Hot enough for ya?

[bignick]

Woo...man I get fried just stepping into the Study these days. Debates are running pretty hot. So what do I want...put one more log on the fire...

Was doing some reading and came across this article:

This was the part that really caught my eye...

Joel Brind, a biochemist at Baruch College in New York who advises the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, noted that a woman's chances of getting breast cancer go down if she gives birth at a relatively young age. He reasons that those who opt for abortion are giving up a chance of reducing their breast cancer risk.


Therefore, he says, abortion increases the risk of cancer. He dismisses the findings of the National Cancer Institute, calling it a "political exercise, a charade if you will."

Not only that but reading about the creationism in schools, denial of birth control to women...

what is going on in this country?

 

[michaeledward]

what is going on in this country?

We Lost The Election!

Expect more of this to come.

 

[bignick]

I was having a discussion with someone a couple days ago about the possibility of Hillary Clinton running president. He felt that she was the wrong choice and a bad candidate. According to his view she is only in the politics for the power game. His opinion was the when Bill Clinton was running for president he actually had the good of the nation in mind. I told him the scary part was that I George W. feels the same way.

Anywho...the point of this thread really wasn't about conservative bashing...

Honestly, this country was founded on some really progressive principles that were the result of religious opression and other factors like common people needing a voice in government. Now, obviously the founding fathers were not the greatest people in the world (slavery, the war against the Native Americans). But as time went on we seemed to get things more and more right. We outlawed slavery, and in the recent past tried to give women and minorities equal oppurtunities from everything to sports to employment. We allowed people to make their own choices concerning personal beliefs (abortion, gay marriage, etc...)

The big buzzwords after the election were "Moral Values". They were supposedly the most important issue during the election. I really do not feel comfortable with a government that feels it needs to regulate my "moral values".

 

[MGM]

..........Pardon me, where did you say we are going? And exactly what am I doing in this basket?.....

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here's another article going over the issue a bit, with the relevant section pasted below the link:

http://www.wnbc.com/health/2505822/detail.html

A considerable amount of research has been conducted to determine whether having an abortion or a miscarriage affects a woman's chance of developing breast cancer later on. Until the mid-1990s, studies produced inconsistent results, but most of those studies were small and had scientific flaws. Since then, larger, better-designed studies have consistently shown no link between abortion or miscarriage and the development of breast cancer.

Most of the sites supporting the hypothesis of the connection are Catholic/Christian pro-life sites.

The issue of birth control sales goes back to the early sixties, in a way. With Griswold versus Connecticut:

http://www.bartleby.com/59/12/griswoldvers.html

This case overturned a decades old law that made it illegal to sell contraceptives to women...even married women. The case preceded Roe v Wade and is tied to it.

So--if pharmacists are free to refuse to dispense drugs, we're free to boycott those pharmacies. We can write the companies and let them know our feelings and our intent. I'm going to do that tonight.

Thanks for the links...and yes, it is nice and hot here in "The Study". I'm loving every minute of it.


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Honestly, this country was founded on some really progressive principles that were the result of religious opression and other factors like common people needing a voice in government. Now, obviously the founding fathers were not the greatest people in the world (slavery, the war against the Native Americans).

Well, as upnorthkyosa has pointed out, the Founding Fathers were a product of their time --- as we all are. This means that our individual subjectivies are in large part unconsciously shaped by the socioeconomic system and cultural milieu we find ourselves in.

Try finding, for example, an agrarian nation with pre-industrial technology that does not rely on slavery of some sort and that does not have a way of justifying it.

Kinda makes you think about how our descendents will see all of us 200 years from now, neh??

But as time went on we seemed to get things more and more right. We outlawed slavery, and in the recent past tried to give women and minorities equal oppurtunities from everything to sports to employment. We allowed people to make their own choices concerning personal beliefs (abortion, gay marriage, etc...)

Yup. Sociocultural evolution, that nasty little thing that cultural relativists hate so much. :asian:

The big buzzwords after the election were "Moral Values". They were supposedly the most important issue during the election. I really do not feel comfortable with a government that feels it needs to regulate my "moral values".

Well said.

 

[bignick]

Thanks for the replies everybody...I just got back from working jujutsu and my head is still spinning from some stuff I saw tonight, so we'll see how coherent I am...

Government, by it's very nature, tries to control some of the decisions we may make in our lives. Mostly, this comes in form, at least I believe it should, in dealing with our interaction with the rest of the society. For instance, we are not legally allowed to run around lying about other people(that doesn't always stop us), harrassment of any form(racial, sexual, physical, etc.) is not allowed. Even running around naked screaming jibberish at the top of your lungs isn't technically illegal, but that's where they have catch-all laws like disturbing the peace, when used with proper judgement, that serve a good purpose.

