I'm not aware about the quality of men's sexual education, especially at the lower educational end, which probably is most relevant. However, I can't accept the collectivism, to say men are "more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is.". Yes, in average they are, but with wide variations. So, if sexual behaviour is at the core of the argument, there is no reason, not to look on the credibility of each one's individual's live.
the facts speak for themselves, for the moral high ground one gains from taking a pure, anti-abortion position, one allies oneself with the baddest authoritarian, warmongering, religiously ignorant, bossy, nosy sons of bitches who ever got too big for their historical boots. I don't understand completely to what you hint? The NAZIs, who by the way had an euthanasia program, which today sometimes is cited, when our special responsibility for disabled (e.g. not abort them) is called, were the first to implement major environmental protection laws in Germany. Does this make todays environmentalists to fascists? Or are you talking about the Republicans of today? Then, to distance oneself from them, there are about a thousand issues, why using one of the less evil ones, to go into a political discussion, which necessarily ends up little nuanced, but completely polemic? If you talking about the GOP, as if I would have argued, it would be reasonable to vote them, just because they are right on this one issue, while they are wrong on all others. Obama by the way gets it, and has announced he would fire anybody in his campaign speculating about Sarah Palin's family live - the way ThatBritGuy, Metatone, and gk are doing.
by reluctantly conceding one's own rational loathing of abortion, or on a deeper level, the grief that a society can be so uptight and in denial about sex, that they do not educate their kids intelligently about this trickiest of areas, and their kids act out accordingly, one is allied with those who are actually doing something to create a greener, more intelligent world, where sex will be treated with the respect it deserves, with full disclosure of the facts of life as early as a child seeks to know about them. How is the society in denial about sex? I think (in Germany) there was never a better informed youth than today. If education is bad, wouldn't that be the thing to change? And does one have to buy everything what is considered by this group do-gooders? Don't you realise, that you are advocating totalitarism, when you either have to buy the full package, or you are part of the evil crowd, which can't be taken seriously at all? I have always said, I'm conservative, because the democratic acceptable and respectable political views are left of mine. If you are a democrat (not in the party sense, but in the sense of rule of the people), I think you have to accept some other opinions.
it is the sick shame projected together with a judgmental moralism that creates the cognitive dissonance, that then creates naive, undereducated kids, who act out. As I said before, I'm 'created' by pro-live parents. I was the best in my 100 people high school age-group at the only private school in my hometown, and one of the fasted getting my physics diploma at one of the most respected universities in Germany. My impression, as well from having watched a few times afternoon talkshows, is, that being pro-choicers are much more irresponsible than pro-livers, who actually know, that their actions have consequences.
Then you are talking about reality. This reality is made by people, who reality that way. Somebody had a sign like we matter more then pens and pounds. Yes, it seems the reality is often, that pens and pounds matter more. But that is a decision, done by humans, and humans could change it, if they would want to.
Then you are talking about historical load, men discriminating women. Your argument is simply rubbish. I have as many female as male ancients. How does it make boys a culprit and girls a victim, when their father is misbehaving towards their mother? Your argument is not just flawed, it is really really bad! With such arguments today, the extreme discrimination against boys in school is justified.
My selfcontrol is fine, I'm virgin. And if men shouldn't be in the discussion, men shouldn't be in the discussion. My original comment was about mistreating Sarah Palin. If men should not be in the discussion, to place the comment as a response to Fran's was wrong, but I guess some of the comments, I did target with my response do come from males. So please take one of the 100 000 other issues, you could take to attack her, but stop using her family live for that. It might even be counterproductive, because people might vote for her in defiance of the mistreatment (which probably is one reason for the reaction of Obama). Even as no GOP voter will read this site, it is a matter of decency (which I'm confident, that it is as well a reason for Obama's reaction). Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
In general the one thing I sometimes disagree with certain feminists on is that men don't get a say on abortion on a personal level. It's a major life decision that affects both people in a relationship and it seems to be natural to me that the man would have an opinion. If I were to find out that a serious girlfriend had had an abortion without talking about it with me, I'd be extremely upset - far more so than, say, at a bit of casual cheating. On the other hand, in the end it's the woman's decision, in the same way that a decision to take a job in another location or for radically different hours or pay is. That would impact me, but I don't get a veto. This isn't 'fair', but it's also not 'fair' that women are the ones who have to go through pregnancy.
As for what you say about pro-life vs. pro-choice people - ummh... My college and grad school experiences have been in environments which are both quite competitive and overwhelmingly pro-choice (at least ninety percent). I've definitely not observed that.
