Post-Roe Postcard from Mississippi

Wonderful! I think the more the state does to outlaw this barbaric practice the more we can hope human life will be preserved. I'm glad the Democratic Legislators in Mississippi have not gone to the way of the National Party and become a subscriper to the groupthink idea that to be a Democrat means to be a pro-abortion politician.

And the flood of "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice" begins--

I, for one, am delighted. If you dont want a pregancy, keep your britches on or if you must risk it be smart and use contraceptives. BTW- did you hear about one of the original suitors in Roe V Wade came out against the case and said she now feels responsible for the death of millions of unborn people?

ladd, why are you starting this ?
actually i saw an article recently in the ledger about this.
could not read it.
well,
let me splain. i have a daughter. she uses birth control. she shouldn't because of risks due to her being prone to migraines. but she does, because,
she has a boyfriend. ok. and condoms don't always work. but if ever ever
all these precautions did not help, well, she is 22 , in law school. does not
want a child now. it's her body . that's what roe v. is about. i'ts her choice.
it's her relationship with what she understands to be important and good.
that's what roe v. is about, that's what the constitution is about. let's say
freedom . and liberty.

keep your britches on your own self, i'd say.

p.s. - ladd,
meant those britches to be bluedog's , not yours! ha

this decision is very very hard for young women. it's never ever taken
lightly.
may i say, i know.

ok, i am reading the Nation article now. well, maybe later.
good grief. so much to do here , don't know where to start..
thanks for the story link, and oh i was going to stop looking at
news for a while... ha.

24 hour waiting period is up, since first comment posted. where is
everybody?
ladd, mine was a dumb question, 'why now.' ha. yes, today is 32 years. saw the front page of ledger. the crosses. some good info tho.
and did read the Nation article, it says a lot, great reporting.
one chilling thing, among many, was that no one was willing to go on the record here. excuse me, it is still legal! this is scary, we don't wear
burquas , yet.

one good sign, and i will not name names , i have an instructor who
mentioned roe v. wade in class recently, who stated his 'prolife' (we are all prolife for pete's sake, how can they take that as their own.. as usual) beliefs , and then stated the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of belief. he left it there. good enough for me at the time. here in Ms.

I would love to hear more comments from women, young and not so,
out there. Being a bit past the time when I need to worry, I do remember worrying.

thanks, ladd, for the reminder.

No problem, sunshine. As for where is everyoneóspeaking for the JFP family, we are buried in getting out the big Best of Jackson issue for next week. Todd and I even missed Hal & Mal's birthday party last night because we were here so late. That is, no one has the time or brain cells to blog much! But we'll be back, I promise. And, fortunately, we have hundreds of members now, such as yourself, who take up the slack for us.

Meantime, re your Roe comments: It is sad that people won't go on the record. I will, however: I strongly support abortion rights, although I respect the views of people who truly oppose abortion because they believe it "kills"óas long as they are consistent and are against other "barbaric" practices such as the death penalty, and forcing employees of the state to kill criminals.

A primary reason that I support abortion rights is the simple belief that aborting a fetus is no more cruel than a society forcing unwanted children into the world, forcing them to live in poverty, taking away their educational opportunities, torturing them like animals in training schools (see current cover story), beating them and pumping them full of legal drugs, blaming them for all of society's problems, trying them as adults and then using them to fill corporate prisonsóand then forcing them (even if they are raped if ideologues like Barbour and Bush have their way) to have more unwanted children so that the cycle continues.

Let's do some serious work on *those* issues and then I can take a discussion of the sanctity of "life" for "unborn children" a bit more seriously. Until then, though, the rhetoric is hollow and unconvincing (except from those who clearly demonstrate by the way they live, vote and the work that they do that they actually care about all human beings. They're credible on this issue; others aren't.)

By the way, you will note that I seldom use the marketing phrases of both sidesó"pro-life" or "pro-choice"óI choose the more direct phrases: "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion."

ok, as bluedog mentioned, Roe did say, well see her remarks.
I do not believe the procedure harms women, not sure what Roe means.
but it's out there now. who knows why. it's her belief. it's not science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1394353,00.html

meanwhile Sen. Boxer from CA , love her.
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_17349.shtml


I do know many surgical procedures can have complications, but let's not even think what happens when they are not legal! let's not go back there again, EVER.


guys - I did not mean to say only women should speak up -
you know it takes two..

don't let that what's his name
who sits across the street from the clinic and yells, don't let him do that.
don't let him. it's the only clinic around, it needs security. I'm willing
to show up, and i'm a girl. no burqa yet.

No burquas ever. This genie ain't going back in the damned bottle.

(smile)

As for Roe, her change in beliefs or heart doesn't have much to do with this issue. There are plenty of women who could have been the lead plaintiff who have not changed their minds. I respect her beliefs, but they are only so relevant to the bigger issue.

"I respect her beliefs.."
me too.
that's it in a nutshell. and not in a burqua.

(yikes, have you seen those things from the inside?)

During the WLBT broadcast of the news at 10:00PM on January 22, 2005, I thought that I saw a group of black elementary-aged children sitting on the floor of the state capital building listening to several white women telling the stories of their abortions.

Pubic schools are repeatedly attacked why they try to give helpful guidance to kids about sex. However, these children were put in a most public place and heard quite private details about the surgical procedure in which the fetus is pulled from the uterus through the vagina.

I wonder, if the Supreme Court decision is reversed, will these women who publicly confessed their sins in front of these children yesterday be willing to turn themselves into the sheriff for having committed murder? If it is a crime, will they do the time?

I donít want to have women or doctors incarcerated for ìkilling babies.î Am I alone?

By the way, I am a co-author of two well-planned pregnancies.

well, ok then. I should be studying my constitutional law for a quiz tomorrow,
but -

you thought you saw??
confessed their sins?
well-planned - lucky for you. you are blessed. amen.

meanwhile, guess I better go find a burqua , just in case the sheriff comes.

of those of us not thinking we saw something, backup please! were those
white women telling those young black children 'private details?' what
is this guy trying to say. ok, I know. nevermind. backup anyway.

sorry y'all, forget the call for backup. I should not have even replied at all.
sometimes one has to realize hey, not every msg. deserves a response. some just stand out there and speak for themselves. ha. that one sure did.

February 7 is my birthday and I hate to think that it will be linked with the drive to get rid of the Roe vs Wade decision. Women have historically been deprived of rights and the right to make a decision about their body is, I believe an important right. Not everyones elses business. I did reread the letter and feel good that someone is pointing out how backwards Mississippi is.

thanks, johnautry. are your related .. nevermind! (my age shows
sometimes). thanks for your comments, not getting many here...

As for MS being backward,well, it may be the worst, yes it is, but there are plenty of other states in line. and more lining up. scary.

It's been , oh, forty years at least that we've had birth control , and
they still are not healthy for many women. but hey we have viagra.
ok. where are the research $$ going here? ha.

