|
|
Post by franko on Jul 18, 2004 21:07:21 GMT -5
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! This thread may be controversial, challenging, provacative, incendiary and just downright infuriating should anyone read the book. Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan discusses the Paris peace talks that followed WWI and the attempt to reshape the European continent in effort to ensure no future wars (ya, right). 500 fascinating pages.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2004 21:17:47 GMT -5
I read it and I loved it. I actually bought it. Just for the excellent maps it's good.
It's interesting how you have the French who are deeply worried about Germany (more Germans than Frenchmen and more developped industrially), the British who are idealists, and the Americans who think they can save the world, with President Wilson having the best intentions but being such a political innocent..... and the greedy Italians and Greeks.
Essentially, wwi wasn't bad enough for everyone to realise that war is never a good call.... too many of the victors still thought in terms of "victors' spoils" and that set things up for wwii.
But looking back on that era, it's tough to see any kind of a perfect solution. There were intermixed ethnic groups all over the place, and tons of areas were claimed by multiple countries.... The settlement that was reached, for all its faults, was actually decent enough.
One thing that strikes me is how Kuwait is never mentionned, though I'm pretty sure it was stripped off of Iraq later on.... it's as if the author didn't want to mention it. After all, that would be backing Saddam's case that Kuwait was just an Iraqi province all along...
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 19, 2004 6:39:13 GMT -5
the Americans who think they can save the world, with President Wilson having the best intentions but being such a political innocent Some things never change! I was taken by the statement (refering to President Woodrow Wilson): Even established facts were ignored if they did not fit in with [his] intuitive sense, [his] semi-divine power to select the right. Interesting how times haven't changed; also how the US was/is vilified for not stepping in quickly enough when there is a problem, and then for stepping in and thinking it can be the kindly big brother who can help make things right. But looking back on that era, it's tough to see any kind of a perfect solution. There were intermixed ethnic groups all over the place, and tons of areas were claimed by multiple countries.... The settlement that was reached, for all its faults, was actually decent enough. I don't know if there was any solution that would have satisfied everyone. The compromises reached were difficult enough. And what can be said about the Baltic states? "Put 'em all together -- they're all the same . . . kind of" certainly didn't work over the long term. But is what happened in the 90s a better solution? Pretty soon it may return to city-states! One thing that strikes me is how Kuwait is never mentionned, though I'm pretty sure it was stripped off of Iraq later on.... it's as if the author didn't want to mention it. After all, that would be backing Saddam's case that Kuwait was just an Iraqi province all along... Look to the maps: Kuwait is an independent country before Iran was created ut of Mesopotamia (1916) and retained its independence after the war. More likely would hav been the claim that Kuwait, having been in existence longer, should be given part of Iraq! |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 19, 2004 7:59:57 GMT -5
And what can be said about the Baltic states? "Put 'em all together -- they're all the same . . . kind of" certainly didn't work over the long term. But is what happened in the 90s a better solution? Pretty soon it may return to city-states! Ahem. The Baltic states are as distinct historically, culturally and linguistically as can be. I shall quote from posts I made in another forum, and then hold my peace. * Estonian is indeed related to Finnish. We are cousin languages with enormous similarities in our lexicons. Estonian, Finnish and Magyar (Hungarian) are all related. They are Finno-Ugric languages, i.e. non-Indo-European, and thus have no shared ancestry with Slavic languages to the East and South or to Teutonic/Nordic and Romance languages to the West. The Finno-Ugric peoples originally inhabited what is now called Korea. Over centuries, millenia ago, they migrated north and then west across Siberia, and then south through Finland, across the water through Estonia, and finally had their advance stopped by the southern Slavs in what is now called Hungary. I could go on, but I think this suffices... * Oh dear, I was hoping I wouldn't have to mention the Turks... Anyway, history aside, we are here now, and hopefully do not repeat or contribute to a repitition of past blunders. Estonians, and I think this is some culturally self-promoting propaganda, are supposed to be natural-born linguists. What, with the language having been described as "bird-song given human voice". It is, however a devilishly difficult tongue to learn, some say as hard as Chinese or Japanese for a Westerner. Nonetheless, everything is pronounced as written, unlike English, where... Btw, with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire Estonia passed its own version of la loi 101, which of course has made things difficult for many Russians who settled there during the good old days. To quote you-know-who: "Human beings, what a concept!" P.S. Christianity wasn't hammered into us until the 15th-16th centuries. We still celebrate our traditional holy days. * She (maternal grandmother) was born into a family that had been resident in St Petersburg shortly after Catherine's reign. More about the city's origins here: www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/history_culture/history/catherine.htmlMy paternal grandfather was a native Estonian, an architect and engineer by profession, who was commissioned by Tsar Nikolai to help survey the route for the trans-Siberian railroad. My father's side were native Estonian kulaks (well-to-do farmers). His father was a political activist advocating Estonian self-determination. My father, at the age of 17, witnessed the Red Army murdering his entire family by firing squad when he returned from a day's work in the fields. He fled and joined the partisans in the woods, who sniped equally at the Germans and Russians who were trespassing on his native land. He and a couple of buddies escaped in rowboat, and were halfway across the Baltic Sea to Finland before they were captured by a Soviet patrol. They thought it was curtains then and there. But as irony would have it he was imprisoned in Tallinn's (capitol city of Estonia) swankiest hotel, which the Soviets had commandeered. A hotel that his, at the time unknown, future father-in-law had designed. Irony. And yeah, he never did finish high school. * Estonia was ruled by Sweden from 1561-1710. My real family name is Hendriksson, but during a brief period of Estonian independence at the beginning of the 20thC the name was changed to fit in more easily into the nationalistic fervour that swept the country. There are no silent letters in Estonian words. Double vowels are sounded twice as long as single vowels. For instance, in the Finnish name Teemu (incidentally the letter "e" is pronounced as in "Ted", and not as in "tee"). here is a source on the Estonian alphabet and its pronounciation: www.ibs.ee/ibs/estonian/alphabet/* The solution for Estonia has been, is, and always will be independence. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 19, 2004 10:33:55 GMT -5
DOH!
