Women

Shan

Tact is for people who are afraid to be hurt.
Gil won't be hurt. He may at most be disapointed in me, and pray for my soul... He doesn't need my tact; and it would be condescending from me to use tact with him.


J.Lurker

It's not a question of having my definitions and your definitions; these are definitions, and reflect the uses of this word.
Moreover, in your 3rd definition, the word "evil" is defined thus in the dictionary you used:

evil

-1 Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
-2 Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
-3 Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
-4 Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
-5 Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
-1 The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
-2 That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
-3 An evil force, power, or personification.
-4 Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. [/i]

So you see, even if the word "demon" starts the word "demonize", it doesn't necessarily imply in this second word the religious notion of "demon" itself, just as "evil" doesn't imply the religious notion of "evil".
Religions, as any other important human experience, has had an impact on human languages, and these have adopted secular meanings of some of religions' terms.


Gil

"You have a point about 'utterly'"

You will have noticed that I have quoted many times that quote of yours that included "utterly" (no less than 6 times!!!)...
But I'll accept your explanation anyway (at least for Shan's sake...!)

"The influence of these extremists (ie. Feminism, etc.) and infiltrators and fellow travelors, etc. is pervasive and its use is directed toward the fulfillment of the Communist agenda"

Well, I could go on here about this Left/Communism thing, but I guess this would go in your other thread ( I do sincerely hope, though, that before you go on in that other thread about talking about those two labels, "Left" and "Communism", that at least you would defined them as you see fit, so that at least we are sure that we agree on these definitons. Same goes for "Right", "Conservative", and "Fascist"; they will be handy... )

So i'll keep my comment here about your ongoing strange view of feminism; again, here's a definition of feminism:

Feminism:

From Encarta:
1 belief in women's rights: belief in the need to secure, or a commitment to securing, rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men
2 movement for women's rights: the movement committed to securing and defending equal rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men

From Dictionary.com:
1 Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2 The movement organized around this belief.

From Webster Online:
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

So, the definitions quite agree, there are two uses of feminism : 1) one for the ideology of equality 2) the other for the movement organized around this ideology.
You have made it clear, it seems to me, that you belive the organized movement is an extremist movement, which you go on saying (in your last post) that "is pervasive and its use is directed toward the fulfillment of the Communist agenda".

I do disagree with that belief of yours of organized feminist organization wanting to fulfill the Communist agenda (when has N.O.W. talked against the notion of private property, the core of Communism?!?!), but at least, I, and I'm sure also others, would like to know your position on feminism, not as the "organized activity", but as the ideology of political, economic and social equality of the sexes (not anatomical equality!!!).


"That is hardly a convenience in my desire to see you in Eternity"

The "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind of statement is always a convenience.

And I do not need to rely on the hope of an "Eternity" to do what I think is good around me, and help others. I have no wish for such a reward; the smiles I see are quite enough.

Look up "diabolical" while you're at it.

Only a reactionary anachronist would disagree with the purported objectives of Feminism!

So I disagree!

:lol: Just kidding!

Seriously though, I believe I've made it clear enough that I have no problem with social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

If Feminists confined themselves to this, I would call myself a Feminist! But their policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens, and their most extreme position (partial birth abortion) is the law of the land, over the objections of even most Leftists (I stand to be corrected).


***
I looked back and you did indeed object about half a dozen times or so to my use of the modifier "utterly." If I had paid closer attention, I might have responded sooner.

The Communist agenda entails the downfall of Capitalist civilization, and many Leftists, including Feminists, have been used as pawns in this end game.

Folks of my viewpoint have certainly been used by the powerbrokers on the Right.

I wrote a letter that was published prominently in our local paper last week about how Fundamentalist Christians in the Bible Belt too often allow their distrust of Communists and neo-pagan earth-worshippers to blind them to the very real concerns that the Environmentalist movement brings forth. Down here, we have a severe problem with growing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and an explosion of the jellyfish population. I've urged my brethren to fight this as we have the gambling industry.

My Communist paranoia does not extend so far as to prohibit me from taking other controversial stands as well. I have argued for our City to intensify relations with Cuba! The embargo will fall one day, and I believe that positive engagement will do more for the people of Cuba than our embargo.


***
I appreciate Shanamir's discreet appeal (my French is very bad) for tact, and your faith in my fearlessness of sharp debate! I've already thrown my fit and got over it and will not do so again!


***
The "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind of statement is always a convenience.

It would be convenient if it were convincing! But I am not making an argument in this regard. I am delivering a testimony.

And I do not need to rely on the hope of an "Eternity" to do what I think is good around me, and help others. I have no wish for such a reward; the smiles I see are quite enough.

Another matter entirely, but a perfectly understandable error. Eternal Life is not a reward for good deeds, as counterintuitive as that may seem. But even if it were, we could never be good enough to earn it ourselves. But you are right in a way, for none of us should do good in hopes of receiving anything in return (even smiles, though they are nice!). We should do good for Goodness sake!

================================================== ========
juntel & shanamir
I became curious this evening about the earlier threads on this board and read a fair sample of them. I only started doing this message board thing recently and I see that this sort of thing is old hat for a lot of you.

In many debates, there is an almost word by word disection of every sentence and things are taken quite literally. Had I known this, I might have treated this thread in an entirely different and far more serious fashion.

