My great aunt had a very friendly budgerigar, its name was Dukie.

Quoting harkin: My great aunt had a very friendly budgerigar, its name was Dukie.

Wow. When did we stop calling them parakeets? I never heard this term before, although as soon as I looked at Wikipedia, I was all, "Oh, budgies. So that's where that name came from."

I found the discussion on the future of journalism to be tiresome. For all the time journalists spend looking at, listening to, and reading each other they don't seem to notice how staid their complaining is. When people in other fields have to adapt to technological change it tends to be a bit tougher than learning to write 140 characters at a time, and they don't get a bullhorn to shout their anxieties at the world. As to bing's advertising: I suspect it might be focused on "information overload" and trying to sort through data not because of the cultural zeitgeist but instead because it's a search engine.

Quoting pampl: I found the discussion on the future of journalism to be tiresome. For all the time journalists spend looking at, listening to, and reading each other they don't seem to notice how staid their complaining is. When people in other fields have to adapt to technological change it tends to be a bit tougher than learning to write 140 characters at a time, and they don't get a bullhorn to shout their anxieties at the world.

As to bing's advertising: I suspect it might be focused on "information overload" and trying to sort through data not because of the cultural zeitgeist but instead because it's a search engine.

Heh. Yep. I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft is a tad more focused on boosting their search results-driven ad revenue than on easing all of our general anxieties. I mean, a company that promotes a talking paper clip for years in the face of a global uproar does not exactly strike me as plugged in.

For Rachel Lehmann-Haupt: Have there been any surveys of the grown children of single women who decided to have them without fathers, and their feelings about that? Shouldn't that group be consulted?

Did anyone notice how when Ms. Goldberg began to express her reasons for thinking she might not want to ever have a baby her blogging partner constantly interrupted with answers to her objections. This is all too familiar.
All I can say is don't have a baby unless you really, really want children. You don't want to have a child just because you can't think of a good reason not to have one. And don't worry, despite the mythology I've known no woman who never before felt inclined to have a child suddenly regret that decision at 40 or 50.

Quoting ohcomeon: Did anyone notice how when Ms. Goldberg began to express her reasons for thinking she might not want to ever have a baby her blogging partner constantly interrupted with answers to her objections. This is all too familiar.
All I can say is don't have a baby unless you really, really want children. You don't want to have a child just because you can't think of a good reason not to have one. And don't worry, despite the mythology I've known no woman who never before felt inclined to have a child suddenly regret that decision at 40 or 50.

Maybe. I thought she was interrupting throughout. But your larger point sure sounds correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...s-health-risks

Quoting Toryentalist: Canonising abortionists ('St. George') is a great way to piss off people who are pro-life, just as demonising abortionists is a great way to piss off people who are pro-choice. I'm starting to think that abortion isn't the issue here - it's a tug of war between secular-progessives' and evangelical-reactionaries' over who 'owns' the moral debate in America. Ignoring the people who actually don't care either way and pushing their pathetic ideologies into the political arena -- where this issue most emphatically does not belong.

Abortions = nasty, but even if they were made illegal they'd still go on.

You are obviously a Brit, and thus mystified by the peculiarities of American politics. Your second sentence is correct. The tug of war exists in the US because the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter in this pseudo- "moral debate," which leaves many people completely indifferent. If the matter were left up to the legislature, as it is in European countries, there would be the possibilty of a reasonable resolution, i.e. of a compromise that would force both sides to submit to the law of the land. Instead, Americans expect the Supreme Court to act in lieu of

The US system has its benefits. Order for one. Democracy is very messy.

Quoting Francoamerican: This is a recipe for disaster: the Supreme Court has no business legislating on such issues.

While I, too, would prefer that this matter be resolved legislatively (but only if the law goes the right way, admittedly), I don't agree with your view. One of the things the judiciary does, ideally, is protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority (if applicable -- not sure it is here) and the howling of narrow interest groups (more applicable here) who would seek to limit them.

Quoting bjkeefe: While I, too, would prefer that this matter be resolved legislatively (but only if the law goes the right way, admittedly), I don't agree with your view. One of the things the judiciary does, ideally, is protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority (if applicable -- not sure it is here) and the howling of narrow interest groups (more applicable here) who would seek to limit them.

True, the Supreme Court protects individual rights against the tyranny of the majority, which usually means the tyranny of particular states. But it is difficult for me to see how the abortion debate can be settled on the plane of rights, if you think that unborn children also have rights....as many people do. IMHO, this is a moral question that can only have a political solution.

Quoting Francoamerican: True, the Supreme Court protects individual rights against the tyranny of the majority, which usually means the tyranny of particular states.