I can't believe I typed Baltic States -- where was my mind?
I actually was refering to the Balkan States, particularly the uniting and dismantling of Yugoslavia and the problems of lumping everyone together without acceptance or realization of the diferences in culture in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro , Macedonia, Bosnia, etc.
Sorry.
As an aside, Al: do you have much to do with the Estonian community in TO?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jul 19, 2004 12:10:36 GMT -5
DOH!I can't believe I typed Baltic States -- where was my mind? I actually was refering to the Bal kan States, particularly the uniting and dismantling of Yugoslavia and the problems of lumping everyone together without acceptance or realization of the diferences in culture in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro , Macedonia, Bosnia, etc. actually, the idea of the unification of the southern Slavs (except the Bulgarians) into one country has been entertained long before 1918. but it became increasingly popular during the WWI in which these nations found themselves fighting on the opposite sides. at the very beginning of the WWI, in 1914., the parliament of the Kingdom of Serbia proclaimed that its goal is "to free and unite all the Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian brothers. the Declaration of Corfu, in 1917., was the first formal and legal act that captured the idea of the unified nation. the principal thought behind the idea was that the new country would be strong enough to resist the imperialistic tendencies of other eurpean powers, most notably Italy, Turkey and Austria. when the WWI ended and the Austro-Hungarian Empire also came to an end, the time was ripe to follow through with that idea. the name of the new country was, as decided in Corfu, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovens. the sovereign was the Serbian King and although a parliament existed and parties were alowed, the King actually hold all the power. he had the power to veto all legal acts passed by the parliament and also the right to appoint judges and governers of the counties. the biggest problems came from the fact that Serbs wanted the state to be centralized while the other nations wanted a decentralized, federal state. this was especially true for the Slovenians and Croats who's economy was by far more developed than those of other nations so the money taxed in Slovenia and Croatia was being transferred to Belgrade (Serbia) and distributed mostly in Serbia and partly in Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia. OTOH, very little was returned to the place where the money was earned in the first place. there was also the matter of oppressing those who wished to express their national identity after being oppressed for centuries by different european powers. the King and the mostly serbian government wanted to force the idea of "one (yugoslav) nation in one state" (the constitution treated Serbs, Croats and Slovenians as one nation with three names; it didn't even mention Bosnians, Montenegrans and Macedonians) to others in which they would, of course, keep the leading role. the idea didn't sit well with other nations, especially with Slovenians and Croats who saw that as an attempt to serbianize (I don't know how else to say it in english) their national identity as they did with the Macedonians after the Balkan wars. after the shooting in the Parliament in 1928., things got worse on the political scene and in 1929. King Aleksandar decided to resolve the matters by abolishing the constitution, disbanding the parliament and banning all political parties which effectively instituted a dictatorship. that same year he also chamged the name of the country to Kingdom of Yugoslavia. the new constitution in 1931. formally brought back the parliament (which had no real political power) and allowed the work of political parties but only if their program was in line with the new constitution. the question of national identity still remained unresolved for further 60 years and it finally culminated in a bloody war. R. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2004 13:50:09 GMT -5
When you have 30 million people you get 30,000,001 different opinions.
I saw the same thing in Quebec where families and brothers took different sides in debates. The unfortunate result was polarization and intransigence.
I was in Montreal recently during the referendum where all the municipalities voted to separate from Montreal. Not just the poor or predominantly French cities, but the poor, the wealthy, Italian, English, Immigrant everyone. Some didn't get the necessary 35% (where did that come from) along with the majority vote.
I live in Orange County, a predominantly white community with a large hispanic voting block and a growing Asian population. Each city in the OC has differing views on schools, taxes, spending and social issues. Republicans and Democrats have heated debates that end up in name calling. Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a comment about "Girly men" and upsets both females and homosexuals.
We've seen Serbs and Croats and Greeks and Muslims and Christians getting along in the former Yugoslavia?
We have to recognize that people have self interest. This leads them to different points of view and of course different positions on specific issues.
Even when we support a politician, we often disagree with them on a number of issues.
I studies civics in the US and I am not at all certain of the role of a politician.