I also think you are confusing the life choices of many pro-choice people with a desire to impose them on others. But actually we don't want to force people to have abortions any more than we want to force them to go through with pregnancies - it's up to you. Same goes for sexual choices - those are up to you. All we want is to be able to make our own decisions on all such matters without government coercion.
As I said before, I'm 'created' by pro-live parents. I was the best in my 100 people high school age-group at the only private school in my hometown, and one of the fasted getting my physics diploma at one of the most respected universities in Germany. My impression, as well from having watched a few times afternoon talkshows, is, that being pro-choicers are much more irresponsible than pro-livers, who actually know, that their actions have consequences.
Your physics may be exceptional, but perhaps a little more logic could be useful in that argument.
There is - in most of the world - zero correlation between being pro- or anti-choice and academic ability.
As for the rest - statistics don't agree with your impression.
In fact this is exactly why we're having this argument. Fundies in the US lead far less moral lives, by the their own standards, than liberals do. Fundies are more likely to be in prison, more likely to have substance abuse issues, more likely to commit sex crimes and generally less likely to behave like rational adults - especially not rational adults with an understanding of consequences.
In fact this is the one of the keystones of the progressive movement - to educate conservatives about consequences.
Specifically it's to educate conservatives about the despicable social fallout of abstinence programs, of the disastrous consequences of militarism, of the carnage created by a culture of ownership without responsibility, and above all of the consequences of pretending that personal actions based on 'because I say so' or 'because an authority figure said so' don't work nearly as well for anyone as personal actions based on rational forethought and empathy.
If Sarah Palin is in the middle of the crossfire, it's because everything in her life dramatises these issues. And the last thing anyone wants - and by anyone I mean conservatives and progressives equally - is someone in charge of the biggest war machine in history who doesn't understand how to assess consequences realistically.
If being pro-live would be the source for that, it should apply in every society. But the reality is the other way around. Dumb people follow some form of explicit or implicit authority, and in the US it happens to be, that this authorities, which are used to replace own thinking, are pro-live.
And I would be perfectly happy with an non-interventionist not understanding how to assess consequences person in charge of the biggest war machine in history, while some warmonger, who understands how to assess consequences, but doesn't care about human lives in general, would be really troubling. Actually I doubt the assessment of the consequences of a significant military action is seriously possible.
If you need to use Palin's personal family story, in which I can't see anything bad, to portray Palin's incompetence as president, then you haven't much. Luckily Obama is better than that. Actually his attitude has impressed me so much in the last days, that I have a new signiture: Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
You don't get it, do you? It's all about Abstinence-Only Sex Education which the US has been pushing on the rest of the world.
In 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush announced his Five-Year Global HIV/AIDS Strategy. Also known as The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years towards AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20 percent of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Global AIDS prevention advocates have criticized the funding restriction, and in 2006 a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) also criticized the earmark, outlined the challenges that the funding restriction posed to countries hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic, and urged Congress to reconsider how this funding should be spent. A Congressionally authorized three-year evaluation of PEPFAR by the non-partisan Institute of Medicine in 2007 also criticized the earmark. In preparation for PEPFAR's reauthorization, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress that would drop the earmark
However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good. You can bring up the inefficiency of Abstinence-Only education to fight AIDS, you can ridicule the American obsession with sex references and education any time. But it is not decent, to do that with using existing babys. You imply that this baby is a problem. It isn't. It's just a baby. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I'm not fully sure what Abstinence-Only, really means as sex education. Seems to me not very, uhmm, educated. However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good.
However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good.
Or so the theory goes.
The Palins provide a poster case for the failure of Abstinence-only sex education to prevent unplanned teenage pregnancy. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Well, but they don't provide a poster case for the negative consequences on live quality an unplanned baby can have.
And now you are using the girl, Bristol Palin, not Sarah Palin, for a political purpose. You portray a major decision of her live as a failing. Whatever you think about this case being poster case for whatever, this is simply bad style. Sure, what you are doing may be common, on, uhmm, fox news... Nothing else I'm saying. Is that the way politics is discussed in Spain or UK? Would be disappointed to hear that. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I didn't say anything negative about the decision to carry the pregnancy to term. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
No, abstinence is the strategy advocated by her mother.
Which is the strategy being criticised here.
