Yeah, Jason, we have a problem. Thank you for illustrating exactly what that problem is.

None of the Founders of this Republic ever intended for such an act as abortion to be legal.
To hear some liberal crazies tell it:
Jefferson and Hamiliton debated the rights of gay marriage, Franklin argued heavily in favor
of a woman’s right to choose infanticide. Washington met with La Merde to discuss how the US
could look better and be more liked.

Abortion is largely the attempt to be truly irresponsible for our most basic of actions.
In the majority of the cases it is the result of plain ignorance- stress on the ignore prefix.

The Torah isn’t ambiguous regarding harming the unborn; nor does it go unpunished even unintended.
If a man injures a pregnant woman and causes loss of child:
if the injury is by accident/chance he pays the husband and the temple a trespass fee
if the injury is by intent or evil, then the penalty is life for life, blood for blood.

No things aren’t all black and white, but they are not as gray as you all would imply either.
It doesn’t matter, in many ways the die is now cast.
Your feel good sophistries contain the germ of their own destruction.
The secularist types embrace their freedom of cultural suicide
by institutionalized infanticide; the slowest death possible.
The influx of foreigners as also brought in a different culture.
Not only do they resist learning our language, they also resist most of our ways.
They don’t allow their sons to be queers or their daughters to be whores.
They do not allow their children or grandchildren to be killed.
They are taught not to fear govt but fear God/Allah.
For every secularist aborted- 3+ believers live on

It is simple math. A society that ceases to expand has always been displaced
by either growing elements from within, or an influx from outside.
This rule is as immutable as the rule of iron and force.

The sad testimony to our national sins is the lack of orphanages and actual special needs kids at school.
I remember once a year in the small town I grew up in, the kids at our school got stuff together to take
to the orphanage for the kids there. Sure it was kinda sad in a way; but at least they lived…on.
Similarly, I remember the spec ed part of school being a solid handicap wing.
Not anymore. I was at my son’s school and saw their spec ed wing–nothing but punks.
Nothing that couldn’t be treated with a swift consistant kick in the ass.

Where did the orphans go?
Where did the spec ed kids go?

Into the void with our souls.
Now with euthanasia and medical euthanasia, what separates us from
the barbarians other than this virtual technical veneer?
We think we’re better that’s why?

We are all one EMP pulse away from seeing just how brutal and unforgiving life is.

God have mercy on us all.
Scratch that,
let your Justice roll down like water.

I can’t say I had thought of this before you mentioned it, but given that evolutionary pressures on the different genders are different, it makes sense that some differences are biological at this point. And where those differences are complimentary, they should be utilized as such. The important thing is to understand the differences, where each style is good and bad, and how to make the best use of both. IMO, of course.

I’ve had the opportunity to be a fly-on-the-wall in an otherwise all-girl discussion when I was a senior in college. It was mind blowing, and something I’d never experienced before, or since, really. I sorta wish that had happened later when I was more mature and had better understanding of psychology, because while I knew enough to recognize the special nature of what I was being privileged to observe (and I sat on a cold tile dorm room floor until my butt went numb, barely moving lest I draw attention to myself), I wasn’t wise enough to be able to really internalize the experience and make me a better communicator as a result.

Of course, the argument will quickly become one of God’s word against mine.

Jennifer is on to what I meant, though. Deborah Tannen did much of the ground-breaking linguistic work in this area; Susan Pinker and a host of neurobiologists are adding to the data all the time… There appear to be predictable patterns in female versus male cognitive processes, assuming endocrinal norms are present and barring psychopathology (although there are interesting patterns there as well). Tannen’s work on the gender differences in communication styles is becoming part of a bigger picture involving not only social forces (as many early feminists believed), but evolutionary biology and neurochemistry as well.

What I meant by “listener-friendly” and “girlspeak” is a very specific register used by women talking to men when they wish to maintain good relations, form an alliance, dissuade them from violence… you get the picture. It’s very often automatic; rather a routine effort at diplomatic translation than a conscious attempt to manipulate. Men who form lasting relationships with, shall we say, “outspoken” women are exposed to our unfiltered selves more often and may even develop an appreciation for them (nudge nudge), but it’s still some scary shit when we drop the girlspeak completely.

We rarely do, under normal circumstances. The dominance of friend-or-foe, black-or-white, good-or-bad thinking is normal… but it shouldn’t be. And if women are, by nature and nurture, better at dealing with fuzzy gray areas, then we need to speak up as ourselves and try to make complexity less unusual and disagreement less threatening.

The true abortion debate, as Sam points out, is not about abortion, good or bad. It is about the intrinsic evil and inevitable abuse of absolute moral certainty, and the price we pay in self-doubt and uncertainty when we choose to fight it.

[Y]ou got the listener-friendly answer more often than you’ll ever know – and generally to avoid the kind of instinctive, defensive response you’ve just displayed.

Well, duh. Doesn’t everyone filter what they say from the instantaneous rude but true thing to the less-inflammatory but no-less true thing? I thought that was being a caring, responsible, empathic, mature person.

This has nothing to do with what I said, and is a perfect example of what I was talking about. There is a substantial difference between pointless agonizing and constructive recognition of the myriad of choices we deny when we accept one. This is also an excellent snapshot of the demonstrable differences between normal male and normal female thinking (about which I’ll be writing more later). We live in a different mental world, Savantster. Not better, just different. Continued consciousness of alternatives is neither pathological nor crippling for us, nor even particularly frightening.

And however many years you spent with that person, and however much you loved her, and however sensitive and understanding you are, my friend, you got the listener-friendly answer more often than you’ll ever know – and generally to avoid the kind of instinctive, defensive response you’ve just displayed.