A place to rant about politics, the media, and especially the electorate. Much like alcohol, the electorate is both the cause of, and the solution to, all of America's problems.

Location: Seattle, Washington

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

I like to think I'm as sexist as the next guy, but....

... this is just going too far:

The Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

Folks, our freedoms are under attack. In some cases our health is under attack. They are serious about this shit guys.

Women: You really have to, um, fight for this shit.

I'm no big fan of abortion - to put it mildly. The way to deal with it, though, is not to ban it, but rather to create a surrounding environment within which it is unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases. Such an environment would include things like: practical sex education, including both abstinence and birth control, an economy within which it is possible to have a child without destroying one's financial future, a sense of shared responsibility among couples, and so on. In such an enviroment, abortions would be minimized, typically only taking place when there are no other options. This is an environment that we should strive for.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

In other words, social engineering is the answer. People should never be left to their own devices.

We agree, abortion should not be illegal. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make mistakes. They deserve even more the opportunity to turn those mistakes around in their lives. However, having society pay for any of this is ridiculous. Abortion should be "pay to play", just like every other vice. (Then one has to ask themselves an interesting question, "How little are you willing to pay to legally kill another human under your care before the cost is prohibitive?")

One still has to argue whether curtailing the existence of a "lower-class" isn't genocidal, or at the very least denying the need to fill lower-class employment?

Disgustingly practical questions that can only be answered with hyper-emotional answers.

2:35 PM  
Blogger cdj said...

Whoa. "social engineering"? That's all you tiger. Have a good time with ID, and eugenics too.

Ok fine - I'll read your comment again... Allright, I've re-read your comment 5 times, and I honestly have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. I *think* you're being sarcastic for at least part of the comment, but I'm not even 100% sure about that...

7:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home