Shotgun

I don't believe that it is any of my business how a woman views a fetus. Her business, hers alone. Not anyone else's, including senators, congresspersons, the pope... Do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion at any point in the pregnancy, even a week before the baby is due? Without any reason other than she wants the thing out of her body and doesn't want it to remain alive? Until she DELIVERS a baby, what is inside her is her business and not mine or society's at large. I find it amazing that anyone can see the abortion issue as being that simple. Whether it's this point of view or the opposite (someone who believes abortion should never be allowed).

I don't believe that it is any of my business how a woman views a fetus. Her business, hers alone. Not anyone else's, including senators, congresspersons, the pope... Do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion at any point in the pregnancy, even a week before the baby is due? Without any reason other than she wants the thing out of her body and doesn't want it to remain alive?

From previous abortion discussions on here, I think there are a number of people who consider a fetus to be more similar to a tumor than to a "potential child." And, of course, those people also seem to think the abortion issue is pretty simple. ("Don't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Case closed.")

For the most part, I agree. I am pro-choice, though my reasons are more complicated than not wanting men to tell me what to do with my vagina. I think taking the discussion in that direction only puts up a barrier to authentic discussion on the issue. And in the scenario I made up, she likely wouldn't have had the choice to have that abortion. I think it would have been banned in most states. And in the states where it's not banned, I would hope most doctors would refuse to perform that particular abortion. Someone mentioned that the doctor should not be part of the decision, but I think they are in that they should be able to refuse an abortion in certain situations.

Oh, OK. So now it's a kid, not just a woman's body.

Why would you win almost everything in court? It was just a medical procedure that she had done to her body. None of your business and no harm done to you.

Hypothetical situation: You're happily married, both of you wanting to have children. Your wife gets pregnant, and you're both very excited about it. Everything's going along fine, the unborn baby appears perfectly healthy, you've painted the baby room and bought all the baby stuff, etc. Around seven months pregnant, she decides she doesn't want a baby, so she goes and has an abortion without even discussing it with you. No problem here? It was her body and none of your business what she chose to do with it? (I realize I'm using an unlikely scenario, but I'm just curious if you truly feel that a man's opinion on abortion should never matter.)

He wrote a book. I don't think he was writing it from the perspective that it would one day be the "autobiography" of a U.S. President.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I haven't read it. Though I know a few people who really like that book despite the controversy. This thread made me pull Obama's book off the shelf and re-read the introduction. I'm not going to type the whole thing (maybe it's on Amazon?), but here are a couple of quotes: (This was published in 1995.) "The result is autobiographical, although whenever someone's asked me over the course of these last three years just what the book is about, I've usually avoided such a description. An autobiography promises feats of worthy record, conversations with famous people, a central role in important events. There is none of that here." "Finally, there are the dangers inherent in any autobiographical work: the temptation to color events in ways favorable to the writer . . . selective lapses of memory. Such hazards are only magnified when the writer lacks the wisdom of age . . . I can't say that I've avoided all, or any, of these hazards successfully. Although much of this book is based on contemporaneous journals or the oral histories of my family, the dialogue is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me. For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy." (emphasis mine) Anyhow, this book had nothing to do with my voting for him or whether I will vote for him again in November. But it appears that he was up front about the composites and such when the book was first published. Not such shocking news of deception after all.

I think slavery is a moral issue above being a political issue. But yeah, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with religion.

There's a label for that too: it's apatheism. Someone else would have to do the labelling there. The truly apathetic person would be too apathetic to label himself. And yes, it seems impossible to have a good classification system. If someone wants to know about my religious/spiritual beliefs, I'd rather discuss specific topics than say, "I'm an atheist," and let them read into that whatever particular generalization they've formed. (At least, this is how I feel now, after years of calling myself an atheist.)

Hey, go for it! But I tend to buy used books or check them out from the library, so you're not likely to make much money from people like me. And good luck on passing the moon landing and McGangBang as "artistic license" in your memoir.

Not really. Many authors write memoirs without already being famous. I've read several books from Augusten Burroughs, and they are all memoirs. If you're a good writer and have an interesting story to tell, it makes sense to write about your own life. With Burroughs, he writes about the crazy family he grew up in, and then later about his life as a gay alcoholic. Obama wrote about his own struggles, and also has an interesting story to tell. I read a lot of autobiographical stuff, and I generally assume that the author is going to take some artistic license. I also assume that no one remembers his/her own life exactly as it happened.

So just say this. No need to label yourself in regard to something that you don't care about. The religious argument gets particularly boring when it turns into a semantics argument about the various labels.

Well, that's good to know.

Isn't it stoopid early in the season? I bet these prices are high compared to what they'll come down when corn's a plenty. I thought 4 for $1 sounded cheap! I guess I've been living in California for so long, I've gotten used to everything being so expensive. Everything except for booze costs a lot more than it did in Texas. Oh, and the garbage can thing? I don't think I've ever seen a garbage can next to the corn. Nor have I ever seen anyone shucking their corn in the store.

Try showing your penis to some unsuspecting lady on the street, and see if she tells you what to do with it. I think there may be a few laws about what can't be done with a penis. Anyhow, I'm pro-choice. But if pro-choicers can't admit that there is more to the entire topic of abortion than just messing around with a woman's vagina, then it's not possible to have a rational discussion about it. (And the same can be said for a pro-lifer who tries to equate a morning-after pill with killing a toddler.)

After hearing more of the story, I'm glad to hear the father wasn't charged with anything. What a horrible experience for him and his daughter, and the rest of their family.

Man, that's bad news for the Greyhounds! But at least the Dachshunds won't need to be concerned.

So, what's your problem with taking the words in the context intended as opposed to creating drama about other definitions and context? Is that another one of those "you're screwy because you used words having definitions and context that I don't prefer?" I'm guessing that you just randomly comment without paying attention to the conversation going on.

Well, if you would derive great pleasure from seeing him raped 2000 times, then yeah, you might have a sadistic streak. Or perhaps it is just vengeful . . . Do you feel that you know beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of all the charges he is accused of?

Don't you ever grow weary of compromise? Sometimes. Though I'm not sure why you're asking me that.

I don't think he was trying to diagnose you. When most people use the word "delusional," they are using the dictionary definition, not the DSM-IV criteria. And I think the dictionary definition worked just fine for what he was trying to say, even if it wasn't a very nice thing to say. I suppose you think I should just forget my formal education and life experience and just roll over. I am not willing to do that. What a silly thing to say. No, I don't think that. But just because you learned a psychology term in school, that doesn't take away the fact that there are other definitions for the word (which are more commonly used).

Prison is a very real thing that exists today, with plenty of people who have been there to say what it's like. Not a good analogy to what happens after death. But yeah, since I already know enough to know I don't want to go there, your advice to not go there would be meaningless to me.

And that's just your own perception . . . Both sides can be defensive; neither has the monopoly. And it's not attractive from either one.