Derek Boain

Recent Activity

• 

  Derek commented on the article | about 1 year ago

  And The War Against Ovaries Continues

  It took me some time to actually come up with an answer, which is this:

  
  

  That's another subject.

  
  

  Most, if not all states now have safe surrender laws, allowing the mother to surrender, no questions asked, an infant for whom she feels she cannot provide proper parental care. Most laws give her thirty days to reclaim the child after which he or she gets processed into the foster system. This is considered a better alternative to infanticide, abandonment and the rare female family-annihilator 

  
  

  What this means is women's reproductive rights are now a completely separate issue from placement of parental responsibility, but we knew this since the obstructionists have oft argued that a child could "always be given up for adoption" often noting the long waiting lists seeking healthy white infant adoptees.

  
  

  But to address the concern, I suspect a number of things would happen, were artificial wombs and transition to become commonly available (and covered by medical care):

  
  

  First, the baby boom would happen, but it'd be brief.

  
  

  Second, those who were Biblical Literalists would object to how these procedures deny Genesis (that whole pain-of-childbirth thing), because it's another means to slow the inevitable force of progress, and the equalization of the sexes. Hopefully, they won't occupy the press much in the US.

  
  

  And thirdly, we'll bring birth control and STI control up to the same standards we bring most other medical concerns, as to address the population boom.

  
  

  The good news, is we're closer to development of an artificial uterus than I previously thought. We may see it this decade, and the abortion issue will turn all sorts of interesting colors.

  
  

   

• 

  Derek commented on the article | about 1 year ago

  And The War Against Ovaries Continues

   

  
  

  Wow, Mr. Adams Esq. and what authority do your qualifications give you to deny a woman sovereignty over her own person?

  
  

  Last I checked: none.

  
  

  What authority do your qualifications give you to declare what lines of thought are (or are not) morally bankrupt?

  
  

  Last I checked: none.

  
  

  I say you should get a refund for your degree(s), if that's the best position you can make. Of course, you probably aren't a lawyer or a human biologist, and for the sake of Catholics, I hope you're not one of them, as you don't speak well for those that are.

  
  

  No, you're probably just a troll, in which case you're welcome. So go run along now.

• 

  Derek signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  Tell Congress: Donate All Oil Company Campaign Contributions to Save Gulf Wildlife
• 

  Derek signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  Stop False Advertising by Crisis Pregnancy Centers
• 

  Derek signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  Tell EPA: Take away BP's billions in federal contracts
• 

  Derek signed the petition | about 2 years ago

  Tell Senate Leader Reid: Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
• 

  Derek commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  And The War Against Ovaries Continues

  Just to make sure, Ms. Giandomenico, are you aware:
  
  Bills are typically hundreds, often thousands of pages, and hardly written to sustain interest. Our representatives seldom read the entirety of a bill they sign?
  
  That the populace is even less inclined to slog through so many pages of legal drivel, or that they, averaging at 100 IQ are far more inclined to vote against what's more scary or squicky, than for what is right or just? And, invariably vote for more benefits yet fewer taxes?
  
  That your ability to pay your own way doesn't equate to the ability of all Americans to pay their own way; that, for example, most Walmart employees are on food stamps and Medicaid because they're far enough below the poverty line to qualify? The families of enlisted men in the US Army are as well, but are under orders not to apply, since it does not speak well for the army. Life on minimum wage, netted after the sacred-cow payroll tax, typically while moonlighting since most conglomerates only hire entry-level part time as to avoid the obligation of insurance benefits, typically does not amount to an equitable standard of living and, yes, it really does suck like a singularity.
  
  That your right to live as you choose does not allow you to impede on the rights of others to live as they choose, hence the same reason that Jews who practice kosher cannot impose their dietary restrictions on those who do not, and you don't have a right to live in an abortion-free state any more than you have the right to walk down a black-free street or live in a gay-free community. You cannot (or rather should not) be able to impose the restrictions of your belief systems on that of others, which is why abortion access should remain secured, and such things like gay marriage should be.
  
  Just checking.

