Why sex education is vital

[john5746]

Couldn't help myself. Excellent video by Rachel Maddow

[Phi for All]

It's tragic that "life-begins-at-conception" arguments even take place at this level of government. It's a ridiculous stance that cannot be upheld, cannot be policed and puts the government so intimately involved in people's daily lives that I can't believe any self-respecting Republican would stand for it.

 

First George Bush grows the biggest government in history, then he shifts strategy to arrange for the US military to be the world's police, then he signs off on no-bid government contracts to strangle free market dealings and now this. What has happened to the Republican platform?

[waitforufo]

It's tragic that "life-begins-at-conception" arguments even take place at this level of government. It's a ridiculous stance that cannot be upheld, cannot be policed and puts the government so intimately involved in people's daily lives that I can't believe any self-respecting Republican would stand for it.

 

First George Bush grows the biggest government in history, then he shifts strategy to arrange for the US military to be the world's police, then he signs off on no-bid government contracts to strangle free market dealings and now this. What has happened to the Republican platform?

 

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where human life was held so dear that end of any human life was always considered a tragedy no matter the necessity. How important is your life to you? What part of it didn't matter?

 

How you answer those questions can impact your opinion on whether "life-begins-at-conception". Mine began at conception. I also believe that our constitution recognizes my "right to life" and the lives of all humans.

 

This issue by the way is not a Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, religious, or atheist issue. There are plenty of people who fit comfortably under each of those labels that believe that "life-begins-at-conception" and that life is a right protected by the US constitution.

 

The reason this is such a hot political topic is that those that disagree with the idea that "life-begins-at-conception" know that strengthening that right is just one justice away.

[Phi for All]

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where human life was held so dear that end of any human life was always considered a tragedy no matter the necessity. How important is your life to you? What part of it didn't matter?

 

How you answer those questions can impact your opinion on whether "life-begins-at-conception". Mine began at conception. I also believe that our constitution recognizes my "right to life" and the lives of all humans.

 

This issue by the way is not a Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, religious, or atheist issue. There are plenty of people who fit comfortably under each of those labels that believe that "life-begins-at-conception" and that life is a right protected by the US constitution.

 

The reason this is such a hot political topic is that those that disagree with the idea that "life-begins-at-conception" know that strengthening that right is just one justice away.

Life-at-any-cost is not a tenable position. Why should the life of a zygote that MAY reach maturity take precedence over the currently living host? And you have to draw a line sometime AFTER conception before conferring humanity simply because policing such a broad definition is impossible without a profound desecration of a woman's rights to her own body. The only people I've talked to who welcomed the idea of the Miscarriage Police Investigators told me the force could also be expanded to encompass ALL morality violations.

 

They happened to be Republicans.

[John Cuthber]

What part of it didn't matter?

 

Since nobody was aware of my life for at least the first few weeks it's clear that they didn't matter.

[iNow]

I've frequently been intrigued by the cognitive dissonance shown by the "life is dear and begins at conception" crowd, and how this sort of ending of life should be opposed at all costs... no matter what... no gray area... no subtlety... no room for question or nuance. It's funny because you see such tremendous and almost unshakable overlap between them... these "life is precious" folks... and those who support the death penalty and the absolute need to keep and bear arms... often in large quantities with tremendous stores of ammo.

 

Add to that the fact that these same folks so often proclaim to want to shrink government in nearly every conceivable way, and prevent government from playing any role whatsoever in our lives, yet they are totally okay inserting government in one of the most forceful possible ways into perhaps one of the single most personal, difficult, and traumatic decisions a human will ever make.

 

It's really too bad that the crazy in this country runs so deep that such an obvious hypocrisy and double standard is so often overlooked and ignored.

Edited October 23, 2011 by iNow

[Phi for All]

It's really too bad that the crazy in this country runs so deep that such an obvious hypocrisy and double standard is so often overlooked and ignored.

I wonder if the real reason is because the two-party system requires each side to cast their nets too wide, and they're both guaranteed to catch some crazy. The Dems get some pretty far left huggers that would sacrifice people for trees, and the Reps snare the religious zealots who revere the embryos more than the mother.

 

If we had instant run-off voting, would abortion claim as much attention? Would Roe v Wade be safer? Would we finally be able to vote for better representation as opposed to just making sure Sarah Palin isn't in charge of the nukes, or that Rick Perry isn't all up in our women's uteri?

 

Could a different voting system be an answer to multiple problems?

[iNow]

I suspect it would help, yes. But so too would better education and integrity.

[Phi for All]

I suspect it would help, yes. But so too would better education and integrity.

We can't get the better education part until Congress stops making public schools look bad so they can privatize them. Some sort of voting reform has to happen first.

 

The integrity will probably never happen with career politicians. Maybe instead of elections, we go back to the idea of political office by lottery. Limited terms well compensated for, a small stipend for life once you're out of office, free medical insurance. Remove as many opportunities for corruption as possible. I would think the average person is less likely to risk losing their "perks for life" to get a few payoffs for special interest votes.

 

But even a system like this would need to be changed eventually, because people who learn a system are more likely to scam it.

[jeskill]

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where human life was held so dear that end of any human life was always considered a tragedy no matter the necessity. How important is your life to you? What part of it didn't matter?

 

How you answer those questions can impact your opinion on whether "life-begins-at-conception". Mine began at conception. I also believe that our constitution recognizes my "right to life" and the lives of all humans.

 

This issue by the way is not a Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, religious, or atheist issue. There are plenty of people who fit comfortably under each of those labels that believe that "life-begins-at-conception" and that life is a right protected by the US constitution.

 

The reason this is such a hot political topic is that those that disagree with the idea that "life-begins-at-conception" know that strengthening that right is just one justice away.

 

The problem with "life begins at conception" is that, from a biological perspective, life doesn't begin at conception. Rather, life continues at conception. Think about it: a zygote is not created from non-life. The two components that fuse to make a zygote -- the sperm and the egg -- are biologically alive before fertilization occurs. There is no point in the process at which things aren't alive.

 

I think what "life begins at conception" people are trying to say, is that the special aspect which makes a human a human begins at conception. But different people define that special aspect differently. Some people call it a soul, others call it consciousness, others still may call it something else such as a heartbeat, or the ability to survive outside the womb. This definition can affect a person's belief concerning when a zygote or fetus should have the same rights as a human outside the womb.

 

The other concern I have is thus: if you define that special aspect as "the point at which a new individual has a soul" then how can you define the moment in physical time when the metaphysical concept "soul" begins to exist? How in the world could you provide physical evidence that a soul pops into existence the moment an egg is fertilized? I strongly believe that in a country which professes we all have the right to our own religion (or lack of religion), these things should be based on physical evidence.