I want to see safe and free contraceptives . They are not available.
Hmmm. We could at least start with free. but in Ms it's difficult to get them at all, from what I read.
why is that?

contraception is a no no to the bible belt crowd. As well as to the Catholics. You know what the biggest typo is history is? The big wig Catholic was interpreting the holy word and he noticed that the scribes had a typo in celebration. They left out the R.

sOh, you know, I have always found it interesting how the pro abortioners always refer to unborn children as only a 'fetus', I suppose there is a good reason for that though. Its much easier to convince the self to support the right of abortion when you dehumanize the situation- you know just think of it as a little ball of matter rather than soul that hasn't had a chance to fully develop an earthly body. Humans often do that to rectify beliefs that go against basic human instincts.

I agree Ladd, that the things you mention are very distrubing, just as disturbing as Abortion to many of us. And the fact of the matter is those things truly do happen to children (even those born into the best of households). Equally as true, though, is that some people, just some, overcome the worse of all odds- overcome things that folks like you and I from the outside can't even imagine. And you know what, I'm not willing to remove that chance from anyone- especially not from the unborn who has no choice in its destiny at all.

Also, I've never been a fan of reasoning that "well because other bad things happen, why not allow this bad thing to happen as well." Just because we that were lucky enought to be born are unable or unwilling to deal with the social ills of America shouldnt mean we have the right to determine whether or not an unborn child is capable of overcoming these odds. That is dangerously presumptive.

Also, why do we forget that unborn children that were lucky enough to avoid the foreceps and grow in loving, adoptive homes have just as good a chance for success as the rest of us?

I respect your opionions, but I think we should stay out of the business of decieding who should and shouldnt die, ESPECIALLY before they are ever capable of being responsible for their actions.

And yes, tell your hormonal daughter to keep her pants on, and yeah it is her body, but its also a place where human life begins. If she can't take that responsibility then I reckon she should keep her britches on. It makes me sick that someone would suggest that being law school is more important preserving human life.

I guess the Republicans only care about children before they are born, and I guess my Democrat party only cares about them only if they are blessed enough to be created and born of the womb of a willing mother.

bluedog, I'd have more sympathy with your arguments if you'd perhaps tell hormonal *sons* to keep their pants on. You're sounding a bit sexist here.

For me, my stance was well summed up by Donna's posting. For some reason, it's a huge crime when it's abortion, but not when it comes to healthcare, education, abuse, poverty etc. There was a ruling not long ago, where a woman was *prevented from divorcing her abusive husband* because he got her pregnant. What about the rights of women, and the rights of the already born?

I don't really believe that the root cause of abortion is that it's available. I think that the root cause is the lack of support we provide for mothers, fathers and children once they have kids. Outlawing abortion doesn't prevent it.

Not to mention the fact that I know about a half dozen kids that were conceived despite contraceptive devices, including the Pill.

sOh, you know, I have always found it interesting how the pro abortioners always refer to unborn children as only a 'fetus',

Bluedog, you're losing me right there with your rather odd rhetoric. You call people who support abortion rights, for whatever reason, "pro-abortioners"ówhich is not the same thing, and it's not up to you to tell other people what they believe. I would argue back that a "pro-abortioner" could just as easily be someone who wants to outlaw safe and legal abortion, sending desperate women back to actual back-alley butcher "abortioners," rather than to doctors who know what they are doing. Besides, you're just flippantly labeling people who don't agree with you without much thought, and it's a cheap tactic. (I'm sure Operation Rescue is with you ... but they kind of are already.)

Secondly, you're not even winning your own semantic battle. In order to fuel an argument about the use of the word "fetuses" to apply to, well, fetuses, you refer to "unborn children." Are they children, or aren't they, bluedog? Decide. Focusing simply on semantics for the momentócan "children" be "unborn"? Can you have it both ways? If you believe a fetus is a child, and that's your right, then call it "a child"ónot the oxymoronic term, "unborn child." Don't insult a child by telling it that it hasn't been "born," yet.

Otherwise, I'm with Kate. Your admonition to "your hormonal daughter" (whoever that is) "to keep your pants on" is pitiful. One of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is the double standard that says that it's the responsibility of young women not to get pregnantówhile accepting wholeheartedly the notion that, well, "boys will be boys." Either you tell the boys to keep their pants zipped up, too, or you don't have one iota of credibility on this issue, in my view.

Finally, your characterization of my argument as "well because other bad things happen, why not allow this bad thing to happen as well" is laughably simplistic. It's not what I'm saying. Personally, I believe we should do everything in our power to reduce the abortion rate by teaching sex education, making access to contraception easy and affordable, getting past that dumb-ass double standard that it's girls' fault, encouraging abstinence for young people, and so on.

At the same time, I am not willing to encourage more cruel and inhumane treatment of "born children," as you might call them, by forcing unwanted children to be brought into the world to then be abused and put on a criminal track. As I said before, I admire greatly people who consider themselves "pro-life" whether the child is "born" or "unborn" and are working on both sides of the equation. I would argue that those who are only focused only on the "unborn" side might have not exactly be as obsessed about the care, feeding and upbringing of children as they might want us to believe. They might be a bit more intrigued by the politics of it all.

That is, you want me to listen to your arguments against abortion, I need to see a bit of cred on the "born" side of the equation as well.

I only refered to a woman only because sunshine said her daughter shouldnt have to keep her pants up if she doesnt want to, because heck, its her body, and besides she is young and busy with law school and can't be bothered with the responsibility that comes along with being active- so she can always choose to get an abortion if something happens. She is a perfect example of people that use abortions because they are avaiable-

And please, you lament me for not including men, then in the next paragraph, complain about the rights of women. Is this a female issue or not? My goodness-. About the case, thats too bad, but I don't recall saying that this woman shouldnt be able to divorce a abusive husband because they are pregnant. All I have done is question the practice of abortion and our capacity to make these types of terminal decisions.

All that aside, my comment does apply to both girls and boys- if you don't want the responsibility of being parents keep your pants on- or at least be safe- period.

If you want to take on medical research, be my guest, but when used properly, the pill is 99% effective. There are always exceptions to medicines my dear. Thanks for the comments though, yall have a good day.

Another very popular debate tactic, too, is to start mincing words, you know, to deflect from the spirit of a statement

Let me be clear, and short. Its all words. If we dare consider that an unborn human fetus is a child- a growing human person just like an infant, there comes an emotional connection to this "thing" we like to call a fetus. However, if we just leave a fetus as a fetus, you know a ball of collecting cells, its much more eay to support a practice like Abortion. That was the spirit of the statement- and despite your picking apart words I think that was clear enough.

And again, Im sorry you feel that being against abortion means that you stand for all those terrible things. Again, I don't believe I have the insight to say what those unborn children would have grown up to become or what they could have experienced- and I dare not suggest that their destiny, had they made it to the world, would have only been down a negative path in this world.

I suggest we move off this argument. I think that it is clear that we agree to disagree on this subject. This is not a new argument for me, in fact I have grown quite accustomed to this as a pro-life Democrat. I think we Democrats, since we disagree on the unborn, should focus and work together on taking care of children that we all agree need our help- "the born ones".

bluedog, I think the point is that we are all "pro-life." I'm all for reducing the rate of abortion. For me, I feel that until we, as a society, can look after the Born Ones properly, abortion should continue be a legal option. I don't buy the notion that adoption solves everything - there are too many kids who never get adopted, or are placed in unsuitable homes, etc. Reducing the abortion rate depends on a host of factors, from social programs, sex education for boys & girls, holding males accountable to the same standards as females (as in, why do we always worry about "welfare moms" and "welfare queens"), pay woment the same as men for the work they do, etc.