1. State your platform, let the people choose, and stick to your promises.
2. Poll the electorate and do what they want.
3. Follow your conscience.
4. Serve your local constituents interests.
5. Seek the greater good for the country.
6. Contribute to the world community.
7. Economics vs Pollution.
8. Secular vs Religeon.
9. Abortion vs womans rights.
10. Egalitarianism vs security.
11. Individual rights vs common good.
12. Pragmatism vs Idealism.
13. Minority rights vs Majority rule.
It's not surprising that we have so many disagreements in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 19, 2004 20:24:29 GMT -5
Some didn't get the necessary 35% (where did that come from) along with the majority vote. That was to avoid having cities de-merge because a small core of people were for de-merging and no one else voting |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 19, 2004 21:50:26 GMT -5
I forgot to mention this: Thanks franko for suggesting the book, and PTH for seconding his opinion - I'll pick it up for my summer break from work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 20, 2004 22:59:01 GMT -5
When you have 30 million people you get 30,000,001 different opinions. I saw the same thing in Quebec where families and brothers took different sides in debates. The unfortunate result was polarization and intransigence. I was in Montreal recently during the referendum where all the municipalities voted to separate from Montreal. Not just the poor or predominantly French cities, but the poor, the wealthy, Italian, English, Immigrant everyone. Some didn't get the necessary 35% (where did that come from) along with the majority vote. I live in Orange County, a predominantly white community with a large hispanic voting block and a growing Asian population. Each city in the OC has differing views on schools, taxes, spending and social issues. Republicans and Democrats have heated debates that end up in name calling. Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a comment about "Girly men" and upsets both females and homosexuals. We've seen Serbs and Croats and Greeks and Muslims and Christians getting along in the former Yugoslavia? We have to recognize that people have self interest. This leads them to different points of view and of course different positions on specific issues. Even when we support a politician, we often disagree with them on a number of issues. I studies civics in the US and I am not at all certain of the role of a politician. 1. State your platform, let the people choose, and stick to your promises. 2. Poll the electorate and do what they want. 3. Follow your conscience. 4. Serve your local constituents interests. 5. Seek the greater good for the country. 6. Contribute to the world community. 7. Economics vs Pollution. 8. Secular vs Religeon. 9. Abortion vs womans rights. 10. Egalitarianism vs security. 11. Individual rights vs common good. 12. Pragmatism vs Idealism. 13. Minority rights vs Majority rule. It's not surprising that we have so many disagreements in the world. Way to neat a subject to go to bed without responding to it. The politician's duty is to inform and follow his/her conscience in the service of society. Human life is ultimately a moral battleground. To be or not to be, that is the question. Good night |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 21, 2004 20:50:00 GMT -5
Way to neat a subject to go to bed without responding to it. The politician's duty is to inform and follow his/her conscience in the service of society. Human life is ultimately a moral battleground. To be or not to be, that is the question. Good night Unfortunately it's not as simple as you suggest. If your constituents favor abortion and you were elected on a platform favoring abortion and your party favors abortion, your personal conscience may have to yield to your promises and commitments and wishes of the people who elected you to carry out their wishes. Flip flopping on your promises is a sure way to get unceremoniously thrown out and your legislation overturned. If you are Catholic and the Pope is against abortion aren't you required as a representative of the people to carry out the wishes of the electorate and not your personal agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 21, 2004 21:35:14 GMT -5
Unfortunately it's not as simple as you suggest. If your constituents favor abortion and you were elected on a platform favoring abortion and your party favors abortion, your personal conscience may have to yield to your promises and commitments and wishes of the people who elected you to carry out their wishes. Flip flopping on your promises is a sure way to get unceremoniously thrown out and your legislation overturned. If you are Catholic and the Pope is against abortion aren't you required as a representative of the people to carry out the wishes of the electorate and not your personal agenda? Fortunately, it is as simple as I suggest. Coincidentally, I am completely against abortion and as a liberal supporter, were I to run as an mp it would also be as an liberal mp contender who opposes abortion. So do many liberals and more than a few NDP. You are not in the least elected to carry out the wishes of the people. People who support you do so at least to some degree on the basis of what you stand for and against. Doing anything else is a dishonour to both yourself and those who elect you. The party system necessarily entails compromise, but not on fundamental principles. You owe it to all to act within the framework of an informed conscience, not to parrot what is reported in polls or in the media which exists primarily to sell advertising space and make opinion conform to the status quo. If you are a Catholic or Jew, then be a good Catholic or Jewish politician. A great many have so done. As to the core issue, one of my very favorite sayings whose author I do not know states with complete accuracy..."There are only two types of people in the world, dogmatic people who know that they are dogmatic, and dogmatic people who don't know that they are dogmatic." Socrates obseved truthfully that if you aren't dogmatic you aren't human. People who think being dogmatic is bad hold this opinion as a part of their dogma, and they too often hold it vehemently against the very witness of their own behaviour. It's sureal....twilight zone stuff......and common. The only really interesting and important question is whether your dogma is true and worthy or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jul 21, 2004 22:13:10 GMT -5
The only really interesting and important question is whether your dogma is true and worthy or not. My dogma is that personal choice takes precedence when it does not impair the society as a whole. I fail to see how a woman's choice on whether to have a baby or have an abortion impacts the society in a negative way - societies that force women to have unwanted children inevitably cause more social ills than that decision solves. My dogma is true and worthy, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 21, 2004 22:55:53 GMT -5
Fortunately, it is as simple as I suggest. Coincidentally, I am completely against abortion and as a liberal supporter, were I to run as an mp it would also be as an liberal mp contender who opposes abortion. So do many liberals and more than a few NDP. You are not in the least elected to carry out the wishes of the people. People who support you do so at least to some degree on the basis of what you stand for and against. Doing anything else is a dishonour to both yourself and those who elect you. The party system necessarily entails compromise, but not on fundamental principles. You owe it to all to act within the framework of an informed conscience, not to parrot what is reported in polls or in the media which exists primarily to sell advertising space and make opinion conform to the status quo. If you are a Catholic or Jew, then be a good Catholic or Jewish politician. A great many have so done. As to the core issue, one of my very favorite sayings whose author I do not know states with complete accuracy..."There are only two types of people in the world, dogmatic people who know that they are dogmatic, and dogmatic people who don't know that they are dogmatic." Socrates obseved truthfully that if you aren't dogmatic you aren't human. People who think being dogmatic is bad hold this opinion as a part of their dogma, and they too