Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:47 pm

Hyperion wrote:My apologies, for some reason i sensed aggressiveness in your questioning :?

I would imagine Stewsburntmonkey to mean that living outside of the mothers care with it's own ability to survive being after child birth. I can't speak from experience but i imagine most mothers would not care to just simply have a baby surgically removed for the simple fact that it is sufficiently developed enough inside the womb to survive in an artificial environment. I could be entirely wrong on that matter (as people do incredibly stupid and selfish things in this world) but really.

Nothing aggressive in my post, sorry for the implication. I'm not a very excitable kind of person.

Hyperion wrote:'And out of pure curiosity, why draw the line there?' - What do you mean?

Just wondering about how one comes to the conclusion of where the line gets drawn for it to be ok/not ok to abort. I (really) don't understand the difference behind a child that can survive and a child that can't (outside the womb). Just asking for the reasoning behind what is seemingly an arbitrary line.

Edit: Stewsburntmokey has sufficiently answered my question.

Edit2:
Feud wrote:I think that before this dicussion goes any further, that me must iron out a few terms so that we can all discuss on equal footing.

I noticed when i lived in the south that people refered to soda of all kinds as "Coke", and just because they said they wanted a Coke that they could just as easily mean they wanted a Sprite. With this in mind, let's iron out what does and does not count as ice crea.

Obviously, items described as ice cream alone are valid. But, do items that mearly include ice cream count as well? Would a Klondike bar, and ice cream sandwich, an Eskimo Pie, or a Choco Taco count? If so then a wide variety or choices are now open.

Further, are we including various frozen treats that are not exactly ice cream, but often serve as subsitute? For example, would frozen custard, parfait, or italian gelato be an option? I doubt that shaved ice would count, as it is really not that close to ice cream, but were it to be included then I would probably change my vote to Watermelon shaved ice.

I think you're over thinking this Feud. Ice cream doesn't suffer from the same confusion that "Coke" in the south does. Ice Cream vs Ice Cream treat is sufficient to expose the differences. And no, shaved ice would not be included in either category. Perhaps a topic on the death penalty could take care of that area of frozen treats...
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:I think you're over thinking this Feud. Ice cream doesn't suffer from the same confusion that "Coke" in the south does. Ice Cream vs Ice Cream treat is sufficient to expose the differences. And no, shaved ice would not be included in either category. Perhaps a topic on the death penalty could take care of that area of frozen treats...


I am certainly not overthinking this. In my neck of the woods, when it is suggested that we "go get ice cream", it is not uncommon to go to get frozen custard or gelato instead. Milk shakes also fell into this catagory for some time, until the popular milkshake plac was bought out be Nelson's Frozen Custard. Certainly Coke has a much stronger grip in the south, but ice cream does have multiple meanings down here.

Further, a Klondike bar is, by volume, mainly ice cream, more so then an ice cream cone dipped in chocolate (when one considers the cone). I saw it should count.

I do realize that shaved ice has no bearing on the matter, and I even said such. My mentioning of it was only to point out the high level of regard I have for watermelon shaved ice, and my preferance towards it.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:04 pm

Living in a country where a vote to allow abortion was made earlier this year. I still have the debate rather fresh.

That said, I'm against it.

Personally, I defend life. Now note that I won't define life for a simple reason: I consider that anything that might generate life has the right to exist. If the thing in question naturally fails to do so or it is preferable that it "dies" (otherwise I wouldn't eat anything since I extend this to plants and animals) then I have no problem with that.

What this means is that I'm willing to accept some exceptions: Danger for mother and/or child (because has said, 1 alive is better than 2 dead), in case the fetus is abnormal or otherwise severely handicapped (what life would that be?), and in case of rape (because I know it wouldn't be easy on the mother. Although as a side note I do know a person who has a kid from a rape).


However what irks me about the subject, and here, in my country, in particular, is that we have neither the mentality or the means to support such a law as the pro-abortion defend. I know for a fact (both my fathers being doctors supporting this) that many people would use abortion as a contraceptive, simply because they wouldn't use a condom or take the pill.
It is also true that, by the current law, an abortion needs to be made in 10 weeks while it takes years to adopt a child.

I remember hearing not long ago that they were expecting 20.000 abortions this year. Considering that our birth rate is about 100.000/year we are talking about 20% of all kids never having a chance. This doesn't seem right to me.

On a side note, an argument that I don't buy is that by allowing abortion we're giving the ones affected an option. Unfortunately I'm afraid that you can only do that 18 years after the abortion was supposed to take place.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:08 pm

Xocrates wrote: <snip>


Stop changing the subject! We are talking about ice cream, man... ICE CREAM!
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Ooops, sorry.