As for "taking on medical research" - the 2 people I know who get pregnant while on the pill were using it "correctly." 99% effective still leaves 1% to get pregnant. And that's a pretty big number.

And again, Im sorry you feel that being against abortion means that you stand for all those terrible things.

Bluedog, if you are going to attribute downright nonsensical and asinine statements such as that to me, I am going to mince your words back all over the place and then stick them outside my door for the garbageman to pick them up. Stop it. Stop trying to twist what I'm saying into you want me to be saying. Ain't going to work, kemosabi. I am perfectly capable of expressing my own views, and proudly under my real name. I did not say that sentence I just quoted from you, and anyone with basic reading comprehension can plainly see that.

Also, you come on here, throwing around the second person and calling folks "pro-abortionists" because they don't agree with you, challenging their choice of words and then using rhetorical and oxymoronic phrases like "unborn children" as if they're plainly logical to everyone else -- and then you start complaining about someone else "mincing words"? Please, dude. I believe it was you who initially took issue with the word "fetus" and started this particular catfight.

And, no, I do not think "we" should move off this argument. although you're welcome to if you'd like. I happen to think this is an important discussion, and I've tried to express my sentiments succinctly to show that I respect the views of people who do not believe that abortion is right, if they are truly doing it because they care about children, "born" and "unborn." That, sir or m'aam, is what I said. Why don't you stick to expressing your views, and I will tell people what I think, eh?

Finally, again, I am not a Democrat, so "we Democrats" does not apply to me, although it may or may not apply to others on the site. It's probably easier, and less inflammatory, to simply speak for yourself.

Ladd wrote:
A primary reason that I support abortion rights is the simple belief that aborting a fetus is no more cruel than a society forcing unwanted children into the world, forcing them to live in poverty, taking away their educational opportunities, torturing them like animals in training schools (see current cover story), beating them and pumping them full of legal drugs, blaming them for all of society's problems, trying them as adults and then using them to fill corporate prisonsóand then forcing them (even if they are raped if ideologues like Barbour and Bush have their way) to have more unwanted children so that the cycle continues.

Let's do some serious work on *those* issues and then I can take a discussion of the sanctity of "life" for "unborn children" a bit more seriously. Until then, though, the rhetoric is hollow and unconvincing (except from those who clearly demonstrate by the way they live, vote and the work that they do that they actually care about all human beings. They're credible on this issue; others aren't.)

Whether or not anti-abortion advocates are consistent or hypocritical in their practices and beliefs is irrelevant to the abortion question, which is fundamentally about the moral status of a fetus. If you believe that all human beings have intrinsic dignity and are worthy of respect, as I do, then the abortion question becomes what is it about us that makes us worthy of respect, and do fetuses, which are merely unborn human beings, or human beings in an earlier stage of development, share this quality and thus also have a moral right to life.

I spent some time volunteering at a crisis pregnancy center, and yes I am "pro-life" or whatever term anyone wants to use for the simple reason that I do believe a fetus is a child. However, I get tired, tired, tired of people who use this issue to further a political agenda. I say from this point, if you believe abortion is wrong get yourownself out there and help the women who are in such a scary place.

I also get tired of hearing people who are "pro-life" but spout against "welfare queens." If abortion should not be an option and Medicaid for the pregnant woman and child is frowned upon...well, that just doesn't make sense for several reasons.

One being that when I worked at the center, we had the Medicaid forms ready for the woman who chose to carry out the pregnancy. And two, the women I saw were not what some have classified as a "welfare queen." They were college students and women in abusive marriages and middle-aged women and every profile one could imagine. They are women you know, but don't know they've experienced a crisis pregnancy.

I don't see the logic in those who speak against abortion, but at the same time don't want their paychecks taxed for government assistance. It makes about as much sense as being pro-death penalty and pro-life.

Bluedog's note about mincing words....fallacies

*SALES PITCH ALERT*

These are only among the three most important sites you will ever bookmark!!!

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
Steven Downesí Guide to the Logical Fallacies
This site has the clearest and most succinct description of logical fallacies I have found on the Internet so far. HIGHLY recommended for beginners (like me) and teens. The Departments of Education in all states should design a whole course based on this site (Yeah! Good Luck!!!!). Were I a high school English teacher, this WOULD be a large part of what Iíd teach students!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
The Nizkor Projectís Fallacies Page. This site, primarily devoted to debunking Holcaust deniers, is also a diamond mine for those who love to pick apart arguments. Paraphrasing the Apostle Paul, this part of the Nizkor site plays the meat to Steven's milk. Itís essentially the same material as the Downes site, but with more detailed explanations for each fallacy. When you finish Prof. Downes' explanation of one particular fallacy, jump over to the NIZKOR site to read their explication (notice the differences between the two words. Go to the dictionary to see the difference between the two words)

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html
Mission: Critical Based at the server of San Jose State University, Institute for Teaching and Learning, this goes beyond mere fallacy description and recognition and gives a real introduction to logic. An excellent supplement to the above sites.

Good Gracious folks get so technical on here- I almost feel like im in english class all over again. Oxymorons, first persons, the whole nine yards!

Look, point taken- I am the one that started the word mincing, at least on face value. Really, what I was trying to assert is that we tend to dehumanize, depersonify unborn children, (people, folks, kids, polywogs whatever you may call them), in order to make ourselves feel better about being "pro-abortion rights". I truly believe that humans, especially mothers, are born with an instinct of self preservation, and in order to counter such primal instints one must make ration of it in their heads- through dehumanization in this case. Thats all i meant really- I was really not trying to get into some debate on technical aspects of the language itself- look a little deeper.

And Ladd I promise im not putting words in your mouth, you say you support abortion rights because " you are not willing to encourage more cruel and inhumane treatment of "born children," as you might call them, by forcing unwanted children to be brought into the world to then be abused and put on a criminal track." My Dear, I said what I did because if you believe that then you must believe that my stance on abortion is encourging these things to happen? Thats exactly what I said, isn't it? nonsensical and asinine? Out of your own mouth really- with your name posted behind it.

And Ladd, im sorry i assumed your a Democrat. Its a good to be mistaken as a Democrat. :) Oh yeah, its is sir here, and for now just figure when I say YOU I am talking to ya'll here on this website. Clear as mud? :)

And Emily, god bless you for your service. I agree with jus about everything you said my dear. I think your "pro-life pro death penalty" can also be put as "pro-choice" and "anti-death penalty"- just about as stupid as the former if you ask me.

Emily,

Don't mistake me for opposing you (because in this instance, I don't).

You wonder how "people who are "pro-life" but spout against "welfare queens" and how they "being pro-death penalty and pro-life"

I grew up in a small La. Delta town 90 min from Jackson. From my life's experience, they would reconclie this by saying it's all a matter of "personal responsibility and self-discipline". The following is a fairly simplistic portrayl, but here's the explanation they'd give as an initial reaction to such questions.

They see getting pregnant as irresponsiblity on the mother's part (especially if they can't support the child). They also think in practically ALL situations "you made a mistake, you pay for it on your own". They also say "it's not the child's fault that it was born to an out of wedlock mother, but it's the parent's fault they didn't take adequate prervention measures" (Yet, many, barring the devout segment of Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, would point the finger at the man -- they see men screwing around as "getting wild oats out of their system" <grrrr>).

