Found an article making its way around the news sites-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/wa...us&oref=slogin
Anyone else disturbed by this?The proposal defines abortion as follows: "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, "The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception."
User Tag List
-
07-17-2008, 02:31 PM #1
Proposed (Bush Admin.) Rule equates Contraception to Abortion
intp | type 9w1 sp/sx/so
-
07-17-2008, 02:39 PM #2
I find it very disturbing. the moral basis for banning contraception is very hollow. The organism that exists in the first month of conception is so far from a developed lifeform that I'd say a snail deserves more ehtical protection.
That being said, if we think of this in terms of consequences(and I think moral good should be defined in terms of consequence) it could only be a good thing to let people prevent child birth. Otherwise we have enormous overpopulation problems and all of its effects, as well as that many more parents who clearly want nothing to do with their children, which therefor means more miserable children and more bitter adults.
I'm so baffled by what some people pass as "good".Go to sleep, iguana.
_________________________________
INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
-
07-17-2008, 02:45 PM #3OberonGuest
-
07-17-2008, 02:52 PM #4
It contests the moral argument behind it. Most people who speak of what's wrong with birth control talk about the horrors of "destroying a life", but these people obviously don't care when small animals, die do they? In fact, a lot of people on the "pro-life" side of things are on the excact opposite side of the animal rights debate. It's hypocritical and inconsistent. These people are even against genetic research most of the time. How it is that a zygote has a right to life, but cows can be run through slaughter-house en masse, is beyond me.
Did I mention that a lot them favor the death penalty? They heavily undermine their own argument with these other stances of theirs.Go to sleep, iguana.
_________________________________
INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
-
07-17-2008, 04:40 PM #5
"between conception and natural birth" seems to exclude the notion of contraception to me. If conception has taken place, clearly there's been no contraception in the first place. Or am I reading that wrong?
-
07-17-2008, 04:42 PM #6
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 8,457
It's so ironic. Prescott Bush was an early major supporter of Planned Parenthood, but when it lost him Catholic votes, the Bushes changed their tune.
-
07-17-2008, 04:44 PM #7Go to sleep, iguana.
_________________________________
INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
-
07-17-2008, 04:45 PM #8
fuck!! sorry, but things like this piss me off.
In no likes experiment.
that is all
i dunno what else to say so
-
07-17-2008, 04:48 PM #9
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 8,457
I thought we were just talking about contraception here. Planned Parenthood fundraising letter of January 8, 1947, lists Prescott S. Bush as treasurer of Margaret Sanger's first national fundraising drive.
Of course this might also be a great time to discuss Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics agenda, but that might also be where you and I split any agreement...
-
07-17-2008, 04:53 PM #10OberonGuest
Margaret Sanger? Is it time to merge this thread with the N-word thread?
Similar Threads
-
Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Anti-Abortion Law
By Hard in forum Politics, History, and Current EventsReplies: 28Last Post: 06-28-2016, 11:17 PM -
Transgendered Ruled by EEOC to be Protected under Civil Rights Act, Title VII
By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current EventsReplies: 18Last Post: 04-25-2012, 02:22 PM -
One ring to rule them all... blah blah blah (Not about LOTR)
By Xander in forum Philosophy and SpiritualityReplies: 22Last Post: 05-18-2007, 05:29 PM