Michael

I predict that she is learning how to make big bucks by provoking cops to be kinda barbaric.

I understand "should"; I was asking about "is."

Story: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/401779_schene28.html Question: Do these circumstances provide that medics, rather than patients, decide who goes to the hospital? Or was it just uninformed reporting? More complete video: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/video/b...tid=14391606001 Commentary:

Do you mean the gentlemen or the young lady?

Well, Dust, I tip my hat to your stated willingness to live with the full consequences of the risks you take and seem to encourage others taking. If my recollection is sound, you've expressed no tolerance for smokers. I don't know your stance on dangerous sports or gambling, but I can't see how anyone can fault you for accepting that when recreation unexpectedly becomes procreation, it's, as the saying goes, your baby.

Perhaps I should simplify my question. The prolife position is: Killing a human being is committing homicide. But a fetus is a human being. Therefore, killing a fetus is committing homicide. But we also hold responsible those adults on whom others - such as children, the injured, the infirm - are dependent. That is, we disarm and prosecute not only those who actively kill or injure, but also those who passively kill or injure by means of neglecting the needs of those whose welfare depends on them. The proposed Tennessee law I cited above extends to fetal life legal protections currently afforded only to post-natal human beings. At present there are hordes of mandated reporters in children's lives who are charged with initiating investigations of caregivers who are suspected of failing to provide proper care. My question is: Do we want to ensure that fetuses are being kept not only alive, but also well, such as through adequate nutrition? Do we want maternal folate checks? Nicotine and alcohol tests? Is she eating a balanced diet and getting enough rest? Reported suspected child abuse dispatches an investigator to your door; do we want one dispatched to your womb? If not, why not?

Sounds great. Do they need lights and sirens?

Dusty! This is the second time you've taken my position, but posted it in the wrong thread!

Two Minnesotans, Sven & Ole, walk into a pet shop near Brainerd. They head to the bird section and Sven says to Ole, "Dat's dem." The owner comes over and asks if he can help them. "Yah sure, ve'll take four of dem dere little budgies in dat cage up dere," says Sven. The owner puts the budgies in a paper bag. Ole and Sven pay for the birds, leave the shop, get into Sven's pick-up and drive to the top of some big cliffs near Brainerd Lake. At the cliffs, Sven looks down at the 1000 foot drop and says, "Dis looks like a grand place." He takes two birds out of the bag, puts them on his shoulders and jumps off the cliff. Ole watches as Sven falls all the way to the bottom, killing himself dead. Looking down at the remains of his best pal, Ole shakes his head and says: "By yumpin' yiminy, dis budgie yumping is too dangerous for me." VAIT!!! Dere's MORE! Moments later Knute arrives up at the cliffs. He's been to the pet shop, too, and walks up to the edge of the cliff carrying another paper bag in one hand and a shotgun in the other. "Hey, Ole. Vatch dis. " Knute says. He takes a parrot from the bag and throws himself over the edge of the cliff. Ole watches as half way down, Knute takes the gun and shoots the parrot. Knute continues to plummet down and down until he hits the bottom and breaks every bone in his body. Ole shakes his head and says, "And I'm never trying dat parrotshooting either." BUT VAIT!!! Dere's MORE , you betcha!! Ole is just getting over the shock of losing two friends when Lars appears. He's also been to the pet shop and is carrying a paper bag, out of which he pulls a chicken. Lars grasps the chicken by the legs, holds it over his head, hurls himself off the cliff and disappears down and down until he hits a rock and breaks his spine. Once more Ole shakes his head. "First der was Sven with his budgie yumping, den Knute parrotshooting .. and now Lars, hengliding" Dats all. Dere ain't no more!

Yo, Dusty! That's spozed to be my question! On the other thread!