As for the Death Penalty / Abortion comparison, it's something similar: it's not the child's fault if his or her mother made a mistake (conveniently forgetting the father all too many, but not ALL, times)...yet it's the criminal's fault he or she committed such a heinous crime. -- "it's your own damn fault. I had nothing to do with it. So you pay for the consequenses", they would say. I might also say they are a bit paranoid of "welfare cheats" using kids to get more money from the government (by and large, I don't believe that either)

Now I'm a fairly libertarian person (Little "L"!!), especially on cultural issues. But this individualism-on-steroids attitude is extremely short-sighted (i.e."fend for yourself successfully or you don't deserve respect from us" / "survival of the fittest (i.e. most responsible)" ). Looking down upon someone simply because they don't "take adequate responsibility" truly is damaging the South's potential (especially the rural and small metro South's) ability to become a truly prosperous, open, and creative area in which all people can benefit. In the long run, you simply cannot have a prosperous society unless you are willing to help pay at least a little for other's shortcomings. This hyper-responsibility attitude sounds too close to "Social Darwinism" for my comfort, though advocates of hyper-responsibility don't think in such terms. Lean, mean, macho type societies do NOT prosper in the long run (Read James Mitchener's This Noble Land for more about this.

Philip: I said,
Yet, many, barring the devout segment of Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, would point the finger at the man -- they see men screwing around as "getting wild oats out of their system" <grrrr>).

What I meant to say is "Yet, many, barring the devout segment of Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, would NOT point the finger at the man..."

Yeah, I can just see the preacher of First Baptist or First Pentacostal of Anytown saying it's OK for men to go around "bedding women" any time they want (about as likely as a Lesbian Pope!!)

"As for the Death Penalty / Abortion comparison, it's something similar: it's not the child's fault if his or her mother made a mistake (conveniently forgetting the father all too many, but not ALL, times)...yet it's the criminal's fault he or she committed such a heinous crime. -- "it's your own damn fault. I had nothing to do with it. So you pay for the consequenses", they would say. - Phillip

Well, Im sorry Phillip, but unborn children cant help were they are born, and criminals can choose their fate regardless of the odds. While the cards are clearly stacked against some more than others to commit crime, free will still plays a role in the equation of the criminal- Ask Barak Obama. Unfortunately, this isnt the case for the unborn child.

And don't mistake my comments as suggesting we all should have endless free will in a moral society- in other words I dont believe a woman has this right any more a criminal has a right to murder. Its never made sense to me that its NOT ok to kill a person that is walking and talking, its only okay to kill those growing in the womb. Seems to me a truly moral society would not design the bounds of free will to be dependent upon the some earthly, developmental stage of human life. But you know I guess this isnt the only case where our moral society has let me down- lots of folks fall through the cracks in America, not just the unborn.

I dont believe the argument itself is faulty. And don't label please, I detest when folks pre package pro-life folks as small town, backwards, backwoods bible beating Southerners. Sometimes you get so caught up in being "open and creative" you mislabel and downtalk those that disagree with you. Its difficult to be creative too, when everyone thinks alike.

Bluedog:And don't label please, I detest when folks pre package pro-life folks as small town, backwards, backwoods bible beating Southerners. Sometimes you get so caught up in being "open and creative" you mislabel and downtalk those that disagree with you. Its difficult to be creative too, when everyone thinks alike.

Philip: I said nothing about pro-life people being backwards or small town. The closest I came to it in my remarks was the (especially the rural and small metro South's [potential]) remark. That was NOT to say other areas of the country are completely free of that attitude. I only brought that part up because the JFP urges local action on issues that affect this locale. Since Jackson and Mississippi are in The South, I thought this a quite appropriate way to inspire ever-increasing locally-based action to solve the region's problems.

You may rest assured that if this were a Massachusetts-based paper, I'd have said something like (looking down on "rednecks" and Southern "this", and Middle America "that" scares away talent and points of view from "Red Americans" that New Englanders would find useful, even valuable, to sustaining the region.) No regional bias on my part. I'm a multi-generational Mid-Southerner (I even have several ancestors that fought in the Confederate Army, how about that!).

Bluedog: Well, Iím sorry Phillip, but unborn children canít help were they are born, and criminals can choose their fate regardless of the odds.

Philip: This is one post that really tore at me, since I share many of the same feelings you do, yet there are so many that are different. Let there be no ambiguity in my personal opinion: I am against abortion. For this reason, I support greater sex education in the classroom (PLUS abstinence education, one area where I think social conservatives are spectacularly right. You need a combination of methods to successfully reach studentís hearts and minds).

Having said that, another issue is ìIs it better for a child to be impoverished, or is it better for the child not to have to go through such a harrowing experience?î. This somewhat echoes the question I asked and answered on the Americaís Courage board regarding the moral in-/justice war. (Jan 22, 05 | 8:19 pm). Basically, I said the war issue is a matter of faith, there is no ultimate proof of right or wrong on the war issue in general. Likewise, either one believes itís proper to bring a child into the world ñ even if the child is in poverty - or one doesnít. Ultimately, I can tie the Abortion, War, and Death Penalty issues together into one question: ìWhich is more important? Life itself or Quality of Life?î. I have yet to see a satisfactory, conclusive answer to this question. Perhaps not conincidentally, it's a matter of faith as much as anything any religion asks us to believe.

As for the death penalty, THE only reason I oppose it is that there is always the chance of executing the wrong person. That's the beginning and end of my reasons for opposing it.

While the idea of perfect personal responsiblity sounds so simple and so wonderful, the fact is, many criminals grew up in poverty, and I believe there is a direct correlation there. One can say over and over, well that's their own fault, but that's not really solving the problem. While it is very simple to just blow it off as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" (which many women who experience crisis pregnancies have done) it's much easier said than done with the whole can of worms involved. There's the stigma. There's telling mom/dad/boyfriend what has happened and then losing a place to live (it happens) or even violence in some cases (it happens). There's the possiblity of giving up an education, and it's simply hard enough to support a child with a college degree. I could go on and on. So we have to address many issues here. We can't just say "no abortion...don't have sex" because while that sounds great in theory, it's simply not feasible.

And Phillip, I know you from somewhere.

Justin: the abortion question, which is fundamentally about the moral status of a fetus. If you believe that all human beings have intrinsic dignity and are worthy of respect, as I do, then the abortion question becomes what is it about us that makes us worthy of respect, and do fetuses, which are merely unborn human beings,

No, Justin, that is not the only question, although it is certainly an important one to consider and discuss. But it is one of a laundry lists of important questions about this issue, which other folks are attempting to discuss here, and which the courts have been willing to consider as well. If it were the only question, for instance, then the death penalty question would be just as simple as you're trying to frame the aboriton question, which it is not, either.

bluedog: My Dear, I said what I did because if you believe that then you must believe that my stance on abortion is encourging these things to happen? Thats exactly what I said, isn't it? nonsensical and asinine?

Yes, My Dude, your mischaracterization of what I had said was "nonsensical and asinine" on its face. Not your views, but your rewriting of what I said and what you thought it meant. I'll say that again under my real name because it's true. You are still, in fact, not understanding my point, although you are closer than you were before.