often hold it vehemently against the very witness of their own behaviour. It's sureal....twilight zone stuff......and common. The only really interesting and important question is whether your dogma is true and worthy or not. Again I do not agree. An elected representative of the people has committed to a platform of many promises. It is inconcieveable that all 270 members of a political party would agree on all issues, schooling, abortion, fisheries, foreign affairs, Iraq and the Falklin Islands. Compromise and concensus building is what politics is all about in the real world. In order to garner support for fisheries in your constituency, you may have to support the partys position on schooliing (even if you personally don't agree). Refusing to cooperate with others and intransigence on all issues you personally hold dear will soon lead to failure and impotence. If you work for a company that sells software and the company chooses to discontinue a product that you feel is important, do you feel morally compelled to resign because you don't agree with managements decision. You can't insist that all things go your way without becoming ineffective. The whole concept of political parties and platforms is based on building a consensus of the greatest good for the largest number without infringing on the rights of the minorities. Insisting on your way would greatly impede progress. My personal view on abortion is that while I am philisophically against it, pragmatically,a woman has the right to choose and my position on that issue should not stop me from investing in pharmaceutical companies, voting for a particular party or attending the religeous institution of my choice. My opinion of same sex marriage shouldn't stop me from voting for leaders with whom I disagree/agree on numerous other issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 21, 2004 23:00:46 GMT -5
My dogma is that personal choice takes precedence when it does not impair the society as a whole. I fail to see how a woman's choice on whether to have a baby or have an abortion impacts the society in a negative way - societies that force women to have unwanted children inevitably cause more social ills than that decision solves. My dogma is true and worthy, thanks. Cool. Of all the intro to poli sci moral issues to whet your whistle with, abortion is certainly a sweetie. I don't really want, and I'm sure most who read this site don't really want a protracted debate on the issue on this site. For that reason I did not include any argument in my last posting, and my reference to true and worthy could apply of course to abortion but that was not in my mind. It was meant generally. I would be ok with some private debate on this most fundamental issue and with anyone as far as that goes, but it's probably not generally entertaining. I will briefly repond to what you I will be just a trifle blunt and observe that you have written in public. First. One of us is wrong. The principle of contradiction, which is fundamental to sane reasoning holds obviously that two statements referring to the same matter under the same aspect that contradict each other cannot both be correct. Both may logically be wrong, but only one can be correct in principle. One of us at least is wrong. A second and abvious fallacy (and spreading fallacies virtually always impairs societies) is that I would force anyone to have a baby. I refuse to kill a baby. I have nothing to do with this person's pregnancy. A third fallacy is the very common one that allowing another human being to be killed could possibly be a socially neutral act. You apparently hold this principle in disdain. How about other vulnerable humans? The last unsound argument holds that "unwanted children inevitably cause more social ills". I will not make light of the profound impact carrying a baby entails for people. I recommend strongly supporting people in such tough circumstances. But expand your concern to both. And of course, there is a long, long list of people dying to adopt a baby, and incidentally, most abuded kids are named "Jr." after a parent with high expectations and a mere mortal to carry them. That's enough for me. I think very few people are all that persuaded by sound reasoning and true statements. It's like arguing with people who support capital punishment. They don't really care if an innocent person is killed by a state sanctionned unjustifiable homicide. It's a value thing. If you want to continue this, I'll send you my email address. If not that's fine too. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 21, 2004 23:19:25 GMT -5
Again I do not agree. An elected representative of the people has committed to a platform of many promises. It is inconcieveable that all 270 members of a political party would agree on all issues, schooling, abortion, fisheries, foreign affairs, Iraq and the Falklin Islands. Compromise and concensus building is what politics is all about in the real world. In order to garner support for fisheries in your constituency, you may have to support the partys position on schooliing (even if you personally don't agree). Refusing to cooperate with others and intransigence on all issues you personally hold dear will soon lead to failure and impotence. If you work for a company that sells software and the company chooses to discontinue a product that you feel is important, do you feel morally compelled to resign because you don't agree with managements decision. You can't insist that all things go your way without becoming ineffective. The whole concept of political parties and platforms is based on building a consensus of the greatest good for the largest number without infringing on the rights of the minorities. Insisting on your way would greatly impede progress. My personal view on abortion is that while I am philisophically against it, pragmatically,a woman has the right to choose and my position on that issue should not stop me from investing in pharmaceutical companies, voting for a particular party or attending the religeous institution of my choice. My opinion of same sex marriage shouldn't stop me from voting for leaders with whom I disagree/agree on numerous other issues. I'm not sure I understand your point of disagreement. You are I think quite correct. No party can mirror completely one's own soul and values, and very few of us can have informed opinions on too many issues without recourse to considerable expertise from others. One must join others in common causes, but to draw a parallel with state-sanctionned homicides, the state in ordinary circumstances, (when incarceration is an option) has no right whatever to kill another human being posing no proportionate immediate threat. The state cannot create rights. It, like you and I either recognizes and upholds them which is the duty of everyone, or ignores and undermines them, therebye of course undermining the rights of all. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 23, 2004 18:05:20 GMT -5
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! 500 fascinating pages. I read it last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. I love history and the descriptions of the players involved was fascinating. BTW Franko - if you like long, historical books I recommend Franklin D. Roosevelt - Champion of Freedom by Conrad Black. I'm not finished it yet ( on page 900 of 1100) but it is probably the most complete portrait (warts and all) of FDR. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 23, 2004 21:30:28 GMT -5
BTW Franko - if you like long, historical books I recommend Franklin D. Roosevelt - Champion of Freedom by Conrad Black. Thanks -- I may just pick it up. I started out as an English major/Phys Ed minor; then went to English/History; finished English/Philosophy majors and forgot the history, but regret it. History at least has some life to it. And looking at the waste of my waist I should have stayed in PhysEd,s o I'd at least know what exercise is! As to other discussions, I along with the rest of the world am trés dogmatic -- its just that my dogma differs from other peoples'. I always laugh at those who attack the fundamentalists (which by implication means right-wing conservative nut-bars) but are probably fundamentalists (left-wing liberal nut-bars) in their own right. Self-delusion clouds perception, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 24, 2004 16:29:08 GMT -5