Thanks again, Dust, for your responses. Just to be I'm sure I'm following you, are you saying that - where "ideally" means you would support legislation that codifies sanctions against abortion that are on par with sanctions against homicide? I might have a response to this later. Meanwhile: I think with regard to the goal of avoiding obsessing, you're aligned with the majority of prolife sentiment, only that their method of avoiding obsession varies from yours. Because most people don't claim to be as adaptable to, say, unexpectedly becoming a parent as you say you are (and I have no reason to doubt what you say), they remove themselves from situations most likely to produce what they're not prepared to handle. That is, if each shot of playing "Russian Roulette" were accompanied by orgasm, it might be a more popular game; since it's not, playing with guns is rare. So far as I know, riding on the tops of trains or subways - I forget the name for this pastime - is practiced only by risk-seeking poor and/or emotionally neglected kids who feel immortal and/or that they have no future worth protecting. Most of us wear seatbelts, look both ways before we cross, and lock our doors at night. And precisely because "obsessing ... is not likely to be productive or healthy," we train our kids to practice hygiene until the practices are second nature. For example, I don't obsess about dental care, I just practice it because I can at will call up a sufficiently vivid image of the consequences of its neglect. I think many prolifers would advise the same about sexual continence in situations where children are not immediately welcome. That is, because habit is a powerful motivator, many prolifers would counsel the habit of sexual abstinence whenever offspring are unwelcome. Which takes me back to my original observation about bawdy jokes, which don't, at least not obviously, reflect or conduce to chastity. You've explained that your adaptability to acquiring children licenses sexual activity, which I think I've understood to mean an alternative to obsessive continence. Though to tell you the truth, the people I know who practice continence seem less sex-obsessed than those who don't, like people for whom booze or crack or sweets are, by choice,just not part of their diet - and yes I'm aware of the differences among these. I wish the cultural environment made it easier for all who would refrain from certain pleasures; not everyone has the strength of will you have. Now, just as people define, say, non-pathological oral hygiene variously - some treat sugar like poison, while for others life without the daily pound of chocolate is not worth living - so there is a range of risk that individuals are willing to assume for their goals. The question is over which principles are more conducive to unhealthy obsessing - the person who who has made eating sweets, or drinking alcohol, or whatever risk-entailing behavior might appear attractive - not an option, or the one for whom indulging or abstaining requires continual choosing, monitoring, weighing of benefit vs. risk. I have several friends who are single mothers, whose partners left them just before or after they discovered they were pregnant. My impression is that they have - to put it mildly - mixed feelings about that. More of my acquaintances than I probably realize have terminated their pregnancies. Those I've spoken to about it have reported mixed feelings about that too. The question seems to be whether abstinence deprives individuals of an experience that make the risk of parenthood worthwhile. Is intercourse intended to circumvent conceiving more akin to Russian Roulette (plus directly involving the welfare of third parties) or to sampling the occasional bonbon? Of course, many prolifers counsel chastity for reasons other than prudential; they say it's more wholesome psychologically, spiritually, socially, and even cognitively, and safer physically. Anyway, back to the question of the legal status of the fetus, would you have its "unalienable rights" encompass more than the right to life? For example, would you approve the following legislation? Here's the link to my source from which I copied the summary below http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/20/wow-19/ and here's the link to the proposed law: http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/2009...-some-concerns/ >A bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature would mandate drug and alcohol testing for any pregnant woman who meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) No prenatal care; (2) Late prenatal care after twenty-four (24) weeks gestation; (3) Incomplete prenatal care; (4) Abruptio placentae; (5) Intrauterine fetal death; (6) Preterm labor of no obvious cause; (7) Intrauterine growth retardation of no obvious cause; (8) Previously known alcohol or drug abuse; or (9) Unexplained congenital anomalies. Any woman who tests positive for alcohol or drugs would then be referred to a mandatory treatment program. If she refuses to be tested, tests positive and refuses treatment, or misses two appointments at treatment, she gets referred to child protective services.< Do we like them apples?