It seems to be the perrogative of this administration to push a moral agenda on the people of this country when they have no legal right in doing so. I know I said this was not a "Bash Republicans" thread. But they are the ones in charge now, they are the ones pushing this particular agenda and that means they are the ones I am worried about. Firstly, I am not a liberal or a democrat. I am a registered independent. But, as I have stated elsewhere that I hold a number conservative views, but the distinction is that those views are mine and mine alone. At the same time I hold a number of liberal views and on a lot of issues I honestly don't have an opinion. What gets my danders up is when the government begins imposing it's authority, not on our interactions with society, but on our private behaviors.

Now, obviously America is far from being a theocracy or ideological regime...but every day it seems we take a smaller step in that direction. There are a lot worst places to live in this world than the USA. I'd rather be sitting in cold Minnesota where the most extreme danger I'm going to face from day to day is frostbite or eyestrain from staring at my computer screen too long(MT does not help at all in this matter), than living somewhere in the Middle East right now or somewhere else where war and the tragedies that go along with it are a day to day occurence. Not only that, but the majority of people that voted, voted for this. There are the stats that a great number of the people that support Bush are greatly misinformed about his actual policies and stances on subjects. I'm familiar with those numbers, there posted on my dorm room door right now. They sit right next to my neighbor who has a big ole "BUSH/CHENEY '04" poster. But I cannot totally believe that that number of people can be that misinformed. Which leads me to believe that a good number of people voted, knowing exactly what they voted for.

Part of the new powers of intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies is the ability to see what you've been checking out of the library. How big of a step is it, honestly between tracking people's reading, and preventing them from reading material you don't want them to. It's definitely not a small step, but not quite the giant leap I would like. Some people say they are willing to sacrifice some minor freedoms for safety. The moment you give up a freedom, for any reason, try getting it back. Not only that, but how much safer are you now, really? I have know doubt that if someone wanted to execute another major attack on American soil they could. I could think about 10 different ideas off the top of my head, and I'm not even a terrorist. So, you sacrificied freedom for apperance of safety. Fair enough, what freedom will you sacrifice next for something you really want? Will you trade free speech for job security. Freedom of religion, or absence thereof, so people don't look at you dirty. A popular phrase bandied about these days is that, "Freedom isn't Free". This is often pandered around by people justifying the current wars in Iraq and Afganhistan. Exactly, which of my freedoms are they fighting for? Religion? Speech? If we truly need to fight for freedom we need to get those soldiers home because I think they have plenty of fighting they could do here.

Hey, I study computers and martial arts and I'm OK at one and questionable about the other. I'll leave the guessing up to you. So I necessarily don't have the terminology or vocabulary that some people on here have for situations like this, sociocultural evolution, anyone. Obviously I can look at this word and know what it means, but it would never pop into my head when discussing a topic.

I don't know how anyone can reply to this post. It is basically just me ranting and raving my feelings on some subjects that I've been following lately. Pop in and say something if you want, I guess.

Maybe, considering the title of this thread, we should just turn it into a little cool oasis in the Study...step out of the fires for a bit and chill out...

 

[bignick]

Maybe, considering the title of this thread, we should just turn it into a little cool oasis in the Study...step out of the fires for a bit and chill out...

First off, I know quoting yourself is lame...but on second thought...forget it.




If you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen...

 

[michaeledward]

Government, by it's very nature, tries to control some of the decisions we may make in our lives.

I do not believe the 'Nature of Government' is to control your decisions.

I am about as liberal as they get, (Kucinich '08 anyone?) but I believe this view of Government is incorrect. I do not want a Government that controls decisions. I want a Government that protects decisions. I want a Government that establishes the rules for decision making. I want a Government that supports decision making.

Let's review the Declaration of Independence. While I have stated that I tend not to call upon the founding fathers for what our government should do today, this one document seems to spell out the purpose of Government. I am not sure we have elsewhere as clear a definition. And, if we use their definitions, we may see that what you describe as 'the nature of Government', they would choose to describe as 'tyrrany'.

1) All men are equal and have certain rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness)
2) Government secures these unalienable rights
3) Government power comes from the consent of the governed
4) People hold the right to disolve any Government that is destructive
5) Governments should not be disolved for transient (silly?) reasons
6) Men will tolerate quite a bit of tyrrany in their government before changing
7) Government has the power to levy war
8) Government has the power to conclude peace
9) Government has the power to contract alliances
10) Government has the power to establish commerce.

No heat here. Michael

 

[Mark Weiser]

Honestly the study is comparatively very young to draw any solid facts. If you take a 16 year old or even an 18 year old female and do a group study the test group has not even reached the 15 year mark making that group around 33 years old not even out of the prime years. So this is just another instance of misleading the public and stirring up emotional responses to acheive a desired response you know like Pallov Theory in which the dogs, bell and salivation lol!

Anyway I would not be too concerned about this

 

[MGM]

BigNick,

First off I think you expressed your thoughts and frustrations quite well in your above post.