Thanks -- I may just pick it up. I started out as an English major/Phys Ed minor; then went to English/History; finished English/Philosophy majors and forgot the history, but regret it. History at least has some life to it. And looking at the waste of my waist I should have stayed in PhysEd,s o I'd at least know what exercise is! As to other discussions, I along with the rest of the world am trés dogmatic -- its just that my dogma differs from other peoples'. I always laugh at those who attack the fundamentalists (which by implication means right-wing conservative nut-bars) but are probably fundamentalists (left-wing liberal nut-bars) in their own right. Self-delusion clouds perception, no? Too true, and paradoxical. I don't claim immunity from it, but the axioms underlying vast seas of people's opinions can be scary. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 26, 2004 8:58:04 GMT -5
My dogma is that personal choice takes precedence when it does not impair the society as a whole. I fail to see how a woman's choice on whether to have a baby or have an abortion impacts the society in a negative way - societies that force women to have unwanted children inevitably cause more social ills than that decision solves. My dogma is true and worthy, thanks. The decision to abort a baby may not have much impact on society, but the argument goes that it does have a rather significant impact on the baby itself. Abortion is lot like the separation debate going on in the other thread – either you are for it, or you are against, and usually no amount of argument is going to change your opinion. Nonetheless, I will state that I am against abortions, and I will those who are for it, three questions: 1) Currently, in Russia, abortion is the birth control method of choice. It that were to become the case in North America, in Canada and the United States, would you be comfortable with it? If nobody used condoms, the pill, or any other birth control device, and simply had an abortion, perhaps three or four a year, would this be okay in your mind? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then there should be no problem. But the fact is, the majority of people would be uncomfortable if abortion was the primary method of birth control. If you knew a woman who had 8 abortions, what would your opinion of her be? It should be no different than the opinion you have of the woman who uses the pill. And yet, it is. That says something. 2) Currently abortions are typically performed between the 14th and the 19th week of pregnancy. Late term abortions – the kind that George Bush just tried to outlaw, much to the chagrin of the pro-choice crowd – can take place between the 20th and 24th week. Yet pre-term babies have been born in the 22nd, and 23rd weeks of pregnancy, and survived. In other words, a baby that could legally be aborted – killed, terminated, ended, pick your words – can also be medically saved. As medical technology continues to improve, undoubtedly this survival age will continue to be lowered. What happens when it becomes possible to save a 19 week old baby? Would it be legally okay to then just drop him in the trash can and be done with it? 3) If I punch a woman in the stomach, and she loses a baby, should I be charged with simple assault? For a first time offence, that could be a mere sentence of under $2000. Is that okay? If a fetus is not a life, then I am simply punching a woman. If she provokes me, even attacks me first, I might even get off. Does that seem right to you? |
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 26, 2004 9:37:28 GMT -5
The decision to abort a baby may not have much impact on society, but the argument goes that it does have a rather significant impact on the baby itself. Abortion is lot like the separation debate going on in the other thread – either you are for it, or you are against, and usually no amount of argument is going to change your opinion. And yet, I'll give you some. For I believe that it can, as separation, be argued. 1) Currently, in Russia, abortion is the birth control method of choice. It that were to become the case in North America, in Canada and the United States, would you be comfortable with it? If nobody used condoms, the pill, or any other birth control device, and simply had an abortion, perhaps three or four a year, would this be okay in your mind? Abortion is no fun. A women undergoing that process will certainly not want to do that every week. Would I be confortable with the fact that abortion is the primary source of contraception? Of course not. Because that would mean that sexual education have failed. But it does nothing to prove that a single abortion is wrong. I, for instance, would be ok with the legalization of marijuana. Yet, I wouldn't want childs to smoke it. Your first argument, I think, lacks of pertinence. (If the debate is "abortion legal: Yes or No". If we talk about "Is mass-abortion for one person a good thing, everybody will agree with you.) The case you stated in Russia (I'd like to see stats, btw) would not apply here. Abortion is already legal, and it doesn't happen. Again, abortion is not a thing a women undergo with a light mind. It's a sufering process. 2) Currently abortions are typically performed between the 14th and the 19th week of pregnancy. Late term abortions – the kind that George Bush just tried to outlaw, much to the chagrin of the pro-choice crowd – can take place between the 20th and 24th week. Yet pre-term babies have been born in the 22nd, and 23rd weeks of pregnancy, and survived. In other words, a baby that could legally be aborted – killed, terminated, ended, pick your words – can also be medically saved. As medical technology continues to improve, undoubtedly this survival age will continue to be lowered. What happens when it becomes possible to save a 19 week old baby? Would it be legally okay to then just drop him in the trash can and be done with it? I don't like your choice of words. Abortion isn't dropping a baby in the trash can. It gives a strong image to support your point, but that's not an argument. As for the progress of science regarding pre-term baby, that's an interesting point. But whatever science can do, we're still talking about "potential human life". I believe you trace the line at birth. A born baby is a human being. Before that, it's a potential human being. You say hat a foetus of 24 weeks could be kept alive. All right. What if, then, if we keep going in that line of thought, a fecondated ovule could be nurtured in vitro by science to eventually develop into a baby, as it does in the natural mother. Would you be against the next-day pill? I say the foetus doesn't have the same rights as a baby until it is born. (That can be dabated) 3) If I punch a woman in the stomach, and she loses a baby, should I be charged with simple assault? For a first time offence, that could be a mere sentence of under $2000. Is that okay? If a fetus is not a life, then I am simply punching a woman. If she provokes me, even attacks me first, I might even get off. Does that seem right to you? No, and it's fallacious in the regard of the law, I believe. Pregnant women are more protected by the law than non-pregnant being. Because they are more vulnerable. The same would apply if you punched a kid, basically. You wouldn't be fined 2000$, because you would have caused more suffering to the mother-to-be than you would have to a regular belly. You are simply punching a woman, and not a baby. Yet, you are punching a vulnerable woman and causing different sufferings. How does that seem to you? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 26, 2004 13:46:37 GMT -5