But it is difficult for me to see how the abortion debate can be settled on the plane of rights, if you think that unborn children also have rights....as many people do. IMHO, this is a moral question that can only have a political solution.

Yeah, that part about the fetus having rights is arguable, at least in the abstract. For me, since it can't be settled on a societal level, and since we have decided that it is a moral question, the only solution is to leave the decision up to the individual. Those who appoint themselves defenders of other women's fetuses are just going to have to content themselves with not having abortions themselves, and since most of them believe in a judgmental God, leave what other people do up to him. I'd also respect those who claim to be standing up for the rights of the fetus more if so many of them weren't also so adamantly opposed to methods of preventing unwanted

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, that part about the fetus having rights is arguable, at least in the abstract..

All questions about rights are abstract. My point was that the law can only talk about rights, and in this case there are competing claims about rights. Hence conflict. The only solution in such a case is an act of legislative fiat: Auctoritas, non veritas fecit legem. Authority, not truth, makes law.

Quoting bjkeefe: For me, since it can't be settled on a societal level, and since we have decided that it is a moral question, the only solution is to leave the decision up to the individual. Those who appoint themselves defenders of other women's fetuses are just going to have to content themselves with minding their own business, and since most of them believe in a judgmental God, leave it in his hands..

If it can't be decided on the "societal" level (I would prefer to say at the POLITICAL level since that is where all disagreements are arbitrated), I really don't see how you can expect those who "have appointed themselves defenders of other women's fetuses to content themselves with minding their own business." I agree that they are generally obnoxious

Quoting Francoamerican: All questions about rights are abstract. My point was that the law can only talk about rights, and in this case there are competing claims about rights. Hence conflict. The only solution in such a case is an act of legislative fiat: Auctoritas, non veritas fecit legem. Authority, not truth, makes law.

Well, no. Laws are always subject to interpretation in how they apply and how they are to be enforced, not to mention being subject to having their legitimacy questioned in the first place. At least in the US system. I also do not believe that passing a law is going to solve anything, as far as people arguing about rights goes.

If it can't be decided on the "societal" level (I would prefer to say at the POLITICAL level since that is where all disagreements are arbitrated), I really don't see how you can expect those who "have appointed themselves defenders of other women's fetuses to content themselves with minding their own business." I agree that they are generally obnoxious busybodies, but if they are to be prevented from interfering with women's rights, there has to be some kind of decision, either legislative or judicial, that makes it

What's wrong with adoption?

I agree. As if book authors and editors didn't try to sensationalize! And, to whomever it was decrying the woeful reading habits of lowly e-readers: it was my professor/adviser - back in the days before digital - who advised me to increase my reading speed by running straight to the conclusion. "Oh, I haven't read a whole book since I was an undergrad!" The last I checked she was Poli Sci department head at UMBC. But, I do read all the words, and e-books allow me to read all of them without paying shipping fees or waiting weeks. I also don't have to pay - again and again - for the honor of packing and moving them, but carry them in my pocket. It's not conservatism - it's snobbery!

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, no. Laws are always subject to interpretation in how they apply and how they are to be enforced, not to mention being subject to having their legitimacy questioned in the first place. At least in the US system.

I also do not believe that passing a law is going to solve anything, as far as people arguing about rights goes..

Laws are subject to interpretation, to be sure, but in every state there is an ultimate authority that decides which laws stand, which laws are legitimate. The problem in this case is that the ruling regarding the right to abortion has never been regarded as legitimate by a substantial minority of Americans both because they think it was based on dubious legal or moral reasoning and because they think the Supreme Court lacks the legitimate authority to make a ruling in the first place. A law passed by the legislature may also be open to interpretation but it is as "legitimate" as anything ever can be in a democracy: vox populi, vox dei. It is certainly more legitimate than a ruling by the Supreme Court. But I agree that a

Quoting Baltimoron: What's wrong with adoption?

I don't think the objection is to adoption on its own, more on pointing to the possibility of adoption as a cure-all for the abortion issue. The linked Andrew Sullivan letter is a good example. In an incredibly surface level analysis, I kind of view the abortion debate and the energy independence debate similarly. The argument on the latter generally focusses on the fact that lowering dependence on oil is going to require some of all of the available options. When liberals point at renewable energy sources and conservatives balk, the liberal response is that we need to try all available options and that there is no one solution; similarly for conservatives pointing to offshore drilling and increased nuclear energy. Increasing the number of available options to solving a problem is pointed to by both sides as a reason to try the options that they specifically want to include, with the perspective of having multiple options available viewed as an absolute good. If the common ground on abortion is to lower the number of abortions, or to lower the number of

Quoting Francoamerican: I don't think there is any fundamental agreement between us. I

Who cut you off? ;^) Okay. I didn't really want to have an abortion debate, anyway.

