treatment for lesbian babies"

[Stella_Omega]

I acknowledge your view on this point . However in a world where foetus' are aborted because of their gender not just their gender orientation I think this difficult question has to be asked. It also has to be dealt with because whether we like it or not abortions will be sought and obtained for these reasons.

Well, that's the answer then.

The only difficult question is how long will it be before women are truly allowed autonomy over their own wombs. It's not as if the human race is in danger of dying out due to low birthrates -- our danger is quite the opposite.

 

[ishtat]

Well, that's the answer then.

The only difficult question is how long will it be before women are truly allowed autonomy over their own wombs. It's not as if the human race is in danger of dying out due to low birthrates -- our danger is quite the opposite.

Stella, I don't know what the entire answer is. I understand the argument put by Amicus that abortion is morally wrong but taking a moral stance doesn't resolve the practical issues people seeking abortions face. For example would the Amicus school of thought advocate that 100% of men take their share of financial and nurturing reponsibility for the children they father. If they refuse does that transfer the whole of the (compromised?) moral responsibility to the woman?

Generally I am very sympathetic to the view that women should have control over their own wombs but it does seem to have unintended consequences. In the former eastern bloc countries abortion has been available for many years on demand, however, they have a major problem in that men treat this as a 'responsibility get out clause'. Numerous Russian sources for example relate that women elect to have abortions solely because their partners refuse to take responsibility and leave them in a hopeless economic position.

My guess is that the Amicus school would not advocate a role for the State in either the policing of abortions or in the provision of abortion services or services for abandoned mothers (but Amicus may have a nuanced view on
that)

My own view is that abortion should generally

1 Not be a matter for the criminal law

2 Women should have contol over their wombs with special provision for pregnant children and crime victims.

3 Both parents should be required to support children and that should be enforced.

4 The State should provide back up support and adoption services to those who need it as a last resort.

5 Generally I would advocate maximising practical solutions to this vexed personal and social issue and acknowledging that there is a powerful moral argument to limit abortion to a minimum. However, practical outcomes carry more weight in my mind than moral debates as a policy foundation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Numerous Russian sources for example relate that women elect to have abortions solely because their partners refuse to take responsibility and leave them in a hopeless economic position.

Which strikes me as a damn good reason, frankly.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Curious connection between nature, reality and science; for example, 105 baby boys are born for each 100 girl babies.

Ever wonder why?

Amicus

No, because it's not important and further: it's not a fact....it's just some bullshit you 'heard, made up, or saw on Fox Infotainment...................
What is important is why you obsess about a person's sexual orientation. And why you think some so-called research is important?
You mention some numbers of children you allegedly 'raised' (I'm sure you're ex-wives might have an entirely different take on the situation) and how all these kids you influenced are 'straight'.....and how do you know this and what makes you sure?
This is more of your bullshit that everyone can smell except you.....
By the way, AmiCoot, Doya think that any of those wonderful children would feel comfortable expressing any true feelings to you?
Probly not.....................but it's your movie...........you're the star.........a sad, lamentable, and very pale one, but still the star.......

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

Ishtat, this is harsh, but intended to educate, not excoriate: In Germany, it was legal during the Nazi Regime to eliminate Jews by any means. Because a thing is 'legal' under the law of a nation, does not mean it is 'moral' in the eyes of humanity.

The Holocaust was immoral, so is abortion. It is not the State that determines human morality, it is reality and the innate rights of an individual to his life.

Abortion is only a moral action when the life of the mother is threatened and no other solution is available. The decision then, mother or child, is still heartwrenching, but if reason prevails, one sacrifices the child and saves the mother.

Amicus

If only you understood and believed all of that high-faluting crap.................Naw, better that you don't ..............in your case too much knowledge is a dangerous thing.....how did things work out between you and that nubian prince whose feet you wanted to worship?
just askin?

 

[ishtat]

Which strikes me as a damn good reason, frankly.

For the woman who apart from that factor would prefer not to have an abortion?

How can that be good for her in her rather than your terms?

I have a problem with both your view and that of Amicus' because both of you consider it in terms of fundamental rights of either the unborn or of the mother.

I think a more effective (though not necessarily morally superior) approach would be to think in terms of practical responsibilities rather than rights considering the circumstances of each case in the knowledge that there is no perfect answer which is always applicable to all cases.

