swath of the pro-life group insures a high number of abortions by preventing the distribution of condoms. I think planned parenthood does the best job of trying to reduce abortions and most social conservatives just get in the way of their efforts.

Aren't you supposed to be a fiscal conservative? The best way to reduce abortions is to quit subsidizing and coddling people who engage in risky behavior. Its way harder to get preggers at an 8-10 hour/day minimum wage job with a mean boss than it is in a 16th floor bordello of a public housing project.

I think your characterization of "social conservatives" is off too, but I also think it depend how you define "social conservatives". My guess is that a majority of the people who define themselves as solidly "pro-Life" would not also characterize themselves as solidly "anti-condom".


ETA, it appears some of those bloggers who Ty's always quoting also think this will be a win for the Democrats:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/31/13226/2693

(Spree: Kos? citing to Yglesias?)

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
China & Japan: Now there is a scary situation. [Miscellaneous annecdotal tales re: same.]

For what it's worth, your annecdotal experience is similar to my (much more limited) annecdotal experience; I'd note that the Chinese can also be pretty racist and superior w/r/t other asian ethnicities (and non-asians, for that matter). One little story, just for fun - I have a relative who is Canadian, and she got rather tired while traveling through Japan of being asked where in the States she was from. She took to responding "I'm not American - where in Korea are you from?" After a moment of shocked horror, they generally got the point.

My opinion is that the Chinese/Japanese flare up is being quietly encouraged by both governments to distract from the political and economic problems destabilizing both. People let off some frustration, govs make nasty noises at each other, put stupid huts on useless pieces of rock in the sea to lay claim to waterways they can't really patrol, and all of it means nothing at all for actual relations. Main risk I see is that the Chinese situation could get somewhat out of G control, or somehow become associated with other internal causes & demonstrations (competition, pensions, etc.) that are significantly more serious.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Thanks Sidd. I think you are right. The person I am closest to in the world is a late-30's sister who is currently pregnant. She's been through a lot (not like, battered-wife/divorced/orphaned a lot, but like warzones/caring for dying parent(s) while raising young daughter and working as sworn police officer a lot). She used to be pro-choice til she had her daughter. Now she's fiercely pro-life.

Giving credit where credit is due, Sebby and others said a pro-life Catholic is someone who is pro-Life until they have a reason to have an abortion.

The most uncomfortable conversation I've had with her in probably 3 or 4 years was her telling me about the gender/medical likelihoods testing during pregnancy. She wouldn't say it, but it was implicit in the conversation that if the fetus tested for Down's syndrome etc... we were both going to hell for even thinking what we were thinking. So we just didn't say it, but it was there. Believe me, when people like me are having these thoughts, I can't help but wonder if anyone is having handicapped kids anymore. Which is why I asked FWIW.

Someone oughta do a study on this.

Hello

I think it'd be a hard study to design given how many more women delay pregnancy. The incidence of Down's syndrome is probably a little higher (though that may be counteracted by other health and environmental factors, I can't remember, exactly, what all causes Down's syndrome, though age of the mother is a hugely relevant risk factor) in the last 30 or so years.

(Whoa, Wikipedia has these stats: Incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 660 births, making it the most common chromosomal abnormality. Maternal age influences the risk of conceiving a baby with the syndrome. At age 20-24, it is only 1/1490, while at age 40 it is 1/106 and at age 49 it is 1/11. I think my ovaries just twinged.)

Anecdotally, I had cause to speak with a woman recently who was absolutely devistated because she had to recently abort an etopic pregnancy. She is staunchly pro-life, and she'd been trying to get pregnant using a fertility specialist for five years. She described the procedure as "had to kill my baby."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anecdotally, I had cause to speak with a woman recently who was absolutely devistated because she had to recently abort an etopic pregnancy. She is staunchly pro-life, and she'd been trying to get pregnant using a fertility specialist for five years. She described the procedure as "had to kill my baby."