Reflecting on the course of it, I have expended many more hours debating side issues than I might have if I had taken the time I didn't think I had to do the job right. !!!

I find that you folks in Quebec have a lot more in common with our desire for independence/autonomy here in the South. You also have the same insurmountable difficulties in achieving it.

It also seems that this board is inhabited by a lot of rather young folk.

And there seem to be a lot of Canadians altogether!

This has been a real culture shock, I can tell you!

JLurker

I don't have to 'look up "diabolical" while I'm at it'.
The definition of 'demonize' you pointed to, mentioned evil or diabolical.


Gil

"I have no problem with social, political, and economic equality of the sexes"

Glad to hear about that!
So, in some sense, you are a feminist; but not in the sense of belonging to the organized movements sharing your belief in the above mentioned equalities.
But anyways, since you really don't want to be labeled as a feminist, even according to my above comment, then I won't.

Therefore, from now on, in all of my posts (whenever I remember), I will use 'feminism' (non-capitalized) to mention the belief and wish of social, political and economic equality of the sexes, while I'll use your usual capitalized 'Feminism' to mention the activist organizations that try to implement and secure that belief in our societies.


"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

That bold statement requires at least one example. I really don't see what your pointing at, so please show me at least an example, or as many as you wish.


"their most extreme position (partial birth abortion) is the law of the land, over the objections of even most Leftists (I stand to be corrected)"

Firstly, one doesn't need to be a Feminist, or a feminist, to favor the right to abortion.
Secondly, the 'law of the land' doesn't force abortions on women; it permits women to have an abortion if they feel they need one; it doesn't impose really anything on other people for which her pregnancy has nothing to do about.
Finally, by saying most Leftists, you do imply a majority of them; so I guess you have some statistics to back this up, then please, share these with us (with source, please).


"The Communist agenda entails the downfall of Capitalist civilization, and many Leftists, including Feminists, have been used as pawns in this end game"

One doesn't need to be a Communist to abhor the un-humanitarian harshness of straigth Capitalism; however, that harshness can be smoothed greatly by (even a partial) sharing of the wealth among the citizens.
And this sharing idea, you'll admit I hope, is no invention of Communism.
In fact, communism (non-capitalized) itself isn't an invention by Communism (or Marx); monks (christian, buddhist, or others) have lived in communes well before the arrival of Mr.Marx; and these monks aren't against private property as such.
As I said earlier, the core of Communism revolves around the abolition of private property, something that isn't attacked in any way by feminists, Feminists, or Leftists in general (although I can't provide statistics here, I can tell you that leftists and f(F)eminists are as attached to their car as you or others are!!!)


"I have argued for our City to intensify relations with Cuba!"

Then you may agree with Canada's somewhat amicable relations with Cuba! (ie no ban on commerce with it... including their famous cigars...).


"I find that you folks in Quebec have a lot more in common with our desire for independence/autonomy here in the South."

Well, a lot of your land was sold to you americans a long time ago by Napoleon (under Louis Nth, N=some number), if my history classes serve...
Also, the desire in Quebec has more to do with an ongoing fight against assimilation, or Louisianafication (no JL, that word isn't in the dictionaries i'm sure!!!); we don't want to ultimately become the Cajuns of Canada, something which has already happened to french speaking people of some other canadian provinces.
Moreover, not all quebecers wish for independance as such; the wish for them is of a better inter-dependance that allows for some autonomy in certain matters... and things can get complicated here...
Things could have been better a few years ago with the so-called MeechLake Accord, but a major component had been left out: our Native hosts!


"It also seems that this board is inhabited by a lot of rather young folk."

It seems so.
I'm 35 btw, and i'm not the oldest (i think old Eruve is... I think she's 84... j/k!!! )


"In many debates, there is an almost word by word disection of every sentence and things are taken quite literally"

This could be a problem, I'm very well aware of it, and I try to put things in context as much as I can (although there have been times when I failed to do so... eg in the Creation/Evolution thread, when in answering 2 or 3 people at a time, I misread JL's posts).

I take more time now, and write everything in Notepad rather than directly in the Reply-inbox; that way I can scroll the thread and cross-reference if need be (btw, i set my ezboard prefs so that any thread i view in seen in one page, a trick i learned here - from IP or Ben, don't remember)

Also, since this is far from a face-to-face conversation (which as you've said earlier would have removed some misunderstandings), the point-by-point method is more appropriate than a series of speeches; it has it's evident drawbacks, such as out-of-contextness (sp?) after a long series of posts.

"I see that this sort of thing is old hat for a lot of you"

I came on this board a year ago (i think).
The first 'debate' I participated in was the "Abortion" debate. This present debate is the third one only for me. I don't know if there has been other debates before my coming here.

Therefore, from now on, in all of my posts (whenever I remember), I will use 'feminism' (non-capitalized) to mention the belief and wish of social, political and economic equality of the sexes, while I'll use your usual capitalized 'Feminism' to mention the activist organizations that try to implement and secure that belief in our societies.

I can often pick up the meaning from the context. This is fine. Generally, there is also a contextual undertone of "Feminism" that entails the system of beliefs as well as the organized structure.



"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

That bold statement requires at least one example. I really don't see what your pointing at, so please show me at least an example, or as many as you wish.