I lean towards your view in that I think the mother would normally be the person determining the necessary support the child needs and believe the support of unwilling fathers should be enforced. However, there will always be exceptions and there has to be practical mechanisms to deal with them.

Proclaiming rights does not alone deliver viable outcomes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

For the woman who apart from that factor would prefer not to have an abortion?

How can that be good for her in her rather than your terms?

It isn't good for her in my terms either.

But lack of support is sometimes utterly undeniable. And perhaps the relationship seems more worthwhile than having a kid does.

She could have the baby anyway, and live on the streets with it I know a young woman who grew up to be exceptional-- although she has health issues that will never go away, as a result of the exposures she suffered until the age of eight when her grandparents finally took her away from the mother, their daughter.

Another solution for women who MUST have that baby--they could-- I'm expecting to see this come along any day now-- bond together with other man-less mothers in a new household. If having the baby is more important to them than the relationship, and it might well be.

I have a problem with both your view and that of Amicus' because both of you consider it in terms of fundamental rights of either the unborn or of the mother.

if I can put this plainly as possible, I believe that a fetus has no rights except those that the mother gives it.

As it happens, most mothers do want their babies, and accord the fetus full human rights without thinking twice about it. For most of us, the decisions that we make about pregnancy have great nuance and are rarely made in a social or familial vacuum.

BUT-- when they are made in such an impoverished environment, if the woman truly has no other input, no safety net-- why then we do not get to fault her for her decisions. Her reasons might seem trivial to you but it's really not your business to judge. And besides, if someone wanted to abort because the kid would chip her fingernail polish-- wouldn't that be a signal of deeply seated unfitness? What other decisions might she make, after the baby was born?

I think a more effective (though not necessarily morally superior) approach would be to think in terms of practical responsibilities rather than rights considering the circumstances of each case in the knowledge that there is no perfect answer which is always applicable to all cases.

Indeed there are no universal answers. I never search for such. My precept is not an answer either-- but it could be part of what we factor in, when we regard a woman and contemplate her motherly destiny.

I lean towards your view in that I think the mother would normally be the person determining the necessary support the child needs and believe the support of unwilling fathers should be enforced. However, there will always be exceptions and there has to be practical mechanisms to deal with them.

Proclaiming rights does not alone deliver viable outcomes.

it doesn't sound like we are that far away from each other's viewpoints, does it?

 

[Verdad]

I don’t think this treatment inaugurates an epidemic of targeted abortions. Whenever it is that CAH is diagnosable (I don’t know if it’s early enough to leave abortion as an option?) it’s been diagnosable at the same stage before. Prenatal treatment, not prenatal detection, is what’s new in this case, so the newly opened question is not whether to abort but whether to intervene.

The question is not made easier because CAH, I gather, involves various endocrinal problems. If it were just about sexual orientation, the treatment could be condemned as doing nothing more than allowing parents to enforce their aesthetic preferences. The health problems involved in CAH seem to make the treatment a matter of more than catering to parents’ ideas, though. There’s an element of checking preventable suffering, just like if the condition to be preempted were diabetes. With the trouble, of course, that in this case treating the ‘diabetes’ part modifies everything else too, the appearance and the psyche. The benefits for the kid (no pills and doctors ahead) seem to counterbalance the magnitude of the intervention in just a way that makes for a serious dilemma.

I have to say, though, based on the quick scanning of what’s involved, abuse and horrible consequences aren’t screaming at me, yet, even though the difficulty of making the choice is. It’s what lies ahead that makes me wonder, once technology makes finer tinkering possible.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I find this subject interesting as well. That's why I dug a little deeper into the subject.

The proposed steroid therapy is only applicable to fetus identified as being 21-hydroxylase-deficient. The occurrence of this is 1:15,000 live births.

Only 1% of the 21-hydroxylase-deficient fetuses end up exhibiting 21-hydroxylase-deficient congenital adrenal hyperplasia (21-OHD CAH). The proposed steroid therapy only is theoretically expected to work on this ultra small segment of the population (1% of 1/15,000th of the population)

Additionally, this theory has no clinical research to verify it viability or effectiveness.

Bottom line, AT BEST it will address a very, very, very small part of the lesbian population and that is extremely questionable.