That's a shame, though given that otherwise the baby could've killed her, hopefully this reality will help her come to terms with it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Anyhoo, if Hillary was serious about it (greater efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies), than its probably the only thing I would ever giver her credit for. The thing is though, if she takes affirmative steps that haven't been taken before, its gonna be a whole lot of credit I'm giving her. The whole issue is just that troubling to me. Taking a softer tone and emphasizing reducing the basic demand for abortion (down 40% already in the last 10 years), is a great affirmative step for the Dems to do. If they were able to say that they are the only ones doing anything practical (i.e., that works), it would probably given them a pretty decent inroad into the cultural conservatives.

I said this in another forum, and I'll say it here. I just want fewer unwanted pregnancies, which means I want a shitload of sex education at all levels (including, but not exclusively abstinance education) and an abudnance and readly availability of birth control.

In my perfect, rosy happy world, abortion would be rare because people would be properly educated about how to avoid pregnancy and they'd have the tools at hand to follow through on that education.

My problem is that I keep on running into people who want 1.) abstinance only sex education, 2.) elimination of the morning after pill, 3.) major restrictions on funding for family planning facilities AND 4.) elimination of abortion. They rely on 1.) to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And studies show that it doesn't work.

ETA: What do they do in Spain and Italy? They're very Catholic but they have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it'd be a hard study to design given how many more women delay pregnancy. The incidence of Down's syndrome is probably a little higher (though that may be counteracted by other health and environmental factors, I can't remember, exactly, what all causes Down's syndrome, though age of the mother is a hugely relevant risk factor) in the last 30 or so years.

Age is a factor because the older a woman is, the fewer eggs she has, and the more likely that a damaged egg will be fertilized. Down Syndrome and certain other chromosomal defects occur because the egg is defective and is more likely to split the chromosomes incorrectly. I don' t believe that other meaningful environmental factors have been identified, although family history is a major factor. Defects such as spina bifida are caused by some mix of genetic risk and diet (folic acid reduces the risk), and other uncommon birth defects can be caused by environmental exposure (e.g. to toxic chemicals and unsafe medications).

Regardless of the age-related risk, however, the largest actual number of Down Syndrome babies are born to women under 30, because younger women still have more babies overall, despite the trend toward delaying childbearing. Most of those women are unlikely to be tested because the risk of miscarriage due to invasive prenatal testing such as CVS or amniocentesis, each of which involves a needle, is greater than the risk of a defect until a woman reaches 35. That's one reason that 35 is the magic cutoff at which a woman is deemed to be of "advanced maternal age" -- because that's the point where the risk of testing is "worth" taking because it is lower than the statistical risk of a defect. Each woman's risk varies, of course, based on family history and other factors.

The point being, given the sheer numbers, I doubt that the number of abortions related to prenatal testing significantly affects the overall abortion rate. First off, the risk of a prenatallly detected potentially severe defect is relatively low overall -- even when it's high, say 1/100 for a 40-year-old, not THAT many 40-year-olds are getting pregnant these days (more than in the past, but it's not an epidemic), and for the vast majority of those women, everything will be fine. And for those for whom everything is not fine, not every one will chose to terminate. [I think a majority will, but that majority might be 60%?]

(Forgive me, I just had genetic counseling and a refresher course in chromosomes. Results were good here, thankfully -- but I can't even think about what the decision-making process would have been like had it turned out differently.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my opinion the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is contraception. It seems to me that a large swath of the pro-life group insures a high number of abortions by preventing the distribution of condoms. I think planned parenthood does the best job of trying to reduce abortions and most social conservatives just get in the way of their efforts.

Too true. Birth control should be handed out like candy. Its sad that moral absolutists control all debates in this country. Abortion could be very easily be all but elminated if people had easy access to govt supplied birth control. We might see a bit of a rise in STDs, but nothing's perfect.

We live in an imperfect world, and sex is a natural urge. Its reprehensible for a minority of moral absolutists to dictate policy. The Catholic Church should be sued for its contrary positions, and the pain they've caused so many. Damn those swine for what they're doing in Central America and Africa in re: efforts to stop condom distribution.