Dust sticking to his guns! I like it! So as a matter of law, abortion indistinguishable from homicide? Every mother will have to be ready prove in a court of law that her miscarriage was spontaneous, or suffer the same penalties as that to which any killer is sentenced? I'm trying to envision what enforcement, including the emotional effect on the mother of the State's collecting evidence, would look like in practice. Even under ideal conditions, rearing offspring is known to impose a set of unreasonable stressors that cannot be relieved merely by changing one's attitude! That might be worth weighing against the value of a regrettably placed orgasm...

Thank you, Dust, for taking up the query. So do I understand correctly that fertility exposes its agents to the continuous potential responsibility of parenthood? And, since pregnancy can result from rape, that fertility exposes its agents to the continuous potential responsibility of parenthood irrespective of the consent of the fertile agent? "Hi, Honey! How was your day?' "Terrible! I was raped!" "Well, then! Guess we'd better set another place at the table!" And shouldn't that be "with the hope/wish/unguaranteed preference of not getting bogged down in maternal and parental concerns"?

Let me try putting it this way, Dust. Human beings are capable of giving, and depend on receiving, one another’s emergency medical care to a far higher and more complex degree than are any other creatures dependent on members of their own species’ resources in medical emergencies (which, so far as I know, don’t go much past licking their offsprings’ wounds). Human beings can utilize a vast and ever-growing array of physical, chemical, psychological, and some would add spiritual resources to address one another’s infirmities and traumas. The prospect of providing such aid provokes certain feelings to arise in the provider. Some of these feelings support the task of providing stability, comfort, and health in pursuit of maximally restoring the patient’s independence, and others detract from it. Because we are not built as perfectly efficient administrators of aid, some of our natural feelings – such as terror, disgust, or anger – will distract us from optimally responding to patients’ needs, while others, such as pity, need to be transformed, say, into compassion. Some feelings are useful in the form they arise. In order to prevent the dysfunctional feelings from betraying the patient’s best interest, providers need to start selecting, transforming, and cultivating the useful feelings early. Most prominent among the feelings that arise when responding to an emergency is excitement. Heightened reactivity to our environment is essential for responding with sufficient interventive attention, or judiciously refraining from intervening or influencing what we find. But just as sympathy can degenerate into self-indulgent sentimentality that helps no one and can actually endanger those who are dependent on responsible providers, excitement can also become an end in itself for “adrenaline junkies.” Fetishizing a natural pleasurable byproduct of providing patient care compromises its goal of restoring health, perversely turning the goal into a dispensable byproduct of the means. That is met here with scorn. Here, the consensus seems to be that, Yes, appreciating the beauty or intricacy of equipment such as flashing lights is legitimate, but only so long as it ultimately serves caring for the patient. Yes, committing one’s energies to controlling a scene is a worthy endeavor, but only so long as it serves the goal of securing optimal care for the patient, which is why badge and weapon enthusiasts get bashed here. Yes, enjoying the sensations afforded by high-speed transportation, preparing in advance for sudden combat, composing eloquent run-sheets, fretting over vehicle-maintenance, celebrating triumphs and relieving stress are fine pursuits, but only so long as they ultimately serve caring for the patient - which is why boasting, bravado, and hero-posturing are condemned here. Truly competent technique is oriented toward the patient’s welfare, and the sign of a job well done is along the lines of a provider’s quiet, grateful relief rather than self-congratulation. Am I correct in believing that the consensus here minimally subscribes to that order of priority? And am I right in understanding that the reason it does so is that someone’s life may be in your hands? Haven’t the lasting controversies here been about that, eg: Do practical jokes advance patient care by offering providers occasions for building camaraderie and relieving tension – or do practical jokes detract from patient