I do have tons of strawberry flavored in my freezer.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:33 pm

Xocrates wrote:Personally, I defend life. Now note that I won't define life for a simple reason: I consider that anything that might generate life has the right to exist. If the thing in question naturally fails to do so or it is preferable that it "dies" (otherwise I wouldn't eat anything since I extend this to plants and animals) then I have no problem with that.


That's a pretty untenable position. There are huge numbers of cases of living things being sacrificed for our benefit. Cancer is a living thing, should we stop treating it? What about parasites, should we force people to live with tapeworms? What about diseases caused by bacteria? I'm sure it's nice to believe you "defend life", but such a position is far too simplistic for the real world.

This sort of thing is like Americans saying "I support the troops," the implication is that other people don't support the troops. The "I defend life" thing is really the same thing in many cases. The implication is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't support life. This is also seen in the "pro-abortion" label often given to pro-choice people. I don't know anyone who likes abortion. I do know lots of people who think the government shouldn't be able to dictate what we do inside our bodies.


Xocrates wrote:However what irks me about the subject, and here, in my country, in particular, is that we have neither the mentality or the means to support such a law as the pro-abortion defend.


I don't know anyone that is "pro-abortion". The debate is not whether abortion is good or not. The debate is what role the government should play in limiting the right to abortions.


Xocrates wrote:I know for a fact (both my fathers being doctors supporting this) that many people would use abortion as a contraceptive, simply because they wouldn't use a condom or take the pill.


This is in part due to the resistance to real sex education in schools. If kids were taught about contraceptives this would be far less of a problem.
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:42 pm

In my country there were periods when abortions were forbidden and periods when abortions were legal.
I can only say that many women died when abortions were forbidden because of illegal abortions.
Abortions is a side of human life. Even in Ancient Egypt there were abortions. So I don't think we'll prove anything in this discussion. All I think, abortions must not be outlawed and women willing to do it should receive proper medical treatment. Their lives and health are much more important than any men's principles.
NMO
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:50 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Xocrates wrote:Personally, I defend life. Now note that I won't define life for a simple reason: I consider that anything that might generate life has the right to exist. If the thing in question naturally fails to do so or it is preferable that it "dies" (otherwise I wouldn't eat anything since I extend this to plants and animals) then I have no problem with that.


That's a pretty untenable position. There are huge numbers of cases of living things being sacrificed for our benefit. Cancer is a living thing, should we stop treating it? What about parasites, should we force people to live with tapeworms? What about diseases caused by bacteria? I'm sure it's nice to believe you "defend life", but such a position is far too simplistic for the real world.

This sort of thing is like Americans saying "I support the troops," the implication is that other people don't support the troops. The "I defend life" thing is really the same thing in many cases. The implication is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't support life. This is also seen in the "pro-abortion" label often given to pro-choice people. I don't know anyone who likes abortion. I do know lots of people who think the government shouldn't be able to dictate what we do inside our bodies.


Re-read what I said closely.


torq wrote:In my country there were periods when abortions were forbidden and periods when abortions were legal.
I can only say that many women died when abortions were forbidden because of illegal abortions.
Abortions is a side of human life. Even in Ancient Egypt there were abortions. So I don't think we'll prove anything in this discussion. All I think, abortions must not be outlawed and women willing to do it should receive proper medical treatment. Their lives and health are much more important than any men's principles.


I honestly don't buy that argument.

What you're saying is that instead of getting ways to prevent women from making illegal abortions (and I would like to note that I have no problems that in some special cases abortion is allowed), we simply legalized it.

That's like saying that the way to prevent theft is making stealing legal.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:55 pm

I have a brother with Downs Syndrome. My wife also has a brother with Downs Syndrome. Neither one of them will ever have the ability to live fully independent lives. They will both probably die young from complications of the syndrome. Wendryn's brother is not, generally speaking, a happy or functional person. He rarely speaks to anyone, and is on a large number of anti-psychotics (due to another side effect of the syndrome). We are concerned that he may be suffering from the early stages of early onset Alzheimer's. My brother is younger, so it is less certain what will happen to him. However, at 17, he cannot handle money or time, is prone to severe mood swings (which are common among people with Downs), and, again, will not be able to live a truly independent life. People will have to take care of him until he dies.

Having watched my brother mature, and having interacted with Wendryn's brother, there is no way that I could, in good conscience, bring a child with Downs Syndrome into the world. I believe that it would be cruel to knowingly do such a thing. I am not suggesting that either one of them be euthanised, or that they are not loved and cared for. However, Wendryn and I will not bring another child with Downs into the world, period.

This is a choice that Wendryn and I have made. When Wendryn becomes pregnant, we plan on ultrasounds and amniocentesis to diagnose any major mental or physical disabilities. There are certain diseases that we consider to be so debilitating that it would be cruel to carry a fetus to term if the fetus suffered from them -- DS or spinobifoda, for instance. As a potential parent, I do not want to be told by the government, or anyone else, that I do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy to spare a person from great suffering.