One example of Feminist "domination" of men...
Leaving aside the debatable legality of abortion, there is the way in which the laws are written. The mantra is "it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body." Ahhh! but what of the body of the unborn son or daughter of its father? Under the law, the father is excluded from the choice.

One example of Feminist "domination" of boys...
Because, in part, of their pervasive notion that small boys and girls are virtually the same (until puberty), young boys in THIS countries public schools are being drugged with Ritalin. These folks, and the mindless bureacrats and educators who follow this thinking and execute the logical policy implications, will simply not take into account that boys will be boys.


"their most extreme position (partial birth abortion) is the law of the land, over the objections of even most Leftists (I stand to be corrected)"

...Finally, by saying most Leftists, you do imply a majority of them; so I guess you have some statistics to back this up, then please, share these with us (with source, please).

Keep in mind, that I am only speaking of the most extreme type of abortion. For the sake of delicacy, I will not go into the grisly details. At the moment, and I really won't spend much more time on it, I can point to the Congressional votes, barely unable to override vetoes. Lots of moderates (Left leaning Republicans) and Democrats voted with the conservatives to ban what any rational person understands is a horrible and uneccesary procedure. I recall public opinion polls greatly in favor of the ban, but I can't promise that I will lay my hands on them. Really, I have never met a single person who does favor the procedure, even among the most ardent abortion rights supporters that I have talked to through the years. Only the Feminists, and their politicians! The politicians themselves hide behind the slippery phrase "health of the mother" to opt out of the ban.


"The Communist agenda entails the downfall of Capitalist civilization, and many Leftists, including Feminists, have been used as pawns in this end game"

As I said earlier, the core of Communism revolves around the abolition of private property, something that isn't attacked in any way by feminists, Feminists, or Leftists in general...

Hmmmm. Not a bad point. But I am really speaking of the effect of policies, and of the interplay of organizations and individuals (ie. Vast Left Wing Conspiracy ), not necessarily of the textbook definitions of the causes as the context. That may require more clarification. Think of it holistically. In war, there are strategic objectives and there are tactical deployments. The tactical may not seem to have anything to do with the strategic at first glance.


"It also seems that this board is inhabited by a lot of rather young folk."

It seems so.
I'm 35 btw, and i'm not the oldest...

For what it's worth, I'm 37. I may be the most elderly regular poster these days!

I have discovered that I am playing RPG with children and high school students! (I guess that is about my speed, but what did I expect?) Somehow, I thought that this was an older board. I wonder what the average is: 20? 16? Younger?

Most everyone (despite VERY sloppy typing and inadequate spelling) [please don't show MY mistakes!] seems to be a very bright crowd here, and that expectation for a Tolkien site has not gone unmet.

Right now, it would not be very bright for me to be late to work, so off I go!

"Generally, there is also a contextual undertone of "Feminism" that entails the system of beliefs as well as the organized structure"

Hmmm.... You are for democracy. So if someone tells you you are therefore a democrat, do you hear "Democrat" or "democrat"? Sad situation indeed!


"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

1) "what of the body of the unborn son or daughter of its father? "

Well, the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...
The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man!

2) "young boys in THIS countries public schools are being drugged with Ritalin"

Unless i'm mistaken, both girls and boys are "treated" with Ritalin, although probably boys in a greater percantage.
Let me say first that IMO neither should be "treated" thus; this era of Ritalin or Prozac as daily remedies is just absurd, and you'll agree I hope that Feminism doesn't have anything to do with that: blame the pharmaceutical companies who throws these things on the market, and advertize crazily so that the parents ask their doctors dozes of these remedies...

But, I guess that in your example above, it is "pervasive notion that small boys and girls are virtually the same" that irks you most, and not the Ritalin stuff applied to boys itself.
For the record i'll say here that I don't think that pre-pubescent boys and girls are the same (virtually or otherwise) physiologically or psychologically; neither do the toy industry think that, seeing the toys that are produced; neither do the ( "leftist-infiltrated") media think that, seeing the kids shows that are produced.

And honestly, I would need to be pointed out a prominent feminist source that would say such a thing, a source not from the extreme fringe of Feminism, but one which is actually being heard and acknowledged in the political arena.
(On my side, I'll also seek out such informations, for or against that kind of statement, among the feminists; hey, if i have time this afternoon, i'll go to the bookshop and browse through some C.Paglia or N.Wolf...)


"Lots of moderates (...) voted with the conservatives to ban what any rational person understands is a horrible and uneccesary procedure"
...and...
"For the sake of delicacy, I will not go into the grisly details"

Please... some details... I don't know what ban you're talking about!


"But I am really speaking of the effect of policies, and of the interplay of organizations and individuals, not necessarily of the textbook definitions of the causes as the context. (...) Think of it holistically. In war, there are strategic objectives and there are tactical deployments. The tactical may not seem to have anything to do with the strategic at first glance"

Have you ever thought that what you see as tactical deployment are only and simply honest step by step, difficult progress on the part of feminists and others who only want a more just society in our unjust world?
Why see these steps as tactical schemings by evil powers (not in the religious sense)?

That reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about contraceptive methods. He thought the the "Pill" was in fact something that men created just to be releaved of the responsibility of fatherhood, while beeing able to have all the sex they wanted (ok, his argument wasn't that simplistic, i'm paraphrasing...).
Well, i answered him, it isn't very important what some men can get "out" of the existence of the "Pill", what counts is what women can make out of its existence.