I did not say that your stance is encouraging those things to happen. I'm not speaking for you. However, I will give my initial impressions since you bring it up. You come across as much more concerned about what happens to "unborn children" (I still don't understand that phrase, exactly, thus the quotes) and whether they are treated "humanisticly." The abortion procedure is "barbaric," I believe you said. Fair enough, those are your beliefs, and I respect that (and may agree on various levels, and not on others). BUT, note that you haven't expressed anywhere on the site, to my knowledge, outrage at, say, how barbarically young children are being treated in the training schools in Mississippi. We have a cover story and my editor's note at the moment posted with details of what the Department of Justice found happening in Mississippi's training schools: young girls locked in rooms for three days naked, being forced to #### in a hole in the floor, hog-tyed for hours in the hot sun. I haven't seen a peep out of you about that, which surprises me with your unending concern about the welfare of children. Although, I don't believe you've save that, either. You've saved most of your concern, so far at least, for "unborn children." That sends an interesting message, whether you mean it to or not.

My point is that either you care about children or you don't. And I am not impressed by the arguments of those who spend more of their "children concern" time, you could call it, worrying about the pain caused to a fetus than about the pain caused to a child that has already been born. Again, I said that I respect people who are willing to do both, and I believe that they really care about children. But, usually, we only hear from certain people (and I don't know if you're one, although so far the circumstantial evidence is stacking against you) who are only worried about "unborn children" ó and, frankly, their arguments aren't very convincing, except to those who are singing the same song.

That's my point, in a nutshell. Either care about other people's children, or don't. If you want to get "children" legally defined as the matter that exists inside a woman the second the sperm comes into contact with the egg, go for it. Fight that battle. But be consistent. Care about them just as much once they actually achieve the status of being a human being outside their mother's body.

However, I don't think most politicians who slam abortion actually want this re-definition to come to pass. It's easy to use this rhetoric to grab votes (from a lot of people who are very sincere about the issue) -- however, most of those politicians' lack of concern about children once they've left Mom's body is pretty telling. And I don't believe, for one moment, that most men in this country want abortion outlawed. It sounds great you express concern for "father's rights"ówhich, indeed, is a very sticky and important questionóbut without acknowledging that a huge part of this problem goes back to irresponsibility on the part of men at the point of sex and then when he finds out the woman is pregnant. If anything, I think this is the biggest societal battle to fight to lessen both abortion and unwanted children.

On that note, back to the gender discussion for a moment. Certainly, logic has it that if a woman someday is criminally prosecuted for aborting a child, a man should be criminally prosecuted for impregnating a woman and taking offóthe scenario that leads to many, many abortions in this country. Why stop there? Why don't we make it a crime to have sex outside of wedlock, period? I'm sure we could come up with a category to put that in: "attempted unwanted pregnancy" perhaps?

Or, how about "attempted unborn child"ó10 years in prison, minimum. Three stikes, you're in Parchman for life.

While the idea of perfect personal responsiblity sounds so simple and so wonderful, the fact is, many criminals grew up in poverty, and I believe there is a direct correlation there.

Association (what you call correlation) is not causation. If poverty caused crime then all we would have to do is incarcerate anyone living below the defined poverty line. An approach about as likely to solve the problem as the inverse approach of wealth redistribution to insure everyone lived above the line.

without acknowledging that a huge part of this problem goes back to irresponsibility on the part of men at the point of sex and then when he finds out the woman is pregnant. If anything, I think this is the biggest societal battle to fight to lessen both abortion and unwanted children.

a man should be criminally prosecuted for impregnating a woman and taking offóthe scenario that leads to many, many abortions in this country.

I am a male. I'll acknowledge male irresponsibility, on any number of levels, is a MAJOR contributing factor to unwanted pregnancies and downstream abortions. I think the legal penalties for men who do not support children they have created, in or out of wedlock, need to be ratcheted up to a much higher levels of pain. I would support legislation that proposed significantly increased ramifications. I don't understand why the women in this country have not rained hell down on our politicians to force men to step up to their responsibilities. You have the numbers. The notion that unwanted pregnancies, and/or abortions, is solely, primarily or mostly, a woman's problem is complete bunk. Inversely, there needs to be some discussion and meeting of the minds to compell a woman to not abort a child if the child's father wants the baby. The unilateral considerations a woman can make regarding an abortion make that an extremely sticky wicket but there must be some recourse for men to step up and accept responsibility/custody for an unborn child even if the mother is not interested in keeping the child herself.

Actually, there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows a causal link between poverty and crime -- but many conservatives turn their back on it because it means that, in order to prevent crime, we might actually need to do something about poverty. Imagine actually living in solidarity with the poor. How biblical of us.

Also, Right, your statement isn't quite logical: If poverty caused crime then all we would have to do is incarcerate anyone living below the defined poverty line.

I'm sure you know that showing a direct correlation between two factors does not mean that it is true in every single case. Exceptions happen. But often they happen because people tried very hard to help particular young people overcome the problems. I know I escaped the cycle of poverty that could have gotten really ugly for me due to a combination of great mentors, Social Security checks, government education grants and loans, and some very kind affirmative action for this unsophsticated trailer-park girl by some folks at Mississippi State University.

It rathers amazes me the lengths people will go to in order to argue against something so incredibly obvious: that poverty conditions are a prime breeding ground for crime. And if you take this argument out to its logical conclusion, it gets really scary: OK, if it's not poverty, and whole communities of color and inner-city neighborhoods are riddled with crime. So why is crime more prevalent there than in other communities? Be very afraid if your answer is because, well, they're black (or another stereotype). That so makes more sense than poverty (and the accompanying lack of opportunity and networks). Not.

Inversely, there needs to be some discussion and meeting of the minds to compell a woman to not abort a child if the child's father wants the baby.

I agree, Right, that that is an important question. It's hard one in today's climate of male irresponsibility that you describe. It kind of rings hollow to make that a higher concern, though, than whether a man takes responsibility for the pregnancy in the first place. I suspect it's one we won't much progress on until we change the "boys will be boys" societal culture. That is, let's go after the societal protections of men who shirk their irresponsibility at least as hard as pressure women in these situations. If we can make change in this area, and get men to behave better, we're going to see a lot few unwanted pregnancies. That would be a great start. And, frankly, targeting women who get pregnant and cannot afford to have the unwanted children is simply not going to work in this country without that kind of equality.

And I don't see that equality happening. Too many men want the cake and the pie, too. personally, I know many, er, "prolife" men who have paid for abortions for women they've impregnated. We could probably compile a long list of them right here in the state that we all know if we wanted to. Hypocrisy reigns on this issue. What's that old feminist saying: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Correlation - "a statistical relation between two or more variables such that systematic changes in the value of one variable are accompanied by systematic changes in the other"

I had to...

I think what's being implied and pondered is:
- if poverty is reduced are violent crimes reduced?
- if poverty is reduced are the chances of "unwanted children" reduced?

In other words, the correlation between "x" (poverty) and "y" (variables) exists statistically... Does reducing/changing x on a statistcal level influence y? If so, is it beneficial to society and does it theoretically reduce abortion, crimes, etc?

Association is not cause (you are correct) but association can predictably cause certain outcomes. Why trivialize speculation or theories or statistical analysis involving the assocations of variables and what might cause them? I guess you're opposed to theoretical physics, theology, and theoretical mathematics as well? Theories and relationships between variables have led to so much understanding of the universe.

Poverty does not cause crime, abortion, etc... But it is a key variable in the equation.

BTW, Proud, I couldn't agree with you more on the following statement: "I think the legal penalties for men who do not support children they have created, in or out of wedlock, need to be ratcheted up to a much higher levels of pain."

Well said!

I also agree that if the male wants to have a baby and the female does not, there should be some form of protection for his rights. I'm not sure that exists and is probably based on the whole "sowing seeds" concept that permeates society regarding males. The decision was between both parents to act on their sexual urges and the decision should be a dialog with legal protections rather than solely resting in the female's hands if she does not want the pregnancy.

I really don't understand why you feel it is necessary to continually trot out your credentials as one who escaped proverty. As if that is some type of badge which adds more credibility to your argument. Geez, doesn't that fit one of Phillip's fallacies? I'd be willing to bet that my humble beginnings were equally, or maybe even more, impoverished than yours but I also don't believe that makes any position I hold superior to your own.

The argument that one lives in poverty and such a condition causes one, of free will, to knowingly break a given law in our society is bunk. A prime breeding ground points to a heightened statistical prevalence but that still does not equal a causal link.

I not a conservative looking away from actual bonafide scientific evidence because it doesn't fit my preconceived notion of how things should be. For someone who disdains the tags that people assign to you, you sure are quick to tag, classify and categorize.

When you find a study that points to someone living in poverty, or any financial strata for that matter, of free will, and full well knowing that a given action is against the law, and that the very fact of their financial condition is the cause that compelled them to pick up a weapon, for instance, and rob a local retailer, then let me know.

You are still dealing with associational data, not causation.

association can predictably cause certain outcomes.

Predictably cause? Nah. Associational data can consistently predict certain outcomes but not cause them.

Why trivialize speculation or theories or statistical analysis involving the assocations of variables and what might cause them?

I'm not trivializing anything. What I am opposed to is bad science, bad social science, and the abuse of associational data to lead anyone to believe the link is causal. Its a ploy used all too often by individuals and groups who not only know better, meaning they are not ignorantly or innocently blurring the lines between the two, but also are doing it purposefully to mislead.

I'll give you an example right here in Mississippi. (And I'll tell you up front that I'm picking on former AG Mike Moore because I can't stand him as a politician but my example is still valid. I don't know him personally.) Anyways, his no smoking advocacy group is extremely quick to point out that they've spent some $x millions of dollars since their inception educating the children of Mississippi about the dangers of smoking. Okay, fair enough. But then they go on to say that smoking rates amongst this same population, as measured, have dropped by y% over some defined period of time. End of message. They knowingly are abusing associational data to lead the general un-knowing populace to conclude that their group spends $x on education and delivers y% in smoking decreases. Its not an ignorant or innocent blur, its purposeful, wrong and long term leads to a general mistrust of valid science because the public becomes so jaded and unable to sift good statistics from bad.

Poverty does not cause crime, abortion, etc... But it is a key variable in the equation.

I agree with this statement.

"Trot out"? That's funny, and a bit offensive. And I think you'll find that reacting to my statements in such a way is the fallacy list as well. We're burning it up today. ;-)

I talk about living in poverty, because I DID, at least for a good chunk of my upbringing. That's called a real-life example. I'm sorry if that bothers you, Right, but I believe that drawing on our personal experiences and something we know about is a whole lot more thought-provoking than, well, downplaying the role of poverty in crime without any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, or to simply state as fact: "If poverty caused crime then all we would have to do is incarcerate anyone living below the defined poverty line."

However, I will add that a lot of people seem to want to do just that.

Proud, I have to address your use of "free will." Sorry if this diverges from the topic too much. By free will, I assume you mean the ability to determine self and action with no external cause?

But certain external actions and variables can literally cause the human to lose their own capabilities and act in fits of rage or madness or simply have their decisions altered by them. Further, science proves that humans can be influenced by medication, electrostimulation, and many other factors including things like the moon's cycles...

Does someone under the influence of depressants and with little inhibition, have the same capability of free will decisions as a clear-minded person? At what point does someone have a clear mind? Did external variables (bullying, poverty, hunger, death, etc) influence the wiring of the brain and alter the ability to make "proper" decisions?

I firmly believe that experience wires the mind, body and spirit in ways and can lead a "free willed" person to make decisions based on those experiences (is experience a cause?).

Also, it's important to ponder when "free will" begins? Do children truly have free will? Most children make their decisions based on consequence directly tied to their parents. During those years, is a child hardwired with certain patterns (yes) and influenced to think (consume and process data) in certain ways (yes). Does this control logic patterns in future decision making? Yes.

Does one truly have free will when external factors shape everything about them including logic? I will testify that enlightenment and self-awareness are possible but that's rather hard to do when being beat up by the system, victimized, or treated as a second-class citizen. Further, self-awareness/enlightenment takes years to achieve and literally involves re-hardwiring your logic and basic views on your self and the world around you. It's an act of "free will" or, possibly, survival but is not instant (much like counselling and self-help).

Back to my core issue with your free will statement... You'll find it impossible to find studies regarding free will. Has anyone actually proven free will exists? It's an imaginary/theoretical variable that can be used to invalidate or validate an outcome...

Just because I FEEL I decide something and make a decision does not erase the external (including physiological) causes that lead to the action and conclusion.

The brain is far too complex to drop all weight on "free will." Most people get this and try to take related, external factors into account... Correlation and association...

Most of my questions are rhetorical (no need to answer). For me, it's faulty to use free will in an argument when our entire brain and logical process is wired by external influence and stimuli from approximately the end of the first trimester until death.

When I was at Ole Miss i had an assignment in a speech class to present a speech on Capital Punishment. Being a south Mississippi product I was for Capital Punishment. I went to the library and the books on the subject were all against it. It gave the example of in England where it was a Capital offence to pick someone's pocket most of the pockets were picked when the people were looking up at the hanged body. I don't think there has ever been evidence that is is a deterrance and the way the law is now it costs way too much. It cost more to get the deth sentence than to house the prisioner for life. Then you also open up the chance for a mistake........john

Knol, by the way, thanks for the posting about correlation. Being that I'm the only one, other than Right, who used the word "causation" in the discussion of povery and crime, I am perfectly willing to replace my phrase "causal link" with "correlation" above to be as accurate as possible. I don't buy the argument that because A causes B that it means it does in every case (smoking-lung cancer comes to mind); however, I'm happy to leave the parsing of the word "cause" to the actual experts. But the definition of "corellation" that you provided suits my argument just fine. Much research, and common sense, indicates a strong correlation between poverty and crime, and I've never heard a convincing argument otherwise. Of course, that doesn't mean that's the only factor that leads to crime, but it's a biggie.

BTW, I was not excusing people's actions. I do firmly believe decisions lead to action/inaction and to consequence/result. I also believe people should be held accountable for their actions but the variables that help lead to those actions should be heavily considered in the specific case (and speculated for preventative measures in the future).

