Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6374)	2/23/2001 1:27:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't have a disagreement with their idea but I do disagree with their figures and the notion that their idea is a solution. The reason I posted the Respect for Life piece was to try to understand better this great chasm between the two sides on the abortion issue. I continue to scratch my head over the way people of both sides recognize the stalemate but are unreceptive to any attempt to find common ground. The Respect for Life approach is apparently an attempt at the latter so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole here. The pro-choicers were receptive to it and you didn't totally reject it out of hand. I guess that's a good sign. There are clearly some profound differences between the camps that can't be either proven one way or the other or bridged. The most salient one is the question of whether a fetus is a person or not. As I've struggled to understand the person side, I've found two potential justifications. One, of course, is religion, all of which I reject out of hand as outmoded superstition. The other is sentimentality, which has some resonance with me, but not enough resonance to counterbalance all the arguments on the other side. The second difference is life at all costs vs. quality of life. Best I can tell, the argument here is about control: who makes the decisions. Do we choose for ourselves or let nature take it's course? Those in the latter camp would mix this question with the first difference--whether a fetus is a person--but I think they're sufficiently distinct areas of inquiry since those who are latter camp seem to have the same perspective about individuals making their own life or death choices, as well. A large part of this attitude probably comes from religion, where God makes those decisions, but perhaps some of it may be just personality traits. I don't know. We haven't talked enough about euthanasia for me to have much of a handle on that. The third arm of the chasm is about the carrying capacity of Earth. This is really a secondary issue, I think, because there doesn't seem to be much interest in either overtly reducing the population or overtly increasing the population, although many on the choice side seem to think population reduction or at least reduced population growth would be a fortuitous byproduct. The question comes into play more as a choicer reaction to the lifer uninterest in the population impact of their position. It seems intuitively obvious to me that humans are taking up more than their fair share of the Earth. The lifers seem to think that their perspective is intuitively obvious, too, for example, the argument that the Earth's population would fit into Colorado. Of course, there's no way to prove this either way and there's much subjectivity about quality of life involved. There also seems to be an large element of human-centrism, which may be based in religion-based dominance of humans, a different appreciation of the environment, or simply selfishness. While I can understand the point of view of those who think that the world is not becoming overpopulated, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would find it desirable to have a larger population. I see no advantage in that at all. Tim, are you still there? I know I've gone on and on. I'm just ruminating. Going through a grieving process over the apparent unfeasibility of bridging the chasm. I was just reviewing in my mind what I've learned about the chasm and typing as I did so. (I subscribe to the school of thought that if you haven't written it down, you haven't thought it through.) So here it is FWIW. I'm not really debating. I don't know that there's anything left to say. Karen

To: TimF who wrote (6374)	3/1/2001 4:31:29 AM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm not sure how I stumbled on this back post but... It's funny that you mention that Some of which are repeated at least once with the same exact words. Apparently I hit Control V twice and the article is repeated. So yes the words are both same and exact. I am in touch with the author of the platform that was posted, and will pass your ideas on to him. So, how about a single move that could reduce abortions by 50% in one fell swoop? A report at the NARAL site cites a 1992 source as saying that over the counter availability of "Emergency Contraceptive" or "Morning After" pills could do just that. Heck even if it was 5% percent I'd be in favor of it. Remember that MAP is not abortion because the woman is not yet pregnant, or it wouldn't work. Emergency Contraceptive Pills Should be Available Over-the-Counter Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are ordinary birth control pills that significantly decrease a woman's chance of becoming pregnant when administered within 72 hours of unprotected sex. 1 Estimates show that increased use of ECPs could reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by half annually. 2 In recent years, the FDA has approved two types of ECPs — the PREVEN Emergency Contraception Kit and Plan B — both of which are available by prescription. 3 Currently, ECPs can be difficult to obtain in a timely manner because women must obtain a prescription in order to use them.4 For example, a woman faced with a broken condom on a Friday night, whose doctor's office is closed over the weekend, might have to wait until the following Monday — three days later — to obtain a prescription for ECPs. Women in rural areas may have to travel great distances to reach the nearest doctor or clinic, making a prescription within 72 hours of unprotected sex difficult, if not impossible to obtain. Even under less extreme circumstances, obtaining a prescription for ECPs can be problematic. A recent study of the Emergency Contraception Hotline (1-888-NOT-2-LATE), a 24-hour, automated phone line that provides the names and telephone numbers of clinicians who prescribe ECPs in the caller's geographic area, found that even when calls to clinicians were made during business hours, only three out of every four attempts to obtain ECPs resulted in appointments or telephone prescriptions within 72 hours. Because ECPs are more effective the earlier they are used — and most effective within the first 12 hours of unprotected sex5 — the obstacles associated with obtaining a prescription for ECPs pose a serious threat to women's health. Because ECPs are safe, effective, and easily self-administered, they are suitable for non-prescription (i.e. over-the-counter) availability. Making ECPs available over-the-counter would eliminate an unnecessary barrier to women's access to this important contraceptive option. FDA Criteria for Over-the-Counter Drugs <clip>