My point? Well, what I mean is that if a group can take advantage of a situation, it doesn't mean that those who created the situation support the said group.

Example: Let's say, for the purpose of this example, that BushJr is elected President of the USA. Then, Gil, some of the people on the extreme Right -- that have agendas that you yourself hate and avoid -- will froth at the mouth and see this as the begining of a new era for them, at least a chance to go on further and have a better ear at the WhiteHouse than "Slick Willy".
Would that mean that the Republican Party is just a step in these extreme Rightists, that the some influence they have in the Rep. Party makes this Party just a tactical platform for their future activities?
I guess not.
That the fascists, the KKK in part, the Neo-Nutsies etc.. would prefer to see the Republican Party at the White House and holding the Congress doesn't make that Party a pawn of these fringe groups (or other not so fringe groups), nor a Party for whom one shouldn't vote or listen to.

Equally, that some extreme leftists be in the Left, or in Feminist organizations, and that some ideas and activities of Feminism and Left be pleasing to the extremists, doesn't mean that they control them, or that they will control them, or that they will have more power if and when the Left is in power.

Things, Left or Right, North or South, East or West, are more complex, subtle, colorful than that.
Such is Human Life: diverse, multi-faceted, never to be thought all understood.

I don't ask you to agree wholly with the above, just that you think about it another time (for i'm sure you already thought about it in the past), as I will think about your assertions.


"I wonder what the average is: 20? 16? Younger?"

If you do your searching further in the forum, you'll find an age survey that was done many months ago; I don't remember the results.

((Ben? What's the answer? Where's that thread already?! ))

"Generally, there is also a contextual undertone of "Feminism" that entails the system of beliefs as well as the organized structure"

Hmmm.... You are for democracy. So if someone tells you you are therefore a democrat, do you hear "Democrat" or "democrat"? Sad situation indeed!

Oh now come on! We can reductio ad absurdum everything! (I'm not really "for" democracy, BTW, I am against everything else! Actually, a representative republic is better.)



"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

1) "what of the body of the unborn son or daughter of its father? "

Well, the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...
The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man!

This might be one of those irreconcilable differences between Left and Right, that make me think that greater autonomy/tolerance for Quebec and The South is a better idea all the time. The danger is that the influence of the extremes can be intensified. The status quo is the supression of culture.



2) "young boys in THIS countries public schools are being drugged with Ritalin"

Unless i'm mistaken, both girls and boys are "treated" with Ritalin, although probably boys in a greater percantage.
Let me say first that IMO neither should be "treated" thus; this era of Ritalin or Prozac as daily remedies is just absurd, and you'll agree I hope that Feminism doesn't have anything to do with that: blame the pharmaceutical companies who throws these things on the market, and advertize crazily so that the parents ask their doctors dozes of these remedies...

It's worse than just that, I'm afraid. (And I DO blame the companies and the parents!) The Feminist connection is this unproven belief that little boys and girls are essentially the same. Thus, the institutional insistance on the same expectations and treatment.

I would not argue with giving girls an extra boost to help with mathematics, etc. But to expect little boys to behave like little girls, sitting studiously still, etc. is ridiculous. The MEN, WOMEN, AND THE BRAIN link given long ago supports this. Boys do receive Ritalin far more often and the diagnosis is often made, and insisted upon, by TEACHERS with Feminist expectations, rather than practical instruction in dealing with little boys and their parents.

These kids are being drugged. One year, my nephew Zachary got a special birthday package from his uncle. I bought an old ammo crate and packed it full of toys that would have delighted the heart and imagination of any lad. I'm talking about the works! All kinds of gadgets and geegaws. Just the kind of thing this kid in particular liked. I printed in military stencil fonts PROJECT ZAK on a folder attached to the side of the crate. It held pages that detailed the project to transform an ordinary boy into a cybernetic defender of America!

But doped up on the Ritalin his teachers talked his parents into (and that some idiot doctor willingly prescribed), he only sat there with dull glazed eyes, and wandered off as his dad excitedly opened the crate with a crowbar.

I know that's anecdotal, but there is a serious controversy over this and it is mainly the boys who are being doped into stillness and silence. (Fortunately, his parents soon realized what they were doing...)



And honestly, I would need to be pointed out a prominent feminist source that would say such a thing, a source not from the extreme fringe of Feminism, but one which is actually being heard and acknowledged in the political arena.

I'll have to work on that. I might disappoint you, it has been a long time since I really worked on this subject, and I'm not sure I can lay my hands on it. I'd probably have to start from scratch. There was recently a Times magazine article (last couple of years) where the cover story announced the shocking news that men and women were different. The tone of the story was, "I'll be darned! What do you know about that?"

Now, this obviously wouldn't have shocked you! I rather think that you are the sort of fellow who has a fine appreciation for the differences! Viva la difference! comes to mind.



"Lots of moderates (...) voted with the conservatives to ban what any rational person understands is a horrible and uneccesary procedure" ...and... "For the sake of delicacy, I will not go into the grisly details"

Please... some details... I don't know what ban you're talking about!

I ADJURE THE SQUEAMISH NOT TO READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH!