Your points are good. There is no real research that shows that the death penalty deters crime, and a whole lot that shows that it doesn't. And Philip's point is probably the most poignant: a primary reason to be against the death penalty is the serious risk that the government will murder an innocent person. It's happened already, probably more times than we'll ever know.

It's quite remarkable to me that a society that has so little faith in the judge-jury system (remember Wyatt Emmerich's editorial we quoted this week) could turn around and be absolutely confident that the death penalty is such a good idea. That boggles my mind.

Good point, Knol. I do, too. It is infuriating that people try to say that people who are opposed to the death penalty (or whatever) are, therefore, some namby-pamdy liberal against apprehending and prosecuting criminals.

Talk about one big, fat, dumb-ass logical fallacy.

No, Justin, that is not the only question, although it is certainly an important one to consider and discuss. But it is one of a laundry lists of important questions about this issue, which other folks are attempting to discuss here, and which the courts have been willing to consider as well. If it were the only question, for instance, then the death penalty question would be just as simple as you're trying to frame the aboriton question, which it is not, either.

True ladd, but it is the fundamental moral question: whether the act of abortion is morally permissable. There is also the public policy question, which has moral implications: is it right to pass a law prohibiting or condoning the act of abortion. This question involves the things you refered to in your original post such as poverty, inadaquete education and drug abuse. It seems to me, however, that we cannot fully address the public policy question until the moral question is answered; it is the center of the public policy disagreement.

I don't agree, Justin. I believe it is *a* fundamental moral question. But there are others that jostle along side that one, as there always are with the question of "killing" -- whether war, the death penalty or abortion.

Such as: Is the act of abortion "morally permissible," to use your phrase," if the child is likely to be very ill or deformed?

Is the act of abortion "morally permissible" in the case of rape or incest?

Is the act of abortion "morally permissible" to save the life of the mother?

Is the act of abortion "morally permissible" if it is highly likely that the unwanted child will grow up in poverty with few resources, perhaps in a family that is already heavily involved in crime and/or on the public dole?

And my favoriate: Does the morality of the act of abortion trump the morality of forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world? Does it trump the need for the public then to take care of the child?

It seems *very clear* to me that if society is going to force unwanted children into the world, then society has the responsibility to take care of that child until they are old enough to take care of themselves, if their parents cannot do so. The morality of that responsibility seems very clear to me.

That's why I keep harping on the catchphrase "unborn child." I want to point out that some people are making a distinction betwen "born" and "unborn" children -- arguing, rather nonsensically in my view, that society is responsible for the safety of "unborn" children, but not for "born" children. I just don't think you can have it both ways.

I'd also suggest that the moment that society realizes that it will need to criminally prosecute men who do not marry the women they impregnate, or who pay for a woman to get an abortion (back alley or legal), then the glow of this whole abortion debate will probably start to pale a bit (at least for those only concerned with "unborn" children). It will also fade a bit, I suspect, when the public has to start paying a whole lot more money to take care of and educate more children. Then you come up with more fundamental moral questions, like:

Would Haley Barbour change his mind about raising taxes to pay to help bring unwanted children into the world and then take care of them?

Most people just don't always understand what they're asking for--the typical problem with wedge issues, which are used to incite ideological fervor. Personally, I say we face reality and do everything we can to lessen the demand for abortion -- which includes fighting poverty; the fact that many folks don't want to acknowledge is that many women get abortions because they cannot *afford* to have a child *they want,* whether or not the sperm-provider bolted. The fact that the rate of abortion has gone up during the Bush administration doesn't make this point less convincing.

Oh, and don't forget that many of the women who choose to, say drop out of law school (to go back to what got bluedog going earlier) and then must go on the public dole in order to raise the children alone are then often disparaged and picked on as "welfare mothers" that the public resents helping (especially if they are non-white).

I'm thinking a whole lot of people are trying to have it both ways and refusing to look at the big picture. Meantime, young women are damned if they do and damned if they don't, while in too many cases, the boys are off, well, being boys and living down to the bigotry of low expectations that our society hoists on our men.

may I say I have not read all these posts, but am glad to see so many
and will read all soon..

did sort of stop at "makes me sick someone would think law school
is.. important. " and ' my hormonal daughter.'

excuse me , who has the hormones. .. ?

women should have a child when they want to have a child, when
they are for sure able to love them and take care of them.
because, sorry , it's the mother that matters.

Ladd: Why don't we make it a crime to have sex outside of wedlock, period? I'm sure we could come up with a category to put that in: "attempted unwanted pregnancy" perhaps?

Philip: Funny you should bring it up, because a few years ago, Georgia did have a law against having sex out of wedlock. The State Supreme Court struck it down due to a case of a teenage boy getting hauled before the judge by his girlfriend's parents. Fortunately, the judge merely sentenced him to write an essay about why he shouldn't have sex out of wedlock (the judge seemed constrain to dispense some kind of penalty, so the judge apparently chose the least severe penalty by stretching the meaning of "penalty" to its breaking point. Give him or her credit for having some kind of brain between his or her ears).

Anyway, the case, as I said, did get all the way to the state supreme court. With the ACLUs help, the law was overturned.

As usual, I'm with the ACLU. ;-) Thanks for the anecdote, Philip.

I'll post my comments on abortion, crime, poverty, etc next. First, I want to lay some background; especially since correlation/causation now a "sort of" topic.

Here's my 2 cents via an admittedly long-winded example. The point is that there are MANY factors that dictate behavior of individuals - including will-power and one's authentic personality. As a relatively non-hot button proxy, I offer as as my example subscription rates for various magazines (and hence a large part of human behavior; reading habits are a reasonably good reflection of who a person is). Consider how this comments apply to the poverty, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, crime, etc. issues discussed throughout this page.

START EXAMPLE

A correlates with B. Suppose A and B are as follows

A = the % of people 25 years old or older with at least a bachelors degree.

B = Subscriptions to, say, The New Yorker, Scientific American, or any other popular but brainy publication you find on a magazine rack.

That A would correlate strongly with B is obvious. The real issue here is "Does A directly cause B? Or does B directly cause A?"

Anyone who has browsed through the magazines (the latter I do buy fairly often, though I'm not a subscriber) will instantly know the vocabulary and concepts in its articles are pretty advanced for a non-professional - to the point where it's very reasonable to assume that the % of subscribers with less than a college degree is exceptionally low. Does that mean we can just up and say "A causes B. End of Story"? NO!

B could (but not necessarily) indirectly cause A, since communities with high % its adults with college degrees tend to increase the odds that any one person will likewise develop interests in such topics expounded upon in the magazines (esp if they are children and young adults). I'm sure you can see the potential circular causation (i.e. virtuous cycle) present.

There's one more basic possibility: "Both A and B may correlate together, but it may actually be there is an underlying C that is causing both A and B to happen at the same place". Is this actually the case with the magazines? To make a long story short, there are MANY factors that cause this to be the case. Suffice to say that the metros education attainment rates among 25+ year olds does not adequately explain subscription rates to so-called ìbrainyî popular magazines. You can no doubt think of many other factors yourself.

Now if such a tangled web of factors can predispose a community or individual to subscribe to certain magazines -- then can we not say the same thing about the various issues we've discussed on this board?

Proud/Right: Geez, doesn't that fit one of Phillip's fallacies?