So in other words, saying, implying, declaring or shouting from the roof tops that there is a pill to prevent lesbianism is yellow journalism on the part of the publications that report it and disingenuous on the part of people who promote it.

(I'm saying this is a bunch of bullshit, for those folks who vote party line Republican. ;~) )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=gene&part=cah

 

[amicus]

Ah, Verdad, your last two paragraphs ruined your entire essay, which was well founded to begin with, but went astray as you labor to support your own position.

Ishtat; thank you, for approaching this issue from a stated position of practicality.

I do not wish to make this personal, but I want to make the strongest statement possible, concerning Pragmatism, or the practical approach to issues that leaves ethics and morals out of the equation.

"It's right, if it works..." is a common criticism of free market practices because of the alleged inhumane practices of child labor, unsafe working condition, and low pay.

Mankind has always undergone a 'learning process', as innovations and inventions function to change society.

I offer, that mankind has always had a moral or ethical framework/guideline/skeleton, that guided and judged his actions as moral or immoral.

Those who 'think' without the moral guidelines or definitions of right and wrong, formerly provided by Religion, are treading on perilous grounds. To reject moral or ethical absolutes and proceed only on the 'practicality' on an issue, is to sentence oneself to a pergatory of sorts, wherein no good or evil exists.

One cannot, I think, separate the ethical and the moral from the practical without being judged as 'amoral', without moral foundation. Rather like being an agnostic, fence sitting, middle of the road, 'safe'/cowardly position.

It is only in the last half century that such issues, following the figurative 'death of God', that the absence of moral prerogatives has weakened, if not destroyed the ability of man to make moral and ethical judgments.

Also, the last half century has enabled science to determine that from the instant of conception, a totally new and unique human life comes into being. It must be nurtured both in the womb and beyond if it is to realize its' full potential; but there is no question that the fertilized egg is indeed, a human life.

That is scientific, medical fact, not speculation and not subjective; that being so...

The next step is a conceptual abstraction concerning human life and what values are inherent in its' existence.

All values relate to human life; nothing else, nature/evolution carries its' own set of prerogatives, none of which promote individual life, but survival of the species. A million turtle eggs may be layed on a beach, if one out of each thousand grows to maturity, nature has succeeded.

Man is the only sentient form of life thus far discovered in the Universe and thusly, is somewhat unique and valuable.

Preserving and nurturing that 'life', is the fundamental value of human existence; all other values proceed from life itself.

I will not, again, relate the human atrocities that arose from a 'pragmatic', or 'practical' approach to the serious issues of life; you know the examples.

The nature of the species is that there is male and female; evolution took a very long time to arrive at that decision and it appears to have worked quite well. Now that mankind has achieved the ability to 'tinker' with nature and evolution, it becomes more important than ever before, that mankind acknowledges and understands the fundamental moral and ethical, Philosophical imperatives of our newfound status.

And, Ishtat, yes, I would like to nudge you off your pragmatic pedastal and tempt or tease you into the cerebral environment of reason and rationality.



Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can tell you never even read Ishtat's post.

Anyway, Box has a good idea-- take a look at this;

ETA: Thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot

http://blacksinbecky.com/galleries/pictures/7w/pics/10.jpg

 

[amicus]

Since both of my threads were 'porn jacked' by the perverts from the left, I decided to Post this on both; thank you.

~~~

Pornography aside, sorry for those of you who are subjected to a sullied Thread, the potty mouthed/minded progressives have nothing else to do, but for the naif who questioned previous assertions:

Sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population. The primary sex ratio is the ratio at the time of conception, secondary sex ratio is the ratio at time of birth, and tertiary sex ratio is the ratio of mature organisms.[1]
The human sex ratio is of particular interest to anthropologists and demographers. In humans the secondary sex ratio is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls (which sometimes is shortened to "a ratio of 105"). In human societies, however, sex ratios at birth or among infants may be considerably skewed by sex-selective abortion and infanticide. The CIA estimates that the current world wide sex ratio at birth is 107 boys to 100 girls.[[/QUOTE]

2]


http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

~~~

Don't apologize, not that you will...

Amicus Veritas....(The 'veritas' translates to 'truth', but then, that word has no meaning for you)

 

[amicus]

Both quotes below from the same person and both within a few lines of each other:

if I can put this plainly as possible, I believe that a fetus has no rights except those that the mother gives it.