I'm talking about the attempted ban on Partial Birth Abortions, passed by large (not 2/3) majorities in both Houses of Congress, and vetoed more than once by President Clinton. In this procedure, labor is induced, the extremely late term (last week) foetus is turned around and partially delivered breach style. Before the head slips from the birth canal, the baby is held in place, and its life is ended when it's skull is punctured by scissors and the contents are evacuated and the head collapsed with a vacuum device.

WE RETURN YOU NOW TO CIVILIZATION!

The American Medical Association has denounced this practice, and virtually everyone pays lip service to the need to end it. Everyone, that is, except the most extreme Feminists and the politicians who pander to this interest group. Including our President. The pretext, denied by the liberal American Medical Association, is that this procedure is somehow necessary for the HEALTH of the mother. Joe Lieberman, for one, was also against it until he accepted the Vice Presidential candidacy. Now he tries not to talk about it.

To be fair, these folk also say (and this is their real problem with the unrealized ban) that the Pro Life forces only seek to use this as a wedge issue and as part of an incremental plan to abolish all abortions.

To some extent, this is right, but while there is widespread support for banning this hideous procedure, a majority of Americans will not permit a complete ban on all abortions. Most, even on the Left, like Lieberman, think that the abortion industry should be regulated like every other facet of medicine. The Feminists insist that ANY regulation is undue infringement of what they perceive to be their Right to Choose. (Of course, Second Amendment advocates employ the same strategy...)



Have you ever thought that what you see as tactical deployment are only and simply honest step by step, difficult progress on the part of feminists and others who only want a more just society in our unjust world? Why see these steps as tactical schemings by evil powers (not in the religious sense)?

Some steps are, and some aren't! I think there is a mixture of these things. Certainly, the "evil" ones could not get very far without lots of folk working hard for what they see as noble ends.

Often discussions about the means to those ends degenerate into a dispute about the ends, which both sides actually agree on much of the time!

I was the oldest around here for a while, until Michael Martinez came along. I'm only a year older than you are, juntel! I would have sworn Gil was at least 50, OTOH!

"'So if someone tells you you are therefore a democrat, do you hear "Democrat" or "democrat"? Sad situation indeed!'
Oh now come on!"

Hey, I was trying to understand the situation with some humour, not sarcasm.
I was comparing the Feminism/feminism labeling problem with the Democrat/democrat one.
Even if you aren't a Republican, well usually (it seems) Republicans are democrat, but no Democrat...


"'The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man!'
This might be one of those irreconcilable differences between Left and Right..."

My point was that the man who ejaculated in the woman some months ago couldn't/shoudn't have that much power of decision on the woman's continuation or not of pregnancy.
It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly. That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination...

That is more a question inside a debate about abortion, but clearly, at least for me, this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives.

As for the autonomy of Quebec, well, there was a thread about that, mostly debated between Shan, JLurker and IParrot (Canada/Quebed thread); I contributed little, but did put my little 2cents in there...


"The status quo is the supression of culture"

I disagree: the status quo is the suspension of culture. Too long the suspension, stagnation comes into place, for human beings aren't static, and culture must follow. For better or for worse.


"The Feminist connection is this unproven belief that little boys and girls are essentially the same. Thus, the institutional insistance on the same expectations and treatment."

I'm quite skeptic about this belief that boys are given Ritalin to be as quiet as girls just because Feminists say so (if prominent feminists do say so...); I would tend more to believe that Ritalin is given to children because school teachers today just can't cut it, since laws prohibit the use of physical penalties to punish them... so just drug them! Also, one should also check about how much more students today's teachers have on their hands compared to the past, etc...
Unless I'm shown explicit proofs that teachers want to calm down boys to make them as quiet as girls (who may already be "calmed" down with Ritalin!), explanations as I have explicited above sound as good as yours (I do not pretend I have proof of my explanations, though; so I would have to dig some stuff too...)


"PROJECT ZAK"

One of many sad facts of today, is that children (especially young boys) now expect Nintendos or other such electronic devices to play with, a lot of the times. A baseball glove and ball aren't enough a lot of the times.
Until puberty comes of course... and then it's girls, skate-boards and hip-hop! (of course, I exagerate here!)


"Partial Birth Abortions"

You mentioned that this is for "late term (last week)" pregancies...
Do you really mean "9 months minus one week" pregnancies?
If so, I myself would be astonished.
I'm pro-choice, but not unconditionally.
I would not personally support unconditionally a specific abortion of a healthy well-formed foetus who is 9 months minus one week.
And I'm quite surprised that a legislation would approve of abortions that late in pregnancy, unconditionally.
I'll have to dig on this one also, to see what those who are for that procedure under those circumstances have to say (and if I see any eeevil Feminists behind them)...
I'm sure the matter isn't that simple...


"'Why see these steps as tactical schemings by evil powers (not in the religious sense)?'
Some steps are, and some aren't!"

Well, then I guess much the same applies to my exemple about the Right and its own "evils"...



Eruve

Well... It had to be a question of age to make you post here again, heh!
Women...

Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

But, let the record show that unlike the stereotype, Eruve actually divulged her age!

My wife says I was born 50 and have just gotten even older!

Second childhood has evidently struck in my ripe old age, considering my enthusiam for these RPGs.

P.S.
Eruve, when are you returning to my message board? (Centering on a forthcoming novel featuring a female hobbit! The Mrs says its like 21st century Tolkien --she's too kind-- because it has the right flavor but actually includes a leading lady in the lead!)