Philip: Which of my statements do you consider a fallacy?

As for poverty /crime / out-of-wedlock pregnancy. NOBODY says thereís an exact 1-to-1 correspondance between poverty and these social ills. However, poverty does cause mental stress so that, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, it does increase the probability the person will commit crime, give birth out of wedlock, desire abortions, etc.

So what ìother thingsî being equal do I speak of? The following is not an exhaustive list.

FACTORS EXTERNAL TO THE PERSON

*physical violence present in the home
*physical violence present in the workplace, schools, or other places and facilities where lots of non-household members gather together
*physical violence present on the highways/streets (including run of the mill ìroad rageî)
*levels of psychological bullying in all the above

FACTORS INTERNAL TO THE PERSON

*the diet of the person
*brainís architecture and ìhard wiringî due to lifeís personal experiences
*the intrinsic intelligence of the person
*how well-traveled or well-read the person is (and to what places and what books he or she read besides)

Last on this list, but CERTAINLY not least

*the level of psychopathy the person has or experiences; and I mean the clinical, not the popular, definition and criteria for the term.

The Australian ABC radio apparently had an excellentprogram about psychopathy (clinical definition) running amok. The transcript to the program Psychopaths in Suits is at both these links. Donna, this one time, I will dare to presume what you ought to do for a cover story for sometime in 2005. This one is IT, I tell you! Suffice to say that this is not only a human issue, itís a business/ financial/ economic issue as well. The scary thing about it is that most people arenít even aware of just how broad either the actual definition or the criteria of ìpsychopathî are.

Ladd wrote:
Such as: Is the act of abortion "morally permissible," to use your phrase," if the child is likely to be very ill or deformed?

Is the act of abortion "morally permissible" in the case of rape or incest?

Is the act of abortion "morally permissible" to save the life of the mother?

Is the act of abortion "morally permissible" if it is highly likely that the unwanted child will grow up in poverty with few resources, perhaps in a family that is already heavily involved in crime and/or on the public dole?

But we can't answer these question unless we've first come to some conclusion about the moral status of a fetus. If a fetus is not a person, does not have any right to life, then it would be okay to abort it in the case of deformity, in the case of rape or incest, and when the child is unwanted and would grow up in poverty; in fact, it probably be wrong not to. But if a fetus is a person like you and I, and has a moral right to life, then these questions become much more problematic.

BTW, I use the term "morally permissable" because it is less vague and subject to misinterpretation than phrases like "right" and "wrong."

ut we can't answer these question unless we've first come to some conclusion about the moral status of a fetus.

I'm still not buying it, Justin. If the prevailing question were that one, we have to be consistent as a society. That is, the first question in a death penalty, or a war, discussion would be about the moral status of the people being killed -- BEFORE considering the other factors (such as they committed a crime, or more than 100,000 have been killed in the pursuit of Democracy). We don't do that as a society, though, at least not an American society -- so it certainly does not make sense to me to ask that question about a fetus WITHOUT OR BEFORE considering the other moral questions at the same time. That seems like some serious selective moral reasoning.

And, thanks, Philip, for all the info about causation/correlation. It's quite helpful in the poverty discussion.

If the prevailing question were that one, we have to be consistent as a society. That is, the first question in a death penalty, or a war, discussion would be about the moral status of the people being killed -- BEFORE considering the other factors (such as they committed a crime, or more than 100,000 have been killed in the pursuit of Democracy). We don't do that as a society, though, at least not an American society

The situtions are not analogous. We have come to some consensus as a society that all adult human beings have a moral right to life. We justify the death penalty and war (rightly or wrongly) by saying that the persons beings killed have forfeited that right with some action (committing a capital crime in the case of the death penalty; I'm really not sure in the case of war, WMD?)

so it certainly does not make sense to me to ask that question about a fetus WITHOUT OR BEFORE considering the other moral questions at the same time. That seems like some serious selective moral reasoning.

You don't have to ask that question "without or before" considering other questions, you're just not likely to come to any agreement on the abortion public policy issue with other people until you do. You talk about unwanted children, drug abuse and the cycle of poverty, and preventing this is an admirable social goal. Taking human life, however, is not an acceptable means to achieve this goal. So, if someone believes that a fetus is a person with a right to life, your arguments are not likely to be convincing. If a fetus is not a person, then using abortion to prevent other social and moral problems seems permissible. Do you see the problem? My main point, which I guess was not clear, was that we, as a society, are not going to reach any consensus on the political abortion issue until people thoroughly discuss the moral question, which is too often muddled up with religious talk and political pandering. But I do believe that there are two independent issues, the moral question (is the act of abortion morally permissible) and the political question (should we pass a law prohibiting/condoning abortion). One could believe that the act of abortion is wrong, but that it is also wrong pass a law making it illegal.

We have come to some consensus as a society that all adult human beings have a moral right to life. We justify the death penalty and war (rightly or wrongly) by saying that the persons beings killed have forfeited that right with some action (committing a capital crime in the case of the death penalty; I'm really not sure in the case of war, WMD?)

But, wait. You're making my point. Yes, we have decided that "all adult human beings have a moral right to life" UNLESS or EXCEPT when they commit certain crimes, get in the way of friendly fire, become collateral damage, and so on. We are considering those questions at the same time. We are accepting (as you say, rightly or wrongly) that there are moral/societal caveats to the initial "moral" question. But in the case of a "fetus" (I appreciate that you're not saying "unborn child"), you seem to be arguing that we cannot consider other moral questions such as who will take care of the, whether a woman can be forced to have a child, how many butcher abortions will occur, how society will pay for their care, etc. Why in the world can we not consider the various moral questions at the same time? We *do* consider a wider spectrum of competing moral questions with the death penalty and war -- it is analagous, at least in that sense.

I'm not saying that everyone in society will ever agree on this question. They don't have to. However, those making public policy and judicial decisions must be able to consider the whole equation, as they have wisely done to date. I agree that the political question should be separate -- that's a big part of the point I'm making about people who demonstrate more concern for "unborn children" than for "born children." That's pure politics, or some very interesting morality.

Yes, we have decided that "all adult human beings have a moral right to life" UNLESS or EXCEPT when they commit certain crimes, get in the way of friendly fire, become collateral damage, and so on. We are considering those questions at the same time.

But, we're really not. We all agree that adult human beings have a presumptive right to life, absent some intervening action. That is, no one justifies the death penalty by saying that the thing on death row is not a person and does not have a right to life. We say say that this human being forfeited their right to life by committing some action. In the case of abortion, people do argue that abortion is permissible because a fetus is not a person. A fetus has not committed any action to forfeit this right.

Anyway, I think we could probably drop this one; it doesn't seem like we are disgreeing over too much.

as usual, I am too tired to read all these posts, but will over the weekend.
so good to see people Thinking about this issue, instead of,
well , calling others 'hormonal.' Thinking and Writing ,
yeah. this is as good a discussion as I've seen anywhere. It's , imho, an issue more difficult to wrangle than social security or same sex unions.
(ok, social security is way easy, it's already almost a dead deal.)

and when someone somewhere above as I recall mentioned 'criminal' etc.
well, it took me aback there. but hey, let's carry on. we are intellingent
folks here, and I love it.