care by displacing providers’ attention, provoking mistrust of one’s associates, and hazarding wasting resources and consequently human life? Now what has this to do with the proposition that the integrity of fetal life merits protection? Well… let me repeat the last few paragraphs with a few replaced words. Human beings are capable of, and depend on, one another’s parental caring to a far higher and more complex degree than are any other creatures dependent on members of their own species’ resources (which attain biological and social independence far earlier). Human beings can utilize a vast and ever-growing array of physical, chemical, psychological, and some would add spiritual resources to address one another’s procreative capacities. The prospect of engaging in acts that lead to conceiving provokes certain feelings to arise in the procreators. Some of these feelings support the task of providing stability, comfort, and health in pursuit of maximally facilitating offsprings’ eventual independence, and others detract from it. Because we are not built as perfectly efficient agents of biological reproduction, some of our feelings – such as jealousy, possessiveness, domination, submissiveness – distract us from optimally providing offsprings’ needed care; others, such as pity, need to be transformed, say, into compassion. Some feelings are useful in the form they arise. In order to prevent the dysfunctional feelings from betraying what’s in their family’s best interest, individuals need to start selecting, transforming, and cultivating the useful feelings early. Most prominent among the feelings that arise when engaging in procreation is excitement. Heightened reactivity to our environment is essential for responding with sufficient interventive attention, or judiciously refraining from intervening or influencing what we find. But just as attraction can degenerate into self-indulgent possessiveness that helps no one and can actually endanger those who are dependent on responsible partners, excitement can also become an end in itself for “endorphin junkies.” Fetishizing a natural, pleasurable byproduct of procreation compromises its goal of producing children, perversely turning the goal into a dispensable byproduct of the means. Among pro-lifers, discarding the product of sex is met with scorn. Their consensus seems to be that, Yes, appreciating the beauty or intricacy of equipment such as physical form and style is legitimate, but only so long as it ultimately serves caring for the family one is initiating. Yes, committing one’s energies to controlling a scene is a worthy endeavor, but only so long as it serves the goal of securing optimal care for the family one is initiating, which is why partnership control-freaks are referred to counseling. Yes, enjoying the sensations afforded by consummation and its approach, preparing in advance for sudden emotional combat, composing eloquent appreciations, fretting over body-maintenance, celebrating triumphs and relieving stress are fine pursuits, but only so long as they ultimately serve caring for the family one is initiating – which is why boasting, bravado, and stud-posturing are not signs of desirable qualities in a mate; truly competent technique is oriented toward the other’s satisfaction, and the sign of a job well done is along the lines of a quiet, grateful twinkle in the eye rather than self-congratulation. Am I correct in believing that pro-lifers minimally subscribe to that order of priority, and am I right in understanding that the reason they do is that someone’s life may be in your hands? Hasn’t the tension between pro-lifers and much of popular culture been about that, eg: Does making light of sex advance familial care by offering partners occasions for building camaraderie and relieving tension – or does locating sources for arousal outside the procreation-oriented partnership detract from parental care by displacing partners’ attention, provoking their mistrust, and hazarding wasting resources and consequently human life? That’s why strong pro-life views combined with strong pro-eroticism views perplex me. It would be like hearing someone champion a reckless approach to emergency medical services while demanding a strict approach to their outcome. How are these two attitudes compatible: condemning using an ambulance for a joy-ride, because doing so recklessly misuses its valuable purpose of promoting and protecting vulnerable human lives, while endorsing the joy-ride of four bare legs in a bed, which on the pro-life view also recklessly misuses its valuable purpose of promoting and protecting vulnerable human lives? Dust, are you still there?