Well, it wasn't easy to find a site that offered both point of views with as less bias as possible, for most of those I found used the usual trick of demonizing the opposition, that Gil looked quite tame compared to them...

Anyways, here's the site that seemed to collect most opinions in the least space: DILATION & EXTRACTION PROCEDURES -- All sides to the issue
(it isn't totally unbiased, though it tries; from what I've seen in my short search, it is less biased than most I've seen...)

From that place and many others, these common facts come out:

- The ban in its original form, and mostly in its subsequent form, said that:

(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
(b) As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.

...later adding that partial-birth abortion would be allowed if it "was necessary to save the life of the woman upon whom it was performed, and no other form of abortion would suffice for that purpose."

The bill was passed, then successfully vetoed by Clinton.
A lot of those who opposed the ban claimed to do so because in the above exception "partial-birth abortions" wouldn't be allowed even if the woman would be severely disabled or would suffer very serious long term health problems, but wouldn't be at risk of dying.
Those for the ban wouldn't accept that kind of compromise, and the woman would have to be at risk of death for them to "accept" partial-birth abortion in this case.

I simplified a bit the above, due to space; follow the link for more info, or do a search on AltaVista or Google.

Now people could go around and say these and those and whatever were lying etc...
I don't care.
There was a resolution proposed, which, with a simple amendment, would have passed all the steps and become law.

Anyways... I could go on but what the heck!

I maintain my position in my previous post.
And the ban, with the proper amendment that would easily have become law, would find in me a defender of it; and that wouldn't make me less pro-choice.
But the ban as formulated by its writers is clearly too restrictive in asking a death threathening situation for the admission of the procedure, rather than accepting it also in other cases.

One could argue that a lot of PBAs are made for simpler reasons, etc...
But so what, since if the resolution had become law, those simpler reasons wouldn't be admitted even considering the amendments.

Politics...
I like what the guy said in the link I gave above:

"The bill will probably be reintroduced yearly. It serves both political parties well: Republicans can use it to trash Democrats for having no regard for human life. Democrats can use it to trash Republicans for having no respect for a woman's choice to avoid disabling injuries. It is too good a political football for politicians to ignore, particularly during an election year."

Indeed...

Again, I maintain my position on the subject as told in my previous post.
But also, I do not support the proposed ban as it is.
It is so close though to being acceptable...


(BTW, I remember in the last season of Mork&Mindy that they had a child... a full grown man, middle-aged; for on Ork, babies are born as old adult, and "grow" young!
So if you're born at 50... Nanoo-Nanoo!)

I divulged my age since there was no sense in hiding it. I've already divulged it on this board... Besides, in spite of North America's seeming fascination with youth, I say you're only as old as you feel. I don't feel like I'm anywhere near to being over the hill yet; I don't even think I've started to climb it! So there's nothing wrong with being 36.... I don't know what I'll tell you in four years, however...
Gil, I've been on your board almost every day, except today. I haven't seen anything new there lately. I've been trying to spend less time on-line so I can watch the Olympics. Have to keep the priorities in order, you know.

Ritalin

My nephew is also on Ritalin and he absolutly has to have it. He was barely a C student before he started taking it. Now he is nearly an A student. He is much easier to live with (source: my sis) and I know that he is much more attentive when I talk to him as compared to years ago. Seems to me that he should be less interested in what his aunt has to say now than when he was much younger....he is now 15. I know nothing about football (his favorite subject) yet he will listen to me ramble on about Tolkien. I am just mentioning this so those who may read this that are currently taking the drug may find some comfort that some do really need it and not all of it is prescribed to keep them calm for parents/teachers sake. I do know that it is a fact that it has been over prescribed, but not always. Prozac in my opinion is one of the most misunderstood drugs today. It has helped many people. In the early eighties a man entered Standard Grevuer (sp?) in Louisville, KY and shot a bunch of people. When it was found out that he was on Prozac it almost caused the drug to be banned.....BTW, he was given the wrong dosage or misdiagnosed or something (sorry, don't remember). Before that incident Prozac was virtually unheard of....unless of course you were manic/depressive or something and was prescribed it.

As for girls being quiet and well behaved compared to boys....you obviously did not go to school with me.

Glad to see everyone back!

juntel
What the opponents of the ban do not tell you is that the consensus of medical science is that there is no life threatening or health threatening situation which requires partial birth abortions. That's the official position of the American Medical Association. (I'm pretty sure I'm right about that...)

Which means the argument is a pretext.

If the situation existed, there are those who would not compromise, but I could understand it in some extreme cases.

But even the doctor who created the procedure, finally admitted that there were no health benefits to it and it was simply developed to facilitate late term abortions.

Hard cases make bad laws, is what the lawyers say.


Eruve
Oh! I just never saw a comment on some of the chapters or anything beyond a certain point on the Outline. Is no news good news?


Anduin
Actually, I have a NIECE who is in a private Christian school (hardly a breeding ground for the public education mentality), where the teachers recommended an evaluation and a small dosage of Ritalin was prescribed and now she is an A student!

Plenty of folk are indeed helped!

Now the Mrs is calling me to dinner, and I can't be late!

A stupid question, which I really do want an answer to (not a debate on - this is most certainly not the place).

In what situation would it be medically necessary to remove the fetus's brain before extraction (PBA) for the mother's health, as opposed to simply removing the intact fetus?