• 

  Derek commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  And The War Against Ovaries Continues

  Among the nineteen signers, I've noticed: seventeen men, two women.  Kaptur is 63, Dahlkemper is 51. So the chances of any of them getting an unwanted pregnancy is negligible, if not absolute zero.
  
  As part of my pledge to NOW, I won't call the anti-abortion-access front pro-life (especially since, as Dan Savage noted, who is, exactly, pro-death?), but the term anti-abortion is also inaccurate since the pro-choice sector would also like to see fewer abortions. Hence, I've taken to the twentieth-century styled term obstructionist, especially since my primary objection to the front is it's fixation on obstructing abortion access, as opposed to the countless other  tacts we could use to reduce the number of abortions in the US. It really does make the obstructionist movement look like a power play than it does an issue of actual morality.
  
  These said, perhaps this cluster of nineteen obstructionist democrats might actually be open to the plethora of other tactics we can use to reduce abortions, such as: guarantee comprehensive health care and a minimum standard of living to mothers and children for the first five years; guarantee contraceptive access to anyone who wants it, free; finance development of better, safer, easier and less obtrusive contraceptives; and provide  nation-wide comprehensive sex-education. Hopefully, being Democrats, they contrast to their more conservative obstructionist brethren who are anti-contraception-access, against public welfare and proponents of issues such as capital punishment or unjust warfare.
  
  My favorite alternative abortion-reducing tactic remains that of ectogenesis: we develop artificial tanks that can serve as the perfect womb environment for a developing fetus (translucency and piped-in Mozart optional), that way mother and unborn can become independent of each other on demand, yet both lives are sustained. Considering we've already done this for lab animals and livestock, it's not a big step to extend its usage to humans. This and a cheap, minimally-invasive transplantation procedure would be all that is necessary to completely eliminate the abortion controversy, and the power-struggle that it represents. Of course, if this happened, it might reveal the subtext of the abortion controversy: Much of our nation doesn't like couples having sex without consequences. (Also the evident subtext of the gay-rights controversy.)

• 

  Derek commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  And The War Against Ovaries Continues

  The European systems may not work, but some work better than the US system. Germany has the best health-care system on the planet, yet they only pay a fifth of what we pay. Maybe emulating them isn't as bad an idea as you think. This idea isn't new. We've been trying to reform our healthcare system since President George H. W. Bush's administration (if not before).
  
  In the meantime, Ms. Giandomenico it's the lower income brackets that need government-sponsored contraceptive and abortion access the most, being that they don't always have the same opportunities that the higher incomes do to pay for it on their own, and often the last thing they need is another mouth to feed.
  
  As for people being unable to keep it in their pants, we are undeniably sexual creatures. Everyone who has been unable to resist their own sexual urges have been bred out since before we were walking upright. The STD epidemics that continue do so because mammals are just wired to rut at every opportunity. You may personally be disgusted with sex, or appalled at those who cannot control their baser urges, but this doesn't change the nature of the human beast.

• 

  Derek commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  Family Values FAIL

  The topics of individualism and collectivism, and of libertarian socialism are veering a bit from the scope of this forum, so I'm going to sum up, but in short Mr. Cornford, I don't think you and I are necessarily in disagreement; our differences lie in semantics, not ideologies.
  
  As an academist, I find it necessary to rely on definitions of words, despite the tendency for Orwellian decay in the field. Individualism and collectivism as I understand them aren't necessarily conflicting ideologies, only they cover differing territories, not unlike democracy and communism, which were put at odds via the propaganda of the cold war. As things are, in the US where words like communism and socialism are regarded as profane, it's still clear we rely on socialism for many of the commodities we enjoy, from defense and security to the maintenance of roads and highways. Not everything can be resolved well in the open market, just as not all  markets fare well when run by the state.
  
  That said, securing the rights of the individual remains an important pursuit just as a matter of the ethic of reciprocity; we all want the right to be our eccentric selves rather than be forced to conform beyond our ability to cope. Individual rights often as a matter of morale even have a positive effect on the collective, but this doesn't make them inherently collectivist.