You could claim that the daughter is just a rebellious teenager and the mother's strategy is still the best, if you really wanted. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The abuse of family members, especially of children, of political opponents for political gain is something, which I condemn. And it is not something which is excusable by say people from the other party are doing this, too. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
No, you have to pick one explicit, underaged girl, who is not asked, if she wants to be picked by you as an example. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Also, it is the mother who is being criticised, showing her methods didn't produce what she's claiming to achieve ; I don't give a damn about her daughter, beyond wishing her happiness. I hope she was informed enough about the consequences of sex. And that the shotgun wedding isn't due to her mother's decision to run for VP. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Frankly, I think this insane. Maybe they do it for easier fact checking possibilities, but it is insane. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Another point : I think it makes Palin look even worse, that she accepted McCain's proposition, knowing the kind of scrutiny it would put on her family, and what it would do to her kid daughter. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
You conflate American statistics and my purely German experience.
You don't have a purely German experience. You have a European experience where the authoritarian Catholic church collided with secular social democracy in a series of battles which lasted centuries, and eventually social democracy won - at least for the moment.
In other countries - especially in Africa - that battle is still being fought, and the results are as predicted. I.e. lives are laid waste to, and the consequences are even more horrific than they are in the US.
Martin:
Dumb people follow some form of explicit or implicit authority, and in the US it happens to be, that this authorities, which are used to replace own thinking, are pro-live.
Pro-life authorities in the rest of the world aren't known for encouraging independent thought.
Can you name a pro-life organisation anywhere in the world which supports original scientific and philosophical enquiry and doesn't operate from a 'Because I said so' moral foundation?
Quibble here but that's not completely true in areas where Catholics weren't the majority. Witness the rather different nature of the Catholic political movement in Bavaria and the Rhineland during the Kaiserreich and Weimar.
Of course the only pro-live organisations I'm aware of, the churches in Germany, do support original scientific and philosophical enquiry in nearly every fields. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/2/145254/8466/826/103935
i just reread it, and still feel the same way.
However, I can't accept the collectivism, to say men are "more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is.".
i don't like using generalisms, (generally!) but in thic case feel it appropriate. not too many woman-on-man rapes!
Or are you talking about the Republicans of today?
yes.
If you talking about the GOP, as if I would have argued, it would be reasonable to vote them, just because they are right on this one issue,
if there ever was a poster-reason for how absolutist thinking was a bridge to nowhere-in-the-real-world.
your logic would hold water IF unborn foetus cells and their fate added up to be more big-picture critical than global warming, police state mentalities and the rest of the sorry list of bullshit values proposed as desirable and appropriate for society.
as it is, i think a society that eschewed abortion would be a wonderful thing, and i try to align my actions to be conducive to that future, but to make a litmus test out of it is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
How is the society in denial about sex? I think (in Germany) there was never a better informed youth than today. If education is bad, wouldn't that be the thing to change?
let me count the ways!
you are correct about germany, however. even nazis dug sex! i was happily stunned with how open german talk shows are about sexual issues of all stripes, and even how attractive most of the girls who advertised for company in the local dusseldorf newspaper were.
a german friend, told me it's because most german men are gay or married, and there's therefore a shortage of available hetero males, lol! her tongue may have been in her cheek, i dunno..
the contrast with prissy old england could not have been more shocking-
And does one have to buy everything what is considered by this group do-gooders? Don't you realise, that you are advocating totalitarism, when you either have to buy the full package, or you are part of the evil crowd, which can't be taken seriously at all? I have always said, I'm conservative, because the democratic acceptable and respectable political views are left of mine. If you are a democrat (not in the party sense, but in the sense of rule of the people), I think you have to accept some other opinions.
hello...you've taken my point and pointed it back at me, lol! i do accept other opinions, including the one that statistically shows how the most irresponsible sexual behaviour of all stems from clueless teenagers who've been fed soapy lies, or worse, nothing at all truthful, objective or relevant about this issue, the most central to all our lives.
absolute moralism in the face of uncomfortable reality always creates the opposite effect than intended...jokes about the preacher's daughter have been around for ever.
i do accept others' opinions, especially when it's about others' bodies, and ask the same in return.
quite simple.
wha??? you've totally lost me here...
So please take one of the 100 000 other issues, you could take to attack her, but stop using her family live for that.
well, i didn't, if you care to reread the threads, i attacked the hypocrisy and double standards that are the so-frequent fruit of this particular form of moral blinkeredness.
the repubs are brushing aside the story, saying 'they're getting married, so it's ok for her to be pregnant...'.
i find that funny, and sad. i hope some parents learn from this, that's all.
thanks for your detailed reply. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