Indeed there are no universal answers. I never search for such.

~~~

To reword for easy comprehension:

Quote one: This is an absolute statement...

Quote two: There are no absolute or 'universal' answers...

The usual contradiction within the context of a subjective or relativistic system of morality.

From quote number one, 'rights' are not 'given' by anyone or any government, they are merely protected.

Rights are innate, unalienable, and a human, from the moment of conception, possesses the right of Life.

Your premise is wrong and your logic, flawed.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

The only absolute in my first statement is the phrase; "I believe." The rest of the statement describes my belief.

Reading comprehension, ami-- let me introduce you to it.

So tell me, which if these images do you prefer?

I can't decide.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the second one

That's the one ami wants to "treat" out of existence as an aberration.

Nice guy, isn't he?

 

[squarejohn]

What's wrong with playing the hand you're dealt?

 

[Stella_Omega]

What's wrong with playing the hand you're dealt?

I got a full house.

 

[Naughty_Misty]

I got a full house.

Damn.... All I have is a pair - of wet panties

 

[amicus]

Ishtat:

"... I understand the argument put by Amicus that abortion is morally wrong but taking a moral stance doesn't resolve the practical issues people seeking abortions face. For example would the Amicus school of thought advocate that 100% of men take their share of financial and nurturing reponsibility for the children they father. If they refuse does that transfer the whole of the (compromised?) moral responsibility to the woman?..."

~~~

Ishtat, you sound sincere in wrestling with the issue of abortion, I ask that you receive my response as an effort to explain the 'Amicus School of Thought', as you put it, as an effort towards understanding.

Most people never bother to analyze an issue and its' moral contents, but having to defend everyword I spoke on a radio talk show for many years, taught me to fully understand any position I took on any issue or face humilation before an audience of tens of thousands of people.

Defining morality is not an easy subject, especially since most rational, thinking people have discarded a religious answer or explanation and have looked elsewhere for guidance.

I offer a Wiki definition of Ayn Rand as a beginning point, even though Rand was in favor of abortion:

Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life."[40] Rand maintained that the first question isn't what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?"

According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."[41] She writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values.

***

As I said, a discussion or an understanding of morals is not an easy task when one puts aside the Ten Commandments or the moral edicts of a religious group; we are left to our own devices to determine what is right and wrong, good and bad, which is what 'morals' are all about.

I state that there is one moral foundation for all men at all times and in all places, and, as individuals, it is our personal responsibility to understand the concepts and the connections between human actions.

The primacy of human life, by definition, must be the basic plank in any system of moral and ethical behaviour.

Your question about the responsibility of the male in a pregnancy, is one that has been asked forever all over the globe. In most societies, the 'family' provided for the gravid woman without the support of the father. It is not even close to being a new thing, it has been going on forever.

Millions of men and women, finding themselves adults in a post moral society, have been left without a valid source of answers to some of life's most perplexing questions.

This cannot be a short discussion as it is so complex, but I leave it with the assertion that there is an hierarchy of moral values that rest upon the value of human life as soon as it is conceived. All moral decisions after the initial one must support that basic presumption that human life, even while in the womb, is the basic value by which we all live and extend our actions.

So many have accepted the emotional approach by denying that any absolute moral pronouncement is valid and have instead turned to situational or relativistic ethics and morals that end up being nothing more than opinions.

It is my hope that you and others are searching for a comprehensive moral system that will guide you to ethical answers and decisions.



ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

Damn.... All I have is a pair - of wet panties

What was in the pot?

 

[Naughty_Misty]

What was in the pot?

I think it was a wild jack...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think it was a wild jack...