Quoting bjkeefe: Who cut you off? ;^)

Okay. I didn't really want to have an abortion debate, anyway.

The telephone and doorbell rang simultaneously, and then I had to run. I meant to say: there is no fundamental DISagreement between us.

To speak with such disdain that doctors would be opposed to inseminated single women is short sighted. It's not brave to raise a child by yourself (purposely), but it is self-interested. The unborn child doesn't have a voice, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. As a young man raised by a mother who decided to go it alone after a one night stand, I only wish I had a male role model in my life when I was young. In addition, the child-parent role can be reversed when the weight of the pressure becomes too much a single parent. I had to watch my mother slowly become depressed and addicted to sedatives. While I should of been developing in middle school I had to deal with her psychosis. The brazen comments of Rachel rub me the wrong way; at what point does women's empowerment stop and consider the other parties involved?

Quoting Baltimoron: What's wrong with adoption?

Easy -- it results in unhappy situations. One of the worst parts of the abortion debate has been the rush to gloss over the difficulties that are inherent in adoption. Frankly, people crave their own biological parents. They crave contact and information. It's a difficult burden on the adoptive family and on the child. And the politicization of adoption (as an alternative to abortion) has led to a lot of white washing. Adoption is not actually a great solution. It might be the best solution in a large number of cases, and it certainly creates happy stories, but I don't think it's all that smart to treat it like a cost-free choice. It's painful and difficult, even in the best scenarios.

Quoting Francoamerican: The telephone and doorbell rang simultaneously, and then I had to run. I meant to say: there is no fundamental DISagreement between us.

Oddly enough, that's how I read it originally.

I just think this is really a bad idea. Given the global overpopulation issue (the so-called birth crisis is only a function of limits on migration), the notion that significant government (or for that matter social) investment in helping people have children (or more children) seems like the worst idea in the world. Once the global population stabilizes, perhaps. But the notion that every single person on earth has an inherent right to have as many children as they desire is very short-sighted. Aside from the stated notion that this will primarily be something that upper class older people engage in, it just seems antithetical to the long-term interests of our species and our planet. Maybe some people shouldn't have children. maybe the planet doesn't need any more people.

Quoting Baltimoron: What's wrong with adoption?

You mean for older mothers who want children? Vs. IVF and donor eggs and egg freezing and all that? It's a good question, especially when the child is the product of a donor egg and sperm bank anyway, so it's not some deep-seated desire to pass on one's genes or whatever. However, I imagine the answer is that people don't trust that adoption works very well -- the popular perception, anyway, is that few infants are available (the desire for an infant is pretty self-explanatory), the process is really invasive and judgmental (especially if one is older and single and especially if one finds doctors questioning one's choices problematic, as expressed), and that there's a likelihood that any baby you get could be taken away within a period of time after you have bonded and so on. I have no idea how the process is in reality, but I'd imagine this is why a lot of people would rather just deal with the medical stuff. (If you meant vs. abortion, never mind.)

Quoting Silver~Guy: To speak with such disdain that doctors would be opposed to inseminated single women is short sighted. It's not brave to raise a child by yourself (purposely), but it is self-interested. The unborn child doesn't have a voice, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

As a young man raised by a mother who decided to go it alone after a one night stand, I only wish I had a male role model in my life when I was young.

I have mixed feelings on this. Your comments actually show why it's a little nutty for doctors to get all judgy about inseminating single mothers (or lesbians). After all (since we aren't necessarily talking about people with fertility issues here), they could get pregnant in a less formal way, as you say your mother did. Lots of people who probably would be better off not having children do, so it seems arbitrary to try and come down on these women. On the other hand, I think the complaining about it being wrong for doctors to exercise their moral opinions on procedures is way overstated. First, I'm sure it's unpleasant to have

Quoting miceelf: I just think this is really a bad idea. Given the global overpopulation issue (the so-called birth crisis is only a function of limits on migration), the notion that significant government (or for that matter social) investment in helping people have children (or more children) seems like the worst idea in the world. Once the global population stabilizes, perhaps. But the notion that every single person on earth has an inherent right to have as many children as they desire is very short-sighted. Aside from the stated notion that this will primarily be something that upper class older people engage in, it just seems antithetical to the long-term interests of our species and our planet. Maybe some people shouldn't have children. maybe the planet doesn't need any more people.

The threat of "global overpopulation" is a canard from the 80s, like a global ice age. The planet doesn't "need" any people at all, or anything beyond a stable orbit. That's a terrible metric.