In a larger sense, the abortion debate is, as SBM stated, a question of semantics. When does life begin? When do a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights? To my mind, a fetus isn't a person until it can survive outside of the womb. The lungs, heart, and other organs must be sufficiently developed to survive. That comes fairly late in pregnancy -- generally in the last month or two. Before that time, the mother (and, to a lesser extent, father) have a right to do whatever they want with the pregnancy. As far as I am concerned, they can terminate for any reason, or no reason at all.

xander
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:12 am

xander wrote:*text*


Very well said. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:13 am

Xocrates wrote:Re-read what I said closely.


I did. . . I'm saying that that is the logical extension of "defending life". You're position is not "defending life," it is simply anti-abortion. You try and hide behind the claim of defending life, but don't actually do so.



Xocrates wrote:What you're saying is that instead of getting ways to prevent women from making illegal abortions (and I would like to note that I have no problems that in some special cases abortion is allowed), we simply legalized it.


The problem is that people will go to extraordinary lengths to get an abortion. The only way to really prevent it is to institute some Orwellian police state.

Xocrates wrote:That's like saying that the way to prevent theft is making stealing legal.


It's actually more like the issue with drugs. Making alcohol illegal in the US only created a huge underground market for it. This became very dangerous because people would figure that since they were already breaking the law by drinking (which they would not give up) they might as well break other, more serious, laws as well (which they otherwise probably wouldn't have). Similar things happen with pot and prostitution.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:17 am

Feud wrote:I think that before this dicussion goes any further, that me must iron out a few terms so that we can all discuss on equal footing.

I noticed when i lived in the south that people refered to soda of all kinds as "Coke", and just because they said they wanted a Coke that they could just as easily mean they wanted a Sprite. With this in mind, let's iron out what does and does not count as ice crea.

Obviously, items described as ice cream alone are valid. But, do items that mearly include ice cream count as well? Would a Klondike bar, and ice cream sandwich, an Eskimo Pie, or a Choco Taco count? If so then a wide variety or choices are now open.

Further, are we including various frozen treats that are not exactly ice cream, but often serve as subsitute? For example, would frozen custard, parfait, or italian gelato be an option? I doubt that shaved ice would count, as it is really not that close to ice cream, but were it to be included then I would probably change my vote to Watermelon shaved ice.


Ice Cream is ICE CREAM, not a frozen dessert of just any kind.

Uninformed adults come into the game stores where I work and they ask for a 'Nintendo', and they think that all consoles are 'Nintendos'.
It's true ignorance, meaning that they just plain don't know, but it's surprising to me how uninformed some of these consumers are.
They base all of their purchases on what they can barely perceive, heresay, and alot of my good old-fashioned salesmanship :) That's putting out alot of faith into bringing home a solid product on a virtually random completely uninformed purchase.

But about ice cream....

Vanilla. Plain and simple is the best. It's the ice cream equivalent of chicken, you can make it taste like anything. Add sprinkles, fudge, nuts, chocolate shavings, the kitchen sink ;)
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:24 am

Stewsburntmonkey surely has expressed a lot of views I sympathize with and agree on.

I find it funny so many people nearly trip over themselves getting in the debate. "We must save a life/child".
Fast forward 13 years later and once they've made their first post somewhere they hear "You are not welcome here/Welcome to the internet".

Ok, that was a ludicrous way (at best) to voice my opinion, but I think my point is valid.
I don't mean to sound like a cruel, sadistic bastard -but I guess on this topic I just am- but that embryo ...that has eyes, hands, and is developing..it may LOOK human, but till some point _after_ birth it doesn't gain all cognitive (and other) qualities related to "being human".
I'm not saying people should go around disposing of babies like they are throw-away cameras either. It just boggles my mind to see how people think about children -especially the oversensitivity to them. The reverence...the adoration.... I just don't get it, honestly.
People will say the nicest things about kids, but when said kid grows up, it's just another asshole for you to ignore on your morning train/bus/plane to work :roll:

No, having children is not a universal right.
No, wanting children to save your relationship/marriage is not the way to proceed.
No, children aren't meant to "make something of your life because you failed to in your own time".
No, children shouldn't be conceived "as the next step", to have a little pet, or as a status symbol (wow, they have a big house and 6 kids :shock:).

Just had to get that out of my system. Probably you're all thinking I'm extremely opposed to kids or heavily dislike them. Quite the contrary is true.