I've been curious about this for a while, and I figure I've got a chance to find a solid answer now.

Oh, and this is my final word on demonization (no pun intended).

The word "religion(s)" has been used 56 times on this thread, not including this post.
The word "Christian(ity/s/whatever)" has been used 66 times on this thread, not including this post.
The word "church" has been used 13-16 times (I forget), excluding "Churchill" and this post, but including quotations.

It is of no consequence whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but religion has become entwined with this discussion. And if you do not see why this is significant...

The meaning of a certain slang term for cat is extremely different in a cat-lovers forum and in an "adults-only" forum.

anduin

I'm sure there are cases where Ritalin is in need; so it is also with Prozac, for cases of depression.
But, for the case of Prozac for example, there has been a "fad" about it, books written, that advocated its use for non-medical purposes, as a "boost" for people who aren't even clinically depressed. This isn't wrong in itself, but absolutely doens't take into account many other things that can make people feel better (ie people who are not clinically depressed). So the demand for Prozac was boosted up, so was its sale; now the fad has passed (and clinically depressed people are even offered other drugs, such as Paxil).


JLurker

Nice statistics.
What about the stats for "Right" and "Left"?
It's not because religion has entered into the thread that my use of "demonize" has necessarily relgious conotations...

And since I have effectively said that I didn't use it necessarily as a religious term, than that should settle it.


As for the cases in which there is a "need" for PBA (which, btw, is a term coined by pro-lifers, and which i'll use here without its intended biased meaning), I refer you to the link I gave in my previous post; also, a search for "partial birth abortion" on AltaVista will give a good 1000 links to the subject.
In short, here are some of the cases that have been put forward for the need for PBA:

"
- the fetus is dead
- the fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger
- the fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her
- the fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus
"

I may add here that in the cases above, the head of the foetus is too big, so extraction needs to be aided by the colapse of the cranium.

Many people who are for the ban would accept PBA in some of the above cases. But most people for the ban say that the above cases are not the only ones for which PBA is used, and that PBA has been used for cases in which the mothers life itself was not at risk (which i'm sure is true).
Most people against the ban itself, in the form it was presented, said that one should included the case where the woman's life isn't at risk, but in which the woman's health would be severly damageg with long-term consequences, etc...


Gil

About the AMA's position, you'll see that it has been playing yoyo, because one of their concern is that the doctors could be sued or imprisoned in some interpretation of the ban (so they did ask for some amendment).

But you say: "that the consensus of medical science is that there is no life threatening or health threatening situation which requires partial birth abortions"

Well, if that is so, then why not accept the amendment in the proposed ban? An amendment which stipulates that in cases of life threatening or health threatening situations, PBA could be performed?
If the creators of the ban where so sure about the AMA's position, or if they didn't have a further motive behind their ban, they they would have accepted the amendment, and the ban would be law today, Clinton wouldn't have vetoed it, and would have signed it.
Right?

But of course, that would have meant that they would have given Clinton the opportunity to sign that ban... and maybe they prefer that a Republican sign it... Ok, I admit, I'm a bit too sarcastic/paranoid here! I don't think the Right is so machiavelic here! (at least, I hope not...)

Politics... Right or Left, it makes me puke sometimes...

<FLANDERS>Whoopsie doodle!</FLANDERS>

Well, at least this debate is not acrimonious!




"that the consensus of medical science is that there is no life threatening or health threatening situation which requires partial birth abortions"

Well, if that is so, then why not accept the amendment in the proposed ban? An amendment which stipulates that in cases of life threatening or health threatening situations, PBA could be performed?

"Health threatening" is the problem with the amendment, because that can be so loosely interpreted that it be considered more "unhealthy" to bear, or to deliver live, a viable foetus, than to abort it.

Besides, inducing labor, delivering the child breach and then finishing the procedure introduces more problems than it solves! This is why the AMA came down against it.

If the foetus is dead, this is not an issue.
If the foetus is so malformed that it would kill or harm the mother... ...only the extremists argue that the law would be applied against doctors in this scenario.

It is not at all certain that there would be lawsuits in this sort of situation, and it is almost certain that such a suit against a doctor in these circumstances would lose, I think. I understand the AMA's concerns, but when has a law ever stopped a lawsuit.

This is why lawyers say, "Hard cases make bad laws."

Speculation: there are already cases, I'm sure, that set a precedent handy for this scenario. I can't imagine that our legal system would not deal with the matter effectively.

So the amendment is unnecessary, gives "wiggle room" for the PBA industry (who would find a financial incentive to define "health" in multitudinous ways), and it is better for the court to deal with the (at most) handful of suits that might result if the amendment is not passed.


If the creators of the ban where so sure about the AMA's position, or if they didn't have a further motive behind their ban, they they would have accepted the amendment, and the ban would be law today, Clinton wouldn't have vetoed it, and would have signed it.

Right?

Speculation: I believe another pretext would have been manufactured.


But of course, that would have meant that they would have given Clinton the opportunity to sign that ban... and maybe they prefer that a Republican sign it... Ok, I admit, I'm a bit too sarcastic/paranoid here! I don't think the Right is so machiavelic here! (at least, I hope not...)

I can't deny that political calculus was probably in play on the Right as well. I'm not sure it drove anything more than the timing of the votes, however. The Republicans like games of this sort, but aren't any good at them!