I just don't get how anyone can morally oppose birth control in this era. Such fools, such utter goddamned fools.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by robustpuppy

(Forgive me, I just had genetic counseling and a refresher course in chromosomes. Results were good here, thankfully -- but I can't even think about what the decision-making process would have been like had it turned out differently.)

I'm really glad everything turned out ok for you, and congratulations!

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Too true. Birth control should be handed out like candy. Its sad that moral absolutists control all debates in this country. Abortion could be very easily be all but elminated if people had easy access to govt supplied birth control. We might see a bit of a rise in STDs, but nothing's perfect.

We live in an imperfect world, and sex is a natural urge. Its reprehensible for a minority of moral absolutists to dictate policy. The Catholic Church should be sued for its contrary positions, and the pain they've caused so many. Damn those swine for what they're doing in Central America and Africa in re: efforts to stop condom distribution.

I just don't get how anyone can morally oppose birth control in this era. Such fools, such utter goddamned fools.

Aren't we lucky that we've now got some state legislatures seeking to uphold the "rights" of pharmacists to make "business decisions" based on "moral principles" and not fill validly issued prescriptions for birth control pills, whether of the morning-after prevent implantation variety or even of your ordinary prevent ovulation sort. It's fucking ridiculous, but it might be interesting from a state as incubator perspective if different states will have differing legislation based on how strong the Christian-right influence is in a given state.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Too true. Birth control should be handed out like candy. Its sad that moral absolutists control all debates in this country. Abortion could be very easily be all but elminated if people had easy access to govt supplied birth control. We might see a bit of a rise in STDs, but nothing's perfect.

We live in an imperfect world, and sex is a natural urge. Its reprehensible for a minority of moral absolutists to dictate policy. The Catholic Church should be sued for its contrary positions, and the pain they've caused so many. Damn those swine for what they're doing in Central America and Africa in re: efforts to stop condom distribution.

I just don't get how anyone can morally oppose birth control in this era. Such fools, such utter goddamned fools.

NPR had a piece on dissent within the Catholic Church this morning. The first story was about Charles Curran (sp?) who wrote a letter challenging the catholic church on birth control in the 60s or 70s, with 600 signatures attached. He was investigated by the Church for six years and ultimately told he was not suitable or eligible to teach theology at Catholic University.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Aren't we lucky that we've now got some state legislatures seeking to uphold the "rights" of pharmacists to make "business decisions" based on "moral principles" and not fill validly issued prescriptions for birth control pills, whether of the morning-after prevent implantation variety or even of your ordinary prevent ovulation sort. It's fucking ridiculous, but it might be interesting from a "state as incubator" perspective if different states will have differing legislation based on how strong the Christian-right influence is in a given state.

Yeh, no shit. Everybody's got a right - a right to inflict their fucking religious views on me. I love how the religious right has converted Court's refusal to allow them to force religious dogma on others into a form of "religious discrimination." Who do they think they're fooling?

The Courts aren't discriminating against Religion. They're discriminating against allowing people to force their religion on others. No judge has ever told the right wingers what they can or an't do amongst themselves. Its only when they seek to force their views on others that they get their hands slapped. And now they've transformed that hand slapping - which is nothing more than vigilant adherence to our fucking Constitution - into a form of discrimination. Jesus Fucking Christ... somewhere Martin Luther King is rolling in his grave.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
NPR had a piece on dissent within the Catholic Church this morning. The first story was about Charles Curran (sp?) who wrote a letter challenging the catholic church on birth control in the 60s or 70s, with 600 signatures attached. He was investigated by the Church for six years and ultimately told he was not suitable or eligible to teach theology at Catholic University.

I heard that story too. Nice. Also mentioned some theologians predicting that if the German Cardinal gets elected (Ratzenberger or whoever he is), Catholics wanting a more moderate church will have to take solace in the prospect that at least it can't get much worse.