Second time around. Had one all typed up, then lost it. En garde! Why is it different though? Is it not the woman’s choice to undergo the invasive, uncomfortable, non-fun procedure? What is the difference between her choosing do so once, and her choosing to do so 15 times? Why is a single abortion okay, but 5 abortions wrong? If the fetus is really nothing at all, and the woman decides she can live with procedure, why should we care how many times she does it? Why do you think abortion is a failure in sexual education, and why does it matter? Isn’t abortion just another way of birth control? If a woman looks at all the facts, and then CHOOSES to have 5 or 6 abortions, why is that wrong? What is she says “I don’t like the way condoms feel” or “I don’t like what the pill does to my body” or “I am uncomfortable with every other form of contraception?” Doesn’t that mean she would have 5,10, maybe 20 abortions over her lifetime, and why would that make you uncomfortable? If she chooses abortions over condoms, isn’t that her choice, no different than choosing condoms over abortions? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/18/world/main526182.shtmlnews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3093152.stmwww.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.htmlwww.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333pd2.htmlwww.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol7/kotlyar.htmlwww.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/oct/02102206.html6 out of every 10 pregnancies ends in abortion, in Russia. It doesn’t happen here because there is still a huge stigma attached with having an abortion, and a significant portion of the population still believes its wrong. And they aren’t all religious kooks, either. As it is, the rates of abortion are much higher than most people think – in Canada, its 31.8 abortions for every 100 live births. (source: Stats Canada : www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020118/d020118d.htm ) Also, what happens when medical technology continues its onward march and makers abortions simpler, easier, less intrusive. What if it simple becomes a matter of taking a pill in the 17th week of pregnancy? Is that okay? Wouldn’t that be “ideal?” Not just “morning after” but “weeks after?”<br> Isn’t that the whole debate though? When does life begin? Is it at conception? 10 weeks? 20 weeks? Birth? Two years, when real cognitive thought begins? Since there can be no answer, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution? Why is that though? You aren’t actually hurting the woman any more than normal, it’s the fetus who takes the brunt of the damage. In most cases, the woman recovers almost immediately and suffers no long term affects. Its because the baby died that the charges are different. But how can that be, if the baby is not real and has no rights? Nicely debated. Still doesn’t convince me though.  |
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Jul 26, 2004 14:41:53 GMT -5
 Why is it different though? Is it not the woman’s choice to undergo the invasive, uncomfortable, non-fun procedure? What is the difference between her choosing do so once, and her choosing to do so 15 times? Why is a single abortion okay, but 5 abortions wrong? If the fetus is really nothing at all, and the woman decides she can live with procedure, why should we care how many times she does it? Why do you think abortion is a failure in sexual education, and why does it matter? Isn’t abortion just another way of birth control? If a woman looks at all the facts, and then CHOOSES to have 5 or 6 abortions, why is that wrong? What is she says “I don’t like the way condoms feel” or “I don’t like what the pill does to my body” or “I am uncomfortable with every other form of contraception?” Doesn’t that mean she would have 5,10, maybe 20 abortions over her lifetime, and why would that make you uncomfortable? If she chooses abortions over condoms, isn’t that her choice, no different than choosing condoms over abortions? I said I thought it was wrong, not illegetimate. Wrong as in "preferable not to", not as in "should be illegal". It is the woman's choice to abort, be it one or 15 times. But abortion is not "just another way of birth control". It is a difficult process for the woman (emotively too, if it ever becomes phisically "easy"). Why is that so? Because you have this huge thing in your body that you extirpate, and it makes you realize that it could have been a baby. I don't know. Never been there myself. But every single report say that women don't appreciate abortions, even when they choose to perform one. I don't say the foetus is nothing at all, by the way. Why do I see abortion as being (sometimes) a failure of sexual education? Because the use of condoms and pills are better ways to prevent unwanted births. The condom also protects against STDs, and that's in itself a better thing than abortion. 20 abortions over the course of a year would make me very unconfortable. Yet, it doesn't mean it should prevail over the rights of woman wanting to end a birh that they don't want. Taking extreme cases is not really the best way to debate this subject, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's too easy to jump to the case of the teen raped by her uncle and who got AIDS. Would you want such a child to be born? Well, that is not the point. Because we're talknig about the rights of more than half of the population to rule over their bodies, not about specific cases. When I position myself in favor of the right to abort, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of abortion for all, now! Abortion is always a final recourse. Also, what happens when medical technology continues its onward march and makers abortions simpler, easier, less intrusive. What if it simple becomes a matter of taking a pill in the 17th week of pregnancy? Is that okay? Wouldn’t that be “ideal?” Not just “morning after” but “weeks after?” It would be better, for sure. You wouldn't want to inflict pain just to prove your point, would you? But the challenge lies in emotions felt by the woman, as every testimony will teall you. Isn’t that the whole debate though? When does life begin? Is it at conception? 10 weeks? 20 weeks? Birth? Two years, when real cognitive thought begins? Since there can be no answer, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution? It is indeed the core of the debate. But not knowing for sure that God exist doesn't prevail people in believing in it. They don't stand on the side of caution and say "well, until proven that he's there, I won't believe in it". Sociey makes the arbitrarial choice of when a foetus is called a baby. It is not much debated that a human being can be considered less human before 2 years old. So, it's either at birth or before. Our society put a limit after when it is not possible to abort. I'm fine with that decision. It is balanced. The mother's health would be in danger if she was to abort after a certain time, anyway. But I think it is better to put the rights of the already-born woman before the rights of the might-be-baby. It's not discrimination against a defenseless human being, it's choosing life over speculation. I think that we should care more about the living, always. Why is that though? You aren’t actually hurting the woman any more than normal, it’s the fetus who takes the brunt of the damage. In most cases, the woman recovers almost immediately and suffers no long term affects. Its because the baby died that the charges are different. But how can that be, if the baby is not real and has no rights? Yes, you are hurting the woman more than normal. You're giving her psychological damage. The loss of a child (even in the abortion process) is painful. It must be even harder to have it inflicted by a dumbass who punch you in the belly than by a doc. Could we at least agree on that? The charges are different because the baby died, but not regarding that baby's rights. They are different because the mother had the sole rights on her body, including that baby.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 26, 2004 15:56:12 GMT -5
I still don’t understand why it would make you uncomfortable. You bring up the emotional issue, how women feel bad and suffer psychological damage when they undergo abortions – why is that? Because “it could have been a baby?” Too simple. Using a condom to kill millions of sperm causes no angst in anyone, even though any one of those sperm “could have been a baby.” It’s a question of degrees – one is a lot closer to being a “real” baby than the other, and the fact that it is so close, makes people feel uncomfortable. Again, there are fetuses that have survived after the “society-deemed abortion cut-off date.” You may think that the “dump the baby in the garbage can” image is inappropriate, but that is essentially what happens. The aborted fetus is sucked out of the woman, and disposed of as “medical waste.”
About 30% of all pregnancies in Canada, end in abortion. That’s from Stats Canada. As traumatic as it may be, it doesn’t appear to be traumatic enough to stop the process. For every 3 babies born in Canada, there is one other that is aborted. That’s high.