Politics... Right or Left, it makes me puke sometimes...

Ditto! (I would have said "Right AND Left!")

"Speculation: I believe another pretext would have been manufactured"

Which is why the amemdment should have been accepted as it is, to insure its passing. If the amendment was the avowed sole point of disaproval, then no other pretext could have passed through...
Anyways, we'll never know.
And that's probably what all the people in place, Right and Left, want us to feel...


""Health threatening" is the problem with the amendment, because that can be so loosely interpreted that it be considered more "unhealthy" to bear, or to deliver live, a viable foetus, than to abort it."

Well, I don't find the ban as written acceptable. I did read though on other (right-wing, etc) web sites the argument about the "health threatening" definition...
I also understant that the interpretation of a law is often left to the courts: it's basically why they're there.
I wonder how much of a more precise definition of "health threatening" could be made to be acceptable by both parties, without beeing too technical for the voters/deciders to understand and vote on.

Clearly, I think, both "sides" would agree I think to ban such abortion procedures for cases which clearly do not involve "health threatening" situation (mental or physical), in very advanced stages of pregnancy (third semester for example).
The ban in question could have been modified so as to cover at least those cases for which both agree; it would have been a ban of less extent than the original one, but at least it would have been done. And it wouldn't prevent other similar recomendations to be made in the future for the more litigious areas of the question.

Anyways, such is politics.

And as someone said (a pastor or reverend) in the link I gave, these PBA are just an minute number of cases of abortion, and obscures a wider debate.
Of course, contrary to the pastor or reverand, i'm pro-choice; my point here is that if this procedure is seen by the public as some kind of usual method in all cases of abortion, then they will have a skewed wrong opinion of abortion, something with which the pro-lifers may take "advantage" of (at least those politically minded).

But to get back to our original debate, for which you gave this example of PBA, I think that efforts have been done on both sides; except that neither sides trust each other, and both sides think that the other side will take advantage of the concessions that the other will make: therefore no concessions are made by either sides.

So, I don't think that your example of the PBA debate is a valid example of feminists/Feminists attempt at dominating men.

So, I don't think that your example of the PBA debate is a valid example of feminists/Feminists attempt at dominating men. (Emphasis mine--G.)

The attempt suceeded. I don't see how you can't find it a valid example!

But if I recall, this was more an example of the effectiveness and the pervasiveness of the Feminists' extreme agenda, rather than specifically relating to this agenda's seperate goal of domination, in any case.

More to the point, I still think the reproductive rights of the man should also be at issue in the abortion debate. Right now, men are second class citizens in the reproductive rights debate, by law. That is not equality, in my opinion, it is domination.


***
I won't go to the mat with you defending the insincere gamesmanship, hackery, and demogoguery of the Republican Party! In fact, my sharp criticisms earn me plenty of rebukes from some of the party faithful. (Most of the rest down here, tend to agree with me about the GOP Establishment. Esentially, Conservative Christians are treated in the Republican Party as African Americans are treated by the Democratic Party.)

"I don't see how you can't find it a valid example!"

That example, ie the ban on PBA, isn't valid for what you wanted it to be, since essentially the only point of disagreement was on a simple and understandable amendment. The ban on PBA wasn't absolutely/entirely rejected. The fact that the amendment was rejected also surely enhance the distrust towards the ban (as it is written).

You have said earlier :
"The politicians themselves hide behind the slippery phrase "health of the mother" to opt out of the ban."
Well, this is far from being simply a Feminist scheme to oppose the ban. I think and feel the "health of the mother" is an important issue that has its place, whatever reason the politicians involved had in mind.



"Right now, men are second class citizens in the reproductive rights debate, by law. That is not equality, in my opinion, it is domination."

Well, we'll have to agree to (strongly) disagree here; so I'll just re-write here some of what I wrote earlier in this thread:

- "the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...

- "the man who ejaculated in the woman some months ago couldn't/shoudn't have that much power of decision on the woman's continuation or not of pregnancy.

It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly. That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination..."

- "(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives."

- "The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man"


Sorry to quote myself; it's somewhat redundant.
I guess I'm getting lazy!



"I won't go to the mat with you defending the insincere gamesmanship, hackery, and demogoguery of the Republican Party!"

I didn't expect you to.
Although on the subject of PBA we disagree with the cause of the reject of the ban, I hope you see we agree that there should be such a regulation out there.
What may separate us, and also the two sides in Washington, is that perhaps elusive notion of "health risk".


"Conservative Christians are treated in the Republican Party as African Americans are treated by the Democratic Party"

I'm afraid I don't completely understand that comparison (I'm no US citizen, and I don't trust TV's or media's portrayal of people, even US media!)
Are CC condescended by the Reps? Are AA by the Dems?

And if I ask further, out of curiosity, would you say that Blacks are treated in the Rep. Party as Cons. Christians are treated in the Dem. Party?

Just curious...


(btw... what about that Lyndon LaRouche guy? He even has followers here in Canada and Quebec, who have stands outside the Universities to "talk" to people about his ideas... Strange fellow. Is he still running as an independant this time? Or is he still in prison... I'm out of touch with news about him, so I ask to people who know more... Too lazy to go on the net see his web site, I'm sure he has one... Of course, this thread isn't the ideal place to talk about him... never mind...)