Not only that, but the majority of people that voted, voted for this. There are the stats that a great number of the people that support Bush are greatly misinformed about his actual policies and stances on subjects. I'm familiar with those numbers, there posted on my dorm room door right now. They sit right next to my neighbor who has a big ole "BUSH/CHENEY '04" poster. But I cannot totally believe that that number of people can be that misinformed. Which leads me to believe that a good number of people voted, knowing exactly what they voted for.

One of my high school history teachers taught me a very important lesson in the workings of democracy I thought others might enjoy his insight.

He began by extolling all the virtues of a Democratic society particularly when compared to others, fascism and Communism most notably. That of course got the class rallied to the greatness of our form of government. Than he said something to the effect "decisions made based on what the majority of citizens want, what could be better?". The class could not think of anything. Than he said "the problem with a democracy, children, decided by the majority of people is that the majority is often times stupid!"

And he was and is right, the majority is often stupid. Such a simple concept but I think almost entirely over looked.

I disagree with you about most people knowing what they voted for, I think the reality is most people are sheep and will follow the path of least resistance. That is what makes "heroes" of any kind special most people do not have a great deal of independent thought and fewer still will go out on a limb for what they believe is right. Mob mentality unfortunately holds a place in democracy.

 

[raedyn]

In most cases a person is smart but people are stupid.

There are numerous studies that show how people behave differently in a large group versus on an individual basis.

For example; If one person sees someone being assulted, they are much more likely to try and intervene or call police or otherwise take action against it than if there are a group of people to witness it. Perhaps when an individual is in a group, they feel it's someone else's problem whereas if they witness something alone, there is more of a sense of responsibility?

Another example; A group of people is asked to complete a simple task like count the number of animals in this picture (the specific task escaspe me right now -- someone else will probably jump in and fill-in my gaps). Only one person in the group is actually a subject. In some instances, the rest of the group came up with the wrong answer and in other instances one of the group would disagree and come up with the right answer. In the cases where the rest of the group was wrong, the subjects rarely voiced their dissent. In the cases where any other person had the right answer, the subjects were much more likely to voice their dissent. It was like they didn't want to be the lonely voice in the wilderness.

(If someone is interested, pester me a bit and I can look up the refereces of the studies I am referring to - once I'm at home)

Interesting to learn that the 'mob mentality' really does exist.

 

[bignick]

MGM, good story


michealedward...you expressed what I was trying to say better than I did. My point wasn't that government should control the actions of citizens. However, the word "govern" is in there for a reason and any government in any form whether it be self-rule through a simple democracy or an absolute dictatorship does impose restrictions on the actions of it's citizens. You made the point that they also should protect the rights of citizens to act on their own. That is line that would seperate tyranny from democracy. Thanks for that.

 

[Rynocerous]

Therefore, he says, abortion increases the risk of cancer.

I must begin my post by saying that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer, yet it is still legal! Alcohol increases you likley hood of having liver related diseases, and cancers. Trying to outlaw abortion on the basis of reducing the risk of cancer is preposterous. I could go on and on about everyday things that cause us health problems, but I'm not one to blather. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should have a choice in whether or not it would be in the best intrest of the child. I know I'm putting myself out there for a very heated debate, but people choose to smoke one, two, even three packs of smokes a day, yet smoking is still legal. If they are going to make abortion illegal then they should stay on the topic of pro-life. If they are going to fight for anti-abortion on this topic, they should fight for a law making all young women to become pregnant, and give birth by a certain age. Ridiculous! Once again this is just my opinion.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[heretic888]

Of course its ridiculous, Ryno.

The entire argument on the part of this gentleman was little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to promote the Religious Right agenda. He's just trying to give this agenda a "happy face" by claiming one of the things they're against (abortion, namely) may actually be bad for your health. Which, as others have demonstrated, doesn't have the clinical evidence to back up such an assertion.

Same ol', same ol'.

 

[Ping898]

What is just as bad is many states require woman to sign forms that tell them the link between abortion and cancer have been proven to exist. So you have women who don't know any better having false information pushed upon them and no way of immediately knowing this isn't the whole truth.

From the associate press -
"Women seeking abortions in Mississippi must first sign a form indicating they've been told abortion can increase their risk of breast cancer. They aren't told that scientific reviews have concluded there is no such risk.

Similar information suggesting a cancer link is given to women considering abortion in Texas, Louisiana and Kansas, and legislation to require such notification has been introduced in 14 other states.


Abortion opponents, who are pushing these measures, say they are simply giving women information to consider. But abortion rights supporters see it much differently.



"In my experience, this inaccurate information is going to dissuade few women from going ahead and having the abortion," said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "What it does do is put a false guilt trip and fear trip on that woman."



More than a year ago, a panel of scientists convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed available data and concluded there is no link. A scientific review in the Lancet, a British medical journal, came to the same conclusion, questioning the methodology in a few studies that have suggested a link.

Still, information suggesting a link is being given to women to read during mandatory waiting periods before abortions. In some cases, the information is on the states' Web sites...... "