I would never criticize a woman for having an abortion. I know some who have, and they are not evil, cold-hearted baby killers. I did not shun them, throw blood at them, or stop being their friends. I realize that abortion, like most things in life, is not nearly as black and white an issue as the sound bytes would have you believe. But having said that, there is something fundamentally wrong with it, in my opinion. And making it easier to have one, is not the solution, again in my opinion. What we need is better birth control methods, simpler, cost-effective methods. Something that doesn’t rely on remembering to take a pill every day, or stopping “heat of the moment” lust to fish around in a coat pocket. Something that doesn’t cost $1000 dollars, that doesn’t make one sick, that can be used by everyone. That’s fool-proof, safe, and efficient. If that means making it available to 14 year old girls, then so be it. I got no problems with that whatsoever.
Education IS critical, but it can’t be the only thing, because even highly educated people end up having abortions. There has to be a better way, and that’s where we should be focusing – not on making abortions more accessible, or easier, or cheaper. Because abortion is a big business, whether we like it or not, and like all big business, millions, perhaps billions of dollars is being pumped into it. 3 out of every 10 pregnancies – that’s a big market, and there are riches to be made for the pharmaceutical company that comes up with the best way to do it. That doesn’t seem right to me, and I suspect it doesn’t seem right to a lot of people. Otherwise, nobody would bat an eye if a woman told you she has had 12 abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 26, 2004 23:36:54 GMT -5
The decision to abort a baby may not have much impact on society, but the argument goes that it does have a rather significant impact on the baby itself. Abortion is lot like the separation debate going on in the other thread – either you are for it, or you are against, and usually no amount of argument is going to change your opinion. Nonetheless, I will state that I am against abortions, and I will those who are for it, three questions: 1) Currently, in Russia, abortion is the birth control method of choice. It that were to become the case in North America, in Canada and the United States, would you be comfortable with it? If nobody used condoms, the pill, or any other birth control device, and simply had an abortion, perhaps three or four a year, would this be okay in your mind? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then there should be no problem. But the fact is, the majority of people would be uncomfortable if abortion was the primary method of birth control. If you knew a woman who had 8 abortions, what would your opinion of her be? It should be no different than the opinion you have of the woman who uses the pill. And yet, it is. That says something. 2) Currently abortions are typically performed between the 14th and the 19th week of pregnancy. Late term abortions – the kind that George Bush just tried to outlaw, much to the chagrin of the pro-choice crowd – can take place between the 20th and 24th week. Yet pre-term babies have been born in the 22nd, and 23rd weeks of pregnancy, and survived. In other words, a baby that could legally be aborted – killed, terminated, ended, pick your words – can also be medically saved. As medical technology continues to improve, undoubtedly this survival age will continue to be lowered. What happens when it becomes possible to save a 19 week old baby? Would it be legally okay to then just drop him in the trash can and be done with it? 3) If I punch a woman in the stomach, and she loses a baby, should I be charged with simple assault? For a first time offence, that could be a mere sentence of under $2000. Is that okay? If a fetus is not a life, then I am simply punching a woman. If she provokes me, even attacks me first, I might even get off. Does that seem right to you? Well Bad Company. You address the core of the issue, and you are very obviously correct. I confess to being perplexed and am reminded of the story of the emperor's clothes. You perhaps know the story of the king who appears naked on the balcony while all the while insisting that he is wearing fine new clothes. The people below all praise the emperor for his good taste and style. Only a lone child in the audience cries out."The emperor isn't wearing any clothes." They tried to silence her. I really do believe that there is a kind of madness that pervades in the service of falsehood. I'd almost rather see someone stand up and say." I don't have a problem with killing babies." To even use the word "baby" is a near criminal offense to political correctness. It's much more acceptable to call for the death of another than to refer to a baby. I don't see images of bloodlusting monsters crying for the murder of babies but I do see the babies. It is a convenient fallacy to say that a two-year-old is somehow not as fully human as a mature human. It is a failure to employ the intellect. Human life, as any inseminating farmer knows begins exactly with conception and ends with the death of that individual. There is no scientific question of the facts. Putative arguments to the contrary are simply specious, dealing with the acceptability of reality, not reality. Your illustrations of this most basic fact makes people uncomfortable. I used to buy the so-called argument about a "blob of cells". I had reason to want to believe it was true. It of course never was . Socrates' admonishment that "the unexamined life is not worth living" holds true. I heard today that a majority of men who call into a Torontp men's radio station support state executions, state killings of incividuals who pose no immediate threat to anyone. What is the counterargument? That it is wrong; that human life has a transcendent value, irrespective of its contributions or faults. It is ultimately a statement of faith and an affirmation of the human vocation to moral agency. It is the basis of the notion of human dignity. It is also disappearing. How can a person of this century believe that the child in a woman's body is actually a part of a woman's body. With its' own metabolism and blood type? And the child cried out that the emperor was wearing no clothes. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 27, 2004 7:59:55 GMT -5
Interesting . . . a thread on a book that discusses peace talks following WWI rekindles Roe v Wade and another war of words. Hmmm . . . Leaving religious debate out of the equation (“what does God think – let me speak for Him” [OK, I’m traditional/patriarchal]), the philosophical debate centres around the question “when does life begin?” – and then asks “so what?”. If human life begins at conception, then abortion is indeed the killing of a human, mostly for convenience (the miniscule percentage of rape/incest victims is a red herring for an argument). The morning-after pill is an abortive procedure, taking life just as it is beginning. If human life begins at viability, then early-term abortion is not the taking of a human life. The morning-after pill is an abortive procedure that relieves the necessity of a more invasive procedure later on during term; actual abortion is just a medical procedure involving a woman only until a certain point in pregnancy. Wherever one sits on the issue, changes will not be made. Our secular-pluralistic society accepts abortion on demand and the right of women to use this medical procedure will not be taken away. The argument about the rights of the unborn (now preborn) verses the woman’s right to choose is moot. I do wonder about 2 other things: rights of the foetus (there are non – in fact because there is no law on the books in Canada regarding abortion, partial-birth abortions are lot illegal. I have problems with that), and responsibility of the woman (and the man involved!) for the activity that caused the pregnancy int e first place. As to sex education working or not, as abortion is taught as a means of contraception (it is – post-conception contraception) then the educational aspect meets the requirement. I am concerned, however, that abstinence is not taught as the only means of definitely preventing pregnancy or STDs. In fact, one activist disabuses anyone who would ever consider teaching abstinence, because, he says, everyone has a right to sex and no one should be made to feel that they shouldn’t indulge (my words). Yes, you are hurting the woman more than normal. You're giving her psychological damage. The loss of a child (even in the abortion process) is painful. Many pro-abortion people would disagree – they would suggest there is little psychological damage, and if there is (1) it is because the pro-life movement’s guilt-causing tirades, or (2) a good psychologist will help them over it. Any hockey on the horizon? |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jul 27, 2004 11:51:45 GMT -5