Hey, don't be sad! It's an honor system!

And don't use this! http://wordsmith.org/anagram/

It's a poll-tree! Cast your ballotine now!

Achtung! Two "m"s, no "b," and all German nouns are Kapitalized. As in Weisenheimer [not].

When Nat Hentoff, the self-described leftist Jewish atheist whose views on abortion I linked near the beginning of this thread, found himself on pro-life panels with Catholic bishops, some of them marveled. They said something like, We're here because the Church teaches that killing a fetus deprives him or her of eternal beatitude in Heaven. But you - you don't revere Church teachings, you don't acknowledge the existence of God, you don't believe in the survival of consciousness after death - why do you care what happens to babies who you're sure would have no life besides the material one? Hentoff replied, "Because that's all I've got!" So now I have a question for Dust, or anyone who agrees with what he's expressed. And I'll start by saying I enjoy your bluntness (just this once ) and apologizing if I've misunderstood something you've said, and I ask you to correct me. Dust (and those who say the kinds of things he's said): If the conceptus has moral rights worthy of the same protection any (other) human being has, rights to which the circumstances under which the conception occurred are irrelevant and which those rights trump, then would it not be obligatory to protect those rights before they can be threatened? Because individuals' life and bodily integrity are sacrosanct, we refrain from recklessly risking their violation, and we try to prevent/punish those who show those rights "reckless disregard." For example, we censure and disarm people of any age who play recklessly with guns, or even with sharp sticks, or with rope, or who engage in horseplay in a swimming pool. That's why it seems (at least logically) consistent for prolifers to promote sexual abstinence in circumstances under which babies are unwelcome. If every act of coitus invites into existence a new - or reincarnated - human life, for whose welfare his or her parents will be responsible for at least two decades, and longer in some cases of disability - coitus is to be reserved for those committed to becoming ancestors at the moment of potential impregnation. On this view, the sexual revolution was/is an invitation to genocide at worst, or prolonged neglect of children at best. And because of the causal link between pregnancy and insemination, prepared by erotic arousal, we're not surprised to find prolifers taking a grave rather than casual attitude toward all matters sexual, just as simple neighborliness takes a grave attitude toward guns and ammo: Whatever creates life as well as whatever destroys life warrants deep respect, surely caution, even awe, whether the mood of that deference is sacred or secular. Like the bishops quizzical at Nat Hentoff's blasé attitude toward theological principles, I'm wondering how you square a refusal to compromise the natural integrity of the "products of conception" with posts in which you seem, let us at least say, less worried than your average bishop about avoiding "sin and the near occasion of sin" (until I learn to embed code in this reincarnated website, you'll have to google that phrase if it's unfamiliar). In short, prolifers aren't much given to bawdy jokes. But Dust is much given to bawdy jokes. Ergo, Dust's prolife stance comes as a surprise to at least this reader. Since Dustdevil is highly attuned to logical consistency, I cast about for a possible explanation for his tolerance of, not to say leadership in, lascivious imagination even as he remains uncompromising about the induction of anyone's minimum two-decade commitment arising out of its natural fulfillment - and we've learned here that even vasectomies can fail to filter out bambini. Is it that: 1) He deliberately disregards inconsistency when he finds doing so convenient? (I doubt that, particularly not in matters that at least he defines as life-or-death.) 2) He relishes self-control by tempting himself and others and pulling back from the brink, the way Mohandas Gandhi is said to have tested his own resolve to celibacy by sleeping with nubile women and refraining from be-nubilizng them? (Maybe.) 3) He finds sexual humor as disconnected from sexual activity as racial or grotesque humor might be to a non-racist and humanist? (Maybe.) 4) Other? Again, apologies if I've misconstrued something here. Dust, what sayest thou?

Still find it amazing that so few here have shown an interest in this. Seemed like it would have all the ingredients to call out everyone's opinion on the country's most divisive issue since slavery, and all we hear are... crickets. What about the links I posted above - reports from individuals who escaped being aborted years earlier? People who post here aren't noticeably shy about saying how they feel concerning, oh, teen pregnancy, medical malpractice, sexual freedom. Is this story too upsetting for lifers? People in EMS have pretty strong stomachs. Or is it embarrassing for choicers? I've read very strong displays of willingness to live with the consequences of one's convictions. Will saying something force you to sound either callous or self-righteous? Or does the concept of "failed abortion" grind our thinking gears to a halt? Or is it really a ho-hum topic that just doesn't concern us? I don't like the idea of a cop knocking on someone's door to say "Heard you had a miscarriage... can you prove it?" On the other hand, it sure seems like there were two patients in need of care that day.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/16/business/16zagat.php

The publicity may turn it into a 100% educational expense.

[web:a2aa289d97]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/31/earlyshow/health/main4766105.shtml[/web:a2aa289d97]

spenac, it's the bear's nose I wondered about.