All jacks are wild

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Dragonlipz]

The girl laughed and flashed Marilyn a smile as she wiped the coffee up. “You could buy her another latte.” She was even prettier when she smiled. Marilyn felt the tug of attraction for this sexy woman. She felt like killing Colin when he asked the pretty barista if they could buy her a drink in the Alligator Club down the block.
“Sure you can, I get off in about a half hour.” She winked at Marilyn and rolled her hips as she walked back behind the counter. Colin was smiling slyly at Marilyn.
“I’ll have a Cosmo,” he smirked.
The barista’s name was Delia and she joined them at the Alligator. She pounded a shot of tequila, ‘It was a long day’, then asked Marilyn to dance. The band was playing some funk and Colin winked at her as she followed Delia to the dance floor. Delia led with really dope moves and cued Marilyn when and what to pop. She made her pop those tits a few times. Marilyn could pop one up and the other down, just like the hoochies in the hip hop vids. They had a great time workin’ it. The next dance was slow and Delia pulled her close.
“You had the twins poppin’ girl!” Delia's lips touched her ear. She’d worked up a little sweat from the dancing and smelled fine. They wrapped up close and moved together to the music . She put a hand on Marilyn’s butt and nuzzled her neck. The blood was flowing to Marilyn’s ears and face. Her nipples were stiff from the poppin’; Delia rubbed her own tits against them. She was enjoying this so much she wanted the song to go on for another hour. She kissed the other woman’s ear, touched it with her tongue. Delia shivered. Then she gripped Marilyn tighter, bit her earlobe. Marilyn’s clit started to send waves of heat through her groin and jolts of electricity to her nipples and brain.
All of a sudden the song was over. Delia put her arm around Marilyn and led her back to the table. Colin was gone and so were their purses. The waitress showed up a moment later with a couple of drinks and told them that the purses were with the bartender.
“Your friend said to have fun but don’t be late tomorrow.” She winked.
Marilyn sipped her Cosmo and enjoyed Delia’s closeness, the smell and feel of her. This was good, Colin was right.
Delia kissed her ear and suggested that maybe they should go if Marilyn had to be at work early.
“One more dance.” Marilyn kissed her back.
Delia lived about five blocks away and Marilyn parked behind her flat. They made out some more in the car. She was ready to get jiggy right in the front seat if Delia wanted, but she broke off and took Marilyn upstairs.
Her place was small and neat, well kept. She opened a beer and offered one to Marilyn. Marilyn put it aside and took Delia in her arms.
“Maybe later, right now I want some of this.” She kissed her deeply letting her hands roam over the taller woman’s body, searching for those special places. Delia did the same to her as they helped each other out of their clothes. Delia pushed her onto the bed and began to explore Marilyn’s ripe curves in earnest. She ravished Marilyn, worshipping her tits and licking her clit till Marilyn wrapped her legs around her head and exploded on Delia’s face. She rolled the other woman over and went down on her to return the favor. Marilyn tongued and teased the pussy lips and finished her by rolling her tongue, then fucking her clit. She tasted so good! She pulled Marilyn’s face hard into her pussy and writhed as she came and came again on Marilyn’s tongue.
Afterward they lay together kissing and tongue wrestling while they fingered each other for what seemed hours and endless orgasms. Marilyn couldn’t remember when she’d enjoyed anyone, man or woman, so much.
Delia’s tongue woke up her. She was tasting and teasing her clit. She loved being tongued by this woman. She really knew how to make her hot! She pulled Delia’s trimmed bush onto her face and gave that spicy quim some tongue of her own! This was the right way to start the day, no doubt.

 

[ishtat]

Ishtat:

Your question about the responsibility of the male in a pregnancy, is one that has been asked forever all over the globe. In most societies, the 'family' provided for the gravid woman without the support of the father. It is not even close to being a new thing, it has been going on forever.

ami

I am very pressed for time at the moment but this statement jumped out at me

I disagree with your second sentence. I would amend it to say that in most societies the (extended) family including the father provided support for the pregnant woman and mother with the support of the father

Your statement seems to infer that the father, once his role of sperm donor is complete has the right and freedom if he so wishes, to desert both woman and child and choose whether or not to support them.

You go on to suggest that "the family" will support them but that is clearly not the case in Western societies where the extended family no longer exists anyway. The defacto situation is that governments in the west have stepped in and taken over partially, the role of the deserting father by providing financial support.

It seems to me that any man who argues for the absolute right to insist a woman must carry his child to term must accept that he has an absolute responsibility to care and support that child.

To my mind Amicus the claiming of rights without the acceptance of responsibility would be a most contemptable philosophy and to suggest justification for avoiding responsibility in terms of "it is not... a new thing... it has been going on forever," is, dare I say it a "pragmatic" convenience completely at odds with your notion of "absolute values."