Not a speck it would seem... Meanwhile back in Paris...Just finished it. Excellent read. About to re-read Tuchman's "Guns of August" as a complement or preface depending on perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jul 27, 2004 19:14:33 GMT -5
Interesting . . . a thread on a book that discusses peace talks following WWI rekindles Roe v Wade and another war of words. Hmmm . . . If human life begins at conception, then abortion is indeed the killing of a human, mostly for convenience (the miniscule percentage of rape/incest victims is a red herring for an argument). The morning-after pill is an abortive procedure, taking life just as it is beginning. More clothes. But first a couple of important things. Life, like everything else is opaque to science. Science cannot in principle ever know what life is or what a rock or bug is for that matter. It explains nothing, but can provide increasingly elaborate descriptions. That's it. That is not a statement aginst science: it is a statement against scientism. That has been the considered opinion of science on science since about 1963. I believe it was called the Copenhagen Accord but iI may be mistaken on the name. This underdtanding followed upon Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can never have all the information on any event in particle physics. Most people still suffer from dogmatic scientism despite this fact of irrationality. The principles of the sciences are defended by philosophy. I address this because of the speciious definitions that present pseudo rationales for profound decisions. Again, a meeting of world scientists carefully selected to represent proportionately world populations and different ideologies and faiths was asked to determine when human life begins. Their answer was entirely predictable and devoid of sophistries to permit killings. Conception. There is no other event in the continuum from life to death for a human being. Abotion kills a human life, a female or male human is killed, not terminated, not stopped, killed. From the moment of conception cell division and metabolic life begins at an astounding and wondrous rate as a new human being never before seen and never again to be seen, like you and me, exists, lives. Some like to use the interesting word "potential" human life when describing the growing life in a womb. Potential and actual are terms in western culture which are derived from Aristotles' metaphysics. They are terms that he employed in his fourfold schema of the nature of change and reality. It is interesting that his "Final Cause", the end or purpose for which things exist is considered by many to be an avenue of investigation that offers the hope of intelligability. Also intriguing that he knew that the "material" cause was no key to intelligability. I digress to this because he would protest to see his concept of potentiality so self-servingly abused by those who want to kill actual beings. Only actual living human beings can be killed. Potentiality is relative non-being. Abortion is not a "religious" issue any more than the Irish "troubles" in Northern Ireland are religious battles over the definition of trans-substantiation. or the nature of the trinity. It is just like the Irish Act of Settlement in 1712, and just like the anti-slavery issue, an issue of justice. Fundamental human justice. And it is an issue of life and death. Multiculturalism, secularism, pluralism have nothing essential to do with the question. That abortion is concommitent with materialism goes wtiout saying. In modern times (post Paris 1919) it was first recommended by Adolf Hitler in the building of his neopagan society. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Aug 7, 2004 17:28:01 GMT -5
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! This thread may be controversial, challenging, provacative, incendiary and just downright infuriating should anyone read the book. Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan discusses the Paris peace talks that followed WWI and the attempt to reshape the European continent in effort to ensure no future wars (ya, right). 500 fascinating pages. Again, thanks for the reference. Just finished it last night, a hell of a book. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 7, 2004 18:36:36 GMT -5
It is indeed the core of the debate. But not knowing for sure that God exist doesn't prevail people in believing in it. They don't stand on the side of caution and say "well, until proven that he's there, I won't believe in it". . Many the philosopher would disagree with that statement. It is actually the belivers of "God" that are being cautious. If they are right they go to heaven, if they are wrong then no harm no foul. If non-believers are right, then it is no harm no foul (they get to laugh at the believers for living their lives based on false assumptions), but if they are wrong they end up down below with the horned head, pointy tailed fellow. This is not cautious by no means. The third group, agnostics , are the ones you allude to in the above comment. Those who won't believe until given proof. This is not cautious, since they are basically willing to be converted but only by God himself. Not having faith in the Lord is one of the worst crimes in the Bible. But the Bible being ambiguous as it is leaves a fail safe. The Lord forgives as sins if one gives their life to him ...... it does not define life (much like abortion) so one only has to give their life to the Lord on their death bed and take the "cautious" route into heaven. This abortion debate, while interesting, is not black and white. Sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it is not, but the issue that makes me cringe is that while everyone is there for the "right's of the woman", she obviously can not make herself pregnant (unless her name is Mary and the baby has been ordained as Jesus), where is everyone for the "right's of the man"? If the man wants to have the baby, he is ignored. Couldn't it be be "put in a test-tube' (for lack of a better term) and a suitable surrogate found? Also, the debate I have heard the most on this issue is "the what-if arguement". What if the unborn fetus/baby is the person who is suppose to cure AIDS / bring world peace / cure Cancer / etc? This is where it impacts society, because the more births the more likely for such a person to be born ....... But like I said when I started. I am not for nor against because I really haven't thought about it. But in any law, it can not be black and white because there are instances where it is irresponsible to do it and instances where it is "should be viewed as criminal" not to do it. |
|