My mother has a daycare centre, and I've helped out quite a few occassions. I have a 5-year old nephew that I adore ;)
My ex was pregnant of her ex-boyfriend when we met (only 2 weeks so she didn't know at the time). We were initially just friends, but one thing led to another and by the time we started a relationship she was 4 months pregnant. I was there every step of the way, I was the first to hold her son in my arms when he was born (prematurely). Because of his weak condition (and a small handicap) there was a real threat to his chances of survival, so I never left the hospital for the entire week mom & the newborn were there (much to the dismay of the hospital staff. "Sir, it's not that we don't allow it, but...it's unusual." The magic words were "I don't need a separate bed, I'll take the couch, but my insurance will certainly cover for my stay".Even got meals as of that point :P (and the insurance never covered it :P ))
Before giving birth my ex had moved in with me more or less... was more with me than back at her parent's place ; after her son was born we just made it official. I'm cutting out a lot of detail, as I don't feel I should give out more, but fast forward 1.5 years and we broke up, she won't let me see the kid (even though he bears my name...I'm not going to get into the debate of if that was clever or not to do, so soon.... It's what felt right, and we both wanted....at a certain point in time.), we're entangled in tribunal to have the "recognition" of the kid (if that's what it's called in English) undone (which means to have him "barred" of my name? - not my call, but after not having seen him for over a few months I stopped protesting. It won't help him to have two people around that can't get along and constantly argue.)
I had a very succesfull carreer at that point. No one I know that would argue that. I went from workaholic to family guy, nearly overnight, and never regretted it.

All I can say after taking care for a baby for such a long period -day and night- is that it's a lot harder than I ever imagined. It influences your life so much and so much can go wrong...Definitely not an easy task, which didn't feel rewarding at all for the very first weeks.
That may sound harsh - but the real fun was hearing the little one laugh for the first time and make various sounds, play with his feet, ... . That kind of thing.

To get back to the topic at hand. I guess there should really be limits to what can and cannot be done in terms of abortion. Abortion should be executed as soon as possible and for a few very valid reasons only:
- rape
- unplanned pregnancy
- parents are too young
- living condition of the parents would not accomodate new life easily (famine, war zones, ... . Just a few examples I came up with quickly.)
- severely handicapped child

And while thinking about what I said, I think I should elaborate on "kids are not a universal right".
No one should be able to decide whether you CAN and are ALLOWED to have a child (cfr. China). But do a better job at informing people of what to expect, what decisions and living conditions will impact the child (and its evolution) and these aspects. Stop making having kids look "cool" or be "the next step after living together with someone and/or marrying".
It's not. There's nothing wrong with living your life first, settling down and taking time to make sure things are stable, healthy and secure BEFORE inflicting life on another being ;)

Alas, nothing's black and white. The father who's out working 70h per week might provide a great income for his family, but sadly, never be around for his kids. The father on wellfare support could be the most loving and attentive father a kid could wish for. However, if your husband has violent tendencies, has (heavily) (ab)used drugs the last few years or people around you are starving to death. Cut yourself and the kid a break : don't have one in the first place.
Its "goal" isn't to bring _you_ joy and happiness, or the love/respect you are missing in other relationships.

End of rant. Flame gently ;)

edit:
@xander: seems like I can agree with all what you said, but you put it in a less inflamatory and better thought out way I think. (or rather, without ranting. Gah, been doing lots of that lately. Time for some holidays I fear.)
The real issue is when do you want people to be able to execute an abortion... for "ethical" reasons (not related to the fetus but more on the reasons the people do the abortion for...like I said, kids should not become throw-away cameras. )
Last edited by torig on Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:25 am

Ice Cream.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:59 am

torig wrote:To get back to the topic at hand. I guess there should really be limits to what can and cannot be done in terms of abortion. Abortion should be executed as soon as possible and for a few very valid reasons only:
- rape
- unplanned pregnancy
- parents are too young
- living condition of the parents would not accomodate new life easily (famine, war zones, ... . Just a few examples I came up with quickly.)
- severely handicapped child

I disagree with this list. Having reasons that a person can use to terminate a pregnancy allows others to assert that those conditions have not been met. Ultimately, it must be the decision of the pregnant woman (and, to a lesser extent, the man who would be raising the child, should the pregnancy come to term).
  • In the case of rape, who determines that a rape occurred? How long might the process take? What if, after the termination, it is discovered that no rape occurred? What if the process takes so long that the pregnancy comes to term before a decision regarding the alleged rape is made?
  • In the case of an "unplanned pregnancy," who determines that the pregnancy is unplanned? If the man who contributes the sperm claims that he intentionally left out the condom, does it count as planned because he planned it? What if a woman changes her mind?
  • In the case of parents being too young, who determines that they are two young? Do we not allow anyone under the age of 18 to have children? What if the woman is "too young," but the man is not? Vice versa? Are minors required to get their parents' permission?
  • In the case of poor living conditions, who determines that? How do you prove it? Again, what is the decision making process? How long does that process take?
While I agree that a pregnant woman should consider the above, and that her decision should be informed by those factors, I strongly feel that the final decision needs to be hers, and hers alone -- unconstrained.

xander

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests