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: Rambi who wrote (78755)	11/7/2003 11:03:44 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Very good overview of the abortion issue. Thanks for sharing that link, Rambi.

To: Rambi who wrote (78755)	11/7/2003 11:08:39 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

One of many points that invite a thoughtful consideration... "In Denmark, contraceptive services are free and universally available, even to teenagers, resulting in a dramatic drop in teen abortion rates. Pregnancy rates among Danish teenagers are now less than half those in the United States."

To: Rambi who wrote (78755)	11/7/2003 11:27:54 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

We've missed you, too, but we realize that your magic fingers are in great demand, and will await our turn to enjoy their output with as much patience as we can muster. Here are a couple of excerpts that will remind us that outlawing abortion is not a solution to the problem. That was an excellent find. Thanks for locating and posting it. Yes, women have tried to abort probably since about the time of the cave men. But the difference today is that we have, as previous societies did not, a wide range of options of safe and effective contraceptive provisions. So it isn't totally unfair to suggest that any woman who gets pregnant today other than by rape may not have chosen to get pregnant, but didn't choose not to, either. Again excepting rape, women choose whether to have intercourse with a man, they choose whether to be using contraception at the time, they choose whether to give the man a condom and demand that he use it, etc. Of course some guys will use persuasion to try to get the woman into bed (or haystack or back seat or wherever) with them without worrying about protection. But I'm old fashioned enough to believe that women are responsible for their actions, and that "he talked me into it" is no excuse. So in this day and age, again excepting rape, every pregnancy is either voluntary or is the result of a volutary decison not to use available contraception and to accept the slight risk of the failure of contraception. Again outside of rape, every pregnancy is the result of choice. Maybe not the specific choice to get pregnant, but the choice to engage in unprotected or inadequately protected sex. Personally, I don't see any reason not to expect people to accept the consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, I see a significant detriment to society when we adopt an attitude that people don't need to accept responsibility for their decisions, but that they can act stupidly and we'll protected them from the outcome of their stupidity. Such a social policy is, IMO, counterproductive and societally suicidal over time. An off topic aside: a large, tightly packed flock of seagulls just skimmed along right above the water for about a half-mile. I thought at first it was a fast moving boat, but then I realized it was a flock of gulls that was just skimming the water at high speed.

To: Rambi who wrote (78755)	11/7/2003 12:30:30 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This is today's refdesk website. It's fantastic fun -- if you don't know it, try it! exploratorium.edu

To: Rambi who wrote (78755)	11/7/2003 1:59:04 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Yes, those cultural tidbits were, indeed, interesting. Thanks for posting it. Here's something related. U.N. Postpones Debate on Human Cloning Action Derails Bid for a Vote on a U.S.-Backed Measure Calling for a Moratorium By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 7, 2003; Page A02 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 6 -- The Bush administration suffered a setback on Thursday in its campaign for a global ban on all forms of human cloning, as key European allies and dozens of Islamic states that support therapeutic cloning blocked consideration of the issue at the United Nations until the end of 2005. The 191-member U.N. General Assembly voted 80 to 79, with 15 abstentions and 17 no-shows, in support of a procedural motion, introduced by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to defer debate on the controversial topic for two years. The maneuver derailed a U.S.-backed initiative by Costa Rica to hold a vote on a resolution calling for a moratorium on human cloning and establishing a committee to draft an international convention banning the practice. U.S. and U.N. diplomats said that the resolution, which has 66 co-sponsors, would have been easily adopted with the support of more than 100 nations if it had been put to a vote. However, several countries that were considering supporting the Costa Rican draft -- including Cameroon, Benin and Canada -- either backed the delay, abstained or did not attend. The action on Thursday drew expressions of relief from the medical and scientific community's advocates, who warned that a total ban would stifle progress in the development of life-saving medicines. It elicited criticism from conservative American Christian groups that view cloning as a violation of the sanctity of life. The action also exposed the deep political and religious differences between the United States and the Islamic world, which does not recognize that life begins at conception and opposes prohibitions on "therapeutic cloning," which involves the medical and scientific use of human embryos. "Therapeutic cloning is acceptable universally by all the Shia and the Sunni Muslims," said Abdulaziz Sachedina, an expert on the ethics of cloning in Islam at the University of Virginia's Department of Religious Studies. "Embryos don't have the same sanctity [that they do in the Christian faith]," he said. "They are not regarded as a person in any sense." Although there is broad support at the United Nations for a global ban on reproductive human cloning, the debate here has focused on how much leeway should be provided for the pursuit of developments in therapeutic cloning. France and Germany advocated in 2001 a partial ban that would prohibit the use of cloned embryos to reproduce human beings. At the time, they argued that individual states should decide whether to bar the use of cloned human embryos for scientific research. The effort quickly stumbled as the United States, the Vatican, Costa Rica and Spain championed a total ban on the use of human embryos for any purpose, including for medical and scientific research. Belgium, which has since emerged as the sponsor of a competing resolution calling for a partial ban on cloning, said it would support the Islamic group's call for a delay to improve the chances for reaching a consensus. U.S. officials expressed sympathy on Thursday for Islamic governments that are struggling to fashion a policy on cloning that would be consistent with their own religious beliefs. But they charged that European countries that favor a partial ban on reproductive human cloning exploited the concerns to block the U.S.-backed initiative. "We are disappointed that the proponents of an incomplete ban on cloning have been able to use a procedural device to prevent the international community from registering the significant majority that exists in favor of a total ban," James Cunningham, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote. An Iranian representative, acting on behalf of the OIC, introduced the motion to delay the debate to give Islamic governments and religious leaders more time to formulate a joint position on the issue. "Human cloning is a very complex and delicate question," said Mostafa Dolatyar of Iran. "Even in the scientific circles, we can see a manifestation of uncertainty, hesitation and divergence of views." Despite Thursday's setback, the campaign for a global ban has gained momentum over the past year as conservative Christian groups here and abroad lobbied the supporters of the partial ban to reverse course. © 2003 The Washington Post Company

To: Rambi who wrote (78755)	11/7/2003 2:27:20 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Rambi, After reading your post, I am researching the criteria of medical necessity for late-term abortions. (Partial-birth abortion is NOT a bona fide medical definition; rather, it is a term coined to inflame the uneducated.) Dr. Koop (a pediatrician, for whom I have great respect) notwithstanding, I know such medical necessities exist. I can cite some anecdotal stuff, but I doubt that would fly in this forum.