If part of the doctors pledge is to do no harm, and bring a child, into the world, that will be harmed by the inability of the parent to raise the child into a responsible adult; is it not the doctors responsibility to refuse to inseminate a female that the doctor believes is incapable of providing proper love and care for that child.

your statement makes sense if these doctors are god-like and know who will or will not make a good mother - and plenty of doctors do think they are pretty close to be gods, but i think they are pretty much people. no omniscience. maybe they need to serve their patients and not be paternalistic assholes.

Quoting piscivorous: If part of the doctors pledge is to do no harm, and bring a child, into the world, that will be harmed by the inability of the parent to raise the child into a responsible adult; is it not the doctors responsibility to refuse to inseminate a female that the doctor believes is incapable of providing proper love and care for that child.

Here's a thought that just popped into my head (probably what I was reading had something to do with it). If you think doctors ought to be allowed to refuse to provide fertility services to, say, a lesbian or a straight single woman, how would you feel about another doctor (an atheist) refusing to provide the same services to a devoutly Christian woman, because it was against his or her principles to suffer a child to be brought up in surroundings he or she saw as child-abusive? How would you feel if yet another doctor, let us say, a Muslim, refused to provide fertility services to this same Christian woman, because he or she could not bear to think of a child of God

Quoting bjkeefe: Here's a thought that just popped into my head (probably what I was reading had something to do with it).

If you think doctors ought to be allowed to refuse to provide fertility services to, say, a lesbian or a straight single woman, how would you feel about another doctor (an atheist) refusing to provide the same services to a devoutly Christian woman, because it was against his or her principles to suffer a child to be brought up in surroundings he or she saw as child-abusive?

How would you feel if yet another doctor, let us say, a Muslim, refused to provide fertility services to this same Christian woman, because he or she could not bear to think of a child of God raised by infidels?

Suppose the doctor were a staunch liberal, and refused because he or she knew the prospective parents to be staunch conservatives?

While I raised it mostly as a thought exercise. I would have to say that I would support a doctor refusing non essential services (life saving) for whomever reasons he/she wished. I don't believe that the government or the courts should be given the

Quoting piscivorous: While I raised it mostly as a thought exercise. I would have to say that I would support a doctor refusing non essential services (life saving) for whomever reasons he/she wished. I don't believe that the government or the courts should be given the power to dictate what services a business should or should not provide.

If you're consistent in this philosophy, there's not much to say in response. I happen to believe doctors have a higher calling, somehow, especially when they're practicing in some isolated area that makes them effectively a monoply. I do not believe they should allow themselves to make such moralistic decisions, but should stick to medical judgment only. Granted, I suppose you could come up with a scenario where a dirt-poor woman comes in asking for help in getting pregnant, and argue that the doctor's refusal was part of medical judgment. However, this would seem like a fairly unrealistic case to me. Just for starters, if the doctor is so worried about her financial capability to raise the child, how would she be able to pay for the treatment in the first place?

Quoting bjkeefe: If you're consistent in this philosophy, there's not much to say in response.

I believe that yo will find I am consistent in believing that the less intrusive the government the better.

Quoting bjkeefe: I happen to believe doctors have a higher calling, somehow, especially when they're practicing in some isolated area that makes them effectively a monoply. I do not believe they should allow themselves to make such moralistic decisions, but should stick to medical judgment only.

Having earned my original biology degree in the presence of many doctor wannabees, I discovered that a majority of these individuals were in it for the pursuit of the high dollar return, that an MD degree eventually leads to. This is not to say there weren't numerous contenders, pursuing their MD degrees, for altruistic purposes only that they were in the minority by far.

Quoting bjkeefe: Granted, I suppose you could come up with a scenario where a dirt-poor woman comes in asking for help in getting pregnant, and argue that the doctor's refusal was part of medical judgment. However, this would seem like a fairly unrealistic case to me. Just for starters, if the doctor is so worried about her financial capability to

Quoting piscivorous: I believe that yo will find I am consistent in believing that the less intrusive the government the better.

Yep, that's pretty much how I think of you.

Having earned my original biology degree in the presence of many doctor wannabees, I discovered that a majority of these individuals were in it for the pursuit of the high dollar return, that an MD degree eventually leads to. This is not to say there weren't numerous contenders, pursuing their MD degrees, for altruistic purposes only that they were in the minority by far.

I don't doubt that. In a way, though, this mercenary aspect only strengthens my feeling that they ought not refuse to serve anyone for anything other than medical reasons.

I believe that anyone that has put in the time, effort and and expense of getting a MD should allowed to do with that license what the law allows. If the individual is drawing sustenance from the state then the old adage of "if you take the emperor's gold you play the emperors tune" applies.

The problem is, so do I, in the abstract, so I'm uneasy about passing laws to compel them. But when there is no other