A place for Canadians.

Feb 23, 2011 Thomas commented on Six Pregnancy Tests in One Week.
@TheLiberator: "As to the clump of cells argument, in as little as 12 weeks from conception, the baby has fingers, toes, a beating heart, and brain activity. In any other environment that is considered life, but the abortionists consistently deny it as life."

I agree: "that clump of cells" is a life, and technically it is human. But I disagree to the idea that it is a human person, with all the rights we usually consider part of what a human is. At the stages of development where abortions are usually carried out (about 90% of abortions in the US are performed within the first trimester, or 12 weeks, of the pregnancy), the embryo is simply not developed enough. Sure, there's brain activity there by week 12, as you say, but there's brain activity in cows as well (now, if you're a vegan, and opposed to the slaughter of animals as well, then we'll have to disagree, and I'll applaud your internal consistency even if I disagree with your conclusions. Actually, come to think of it, vegans should probably all be anti-abortionists).

A topic that seems not to be raised too often when it comes to abortions is the difference between early and late abortions. There's a very large difference in the development of a foetus from 10 weeks to 16 to 20 weeks. I am against late-stage abortions on request, and with what I know of foetal development, I think the laws used many places in Europe, where abortion is only freely available for the first trimester, strikes a good balance between choice and life. I could agree to 16 weeks, but allowing abortions without a sound medical reason beyond that stage is starting to stretch it. At 20 weeks, the foetus is possibly able to feel pain (though that is a debated topic), and at 21, it is technically viable (though the chances of survival at 21 weeks is really small). I'd prefer if there was a little bit of a safety margin on these numbers, so 12-16 weeks seems good.
More...
Apr 9, 2010 Thomas commented on Savage Love.
To snoop (from wiktionary)
1. To be devious and cunning so as not to be seen
2. To secretly spy on or investigate, especially into the private personal life of others.

By the definition of the word, openly reading through your partners emails, texts, and whatever, is not snooping. Finding incriminating evidence by accident while doing so is not snooping. Hiding the fact that you are reading your SO's emails, lying to him or her about it, is snooping. In my opinion, if you feel the need to go that far, there's probably already something seriously wrong with the relationship (though the fault may be yours for being too paranoid and insecure). Of course, exceptions do exist, maybe the SO is being all strange and secretive because he/she is planning some sort of special event or something.

On the other hand, I do see snooping as justified if you have a reasonable suspicion; this goes for both relationships, friends and your kids, really. The keyword here is reasonable, not suspicion. It's a bit like how the police must have search warrants to search your property, only you're both judge and executioner.

I'm still no fan of sharing sharing any sort of communication with a partner. Not because of what she could potentially learn about me, though. Rather, it's due to what she could potentially learn about those I correspond with, information that has been told to me in confidence. I know plenty of things about friends that they wouldn't want just anybody to know about, both of the purely embarrassing kind and of the kind that could cause problems or even get them into trouble if the right people knew. Some of this is, I'm sure, to be found in my email, chat logs or texts.

You can argue that any partner of mine has a right to know any information pertaining to me and my relationship with her. I am inclined to agree, assuming a serious long-term relationship. You can't argue that a partner of mine has any right to know private information about my friends or other correspondents; in fact, sometimes sharing such information would even be illegal (and, yeah, some of the information I know would go under that category, but I don't have that written down anywhere, and anyway it's probably so low-grade and so old by now I wouldn't face any sort of reprecussions).
More...
Apr 9, 2010 Thomas commented on Savage Love.
To snoop (from wiktionary)
1. To be devious and cunning so as not to be seen
2. To secretly spy on or investigate, especially into the private personal life of others.

By the definition of the word, openly reading through your partners emails, texts, and whatever, is not snooping. Finding incriminating evidence by accident while doing so is not snooping. Hiding the fact that you are reading your SO's emails, lying to him or her about it, is snooping. In my opinion, if you feel the need to go that far, there's probably already something seriously wrong with the relationship (though the fault may be yours for being too paranoid and insecure). Of course, exceptions do exist, maybe the SO is being all strange and secretive because he/she is planning some sort of special event or something.

On the other hand, I do see snooping as justified if you have a reasonable suspicion; this goes for both relationships, friends and your kids, really. The keyword here is reasonable, not suspicion. It's a bit like how the police must have search warrants to search your property, only you're both judge and executioner.

I'm still no fan of sharing sharing any sort of communication with a partner. Not because of what she could potentially learn about me, though. Rather, it's due to what she could potentially learn about those I correspond with, information that has been told to me in confidence. I know plenty of things about friends that they wouldn't want just anybody to know about, both of the purely embarrassing kind and of the kind that could cause problems or even get them into trouble if the right people knew. Some of this is, I'm sure, to be found in my email, chat logs or texts.

You can argue that any partner of mine has a right to know any information pertaining to me and my relationship with her. I am inclined to agree, assuming a serious long-term relationship. You can't argue that a partner of mine has any right to know private information about my friends or other correspondents; in fact, sometimes sharing such information would even be illegal (and, yeah, some of the information I know would go under that category, but I don't have that written down anywhere, and anyway it's probably so low-grade and so old by now I wouldn't face any sort of reprecussions).
More...
May 28, 2009 Thomas commented on Savage Love.
I'd like to comment on this abstinence thing.

Interestingly, according to surveys done both in the US and in my home country of Norway, a large percentage of christian youngsters do not consider sexual acts outside of vaginal penetration sex. Mutual masturbation and oral sex? Quite fine. The Reverend Bill McGinnis even goes as far as *stating* that dating with petting until achieved orgasm can be an option to avoid sex among unmarried christians.

Which I find pretty awesome, really. If only they preached this belief more loudly - I think my time in the youth club of my local church would have been much more awesome (and I probably would have had my sexual debut in the form of a threesome at a skiing trip :-P )
 
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy