If you are pro-chice how do you explain graphic abortion picutes to your childen?

[estesbob]

This is not a thread to discuss whether it is appropiriate to display these pictures It is a discussion on how one who supports abrtion would explain these pictures to their children

 

[ribozyme]

Buy them a copy of *Practical Ethics * and let the book explain it. That book at least helped me understand abortion. But that’s what a secular humanist parent does, I do not know how Catholics deal with it.

 

[Marauder]

I am not pro-choice I am very pro-life, but I have heard pro-choice people explain it by saying that all surgical procedures are gross to people not in the medical community. In their opinion removing a baby is not more gross then removing a cancer.

 

[vern_humphrey]

At least one person posting on these forums explained it like this:

Once again, you are forcing me to have a conversation with my four year old about something that she does not have the experience or knowledge to comprehend.

“Why did the mommy not want her baby?”

“Because she was gang-raped, honey.”

“What’s gang-rape?”

So, you see, abortion is that act that you are portraying, but I am left with trying to explain all the actions that preceed the abortion.

So you see, all abortions are the result of gang-rape. That makes them okay.

 

[Newbie2]

Bizarre explanation. I don’t get it either.

 

[estesbob]

I am not pro-choice I am very pro-life, but I have heard pro-choice people explain it by saying that all surgical procedures are gross to people not in the medical community. In their opinion removing a baby is not more gross then removing a cancer.

They still are stuck with explaing why they support such a procedure.

BTW-Studies have shown that children of a woman who has had an abortion they are aware of often have survivors guilt.

 

[vern_humphrey]

They still are stuck with explaing why they support such a procedure.

BTW-Studies have shown that children of a woman who has had an abortion they are aware of often have survivors guilt.

Gee, you mean theyr’e traumatized as if they had seen “graphic images?”

 

[estesbob]

Gee, you mean theyr’e traumatized as if they had seen “graphic images?”

I suspect one would be traumatized to find that their mother killed their sibling

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suspect one would be traumatized to find that their mother killed their sibling

And funny how the viewers-with-alarm who are so afraid children will be traumatized by seeing “graphic images” never mention that fact!

 

[manualman]

You seem to be assuming that pro-abortion folks get to that stage through a critical examination of the whole picture using moral principles to guide them. I’d suggest that they more often get to that stage by being confronted with a crisis pregnancy (either personal or someone close) and seeing abortion as a quick way out. It is then something you use to solve a problem and not something you want to think about much.

The solution for such people is to make sure NOBODY sees or thinks much about what an abortion really is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You seem to be assuming that pro-abortion folks get to that stage through a critical examination of the whole picture using moral principles to guide them. I’d suggest that they more often get to that stage by being confronted with a crisis pregnancy (either personal or someone close) and seeing abortion as a quick way out. It is then something you use to solve a problem and not something you want to think about much.

The solution for such people is to make sure NOBODY sees or thinks much about what an abortion really is.

Or to put it another way, everyone says, “The solution is education.”

But what they don’t say (or understand) is that things like drug abuse, violence, and abortion don’t fall into the cognitive realm (logic and similar matters) but into the affective realm (emotions, values and attitudes.) To educate people in the affective realm, you must use affective strategies – which is precisely what these “shocking and graphic images” do.

And the real reason so many people don’t want these graphic images used is because they work.

 

[ribozyme]

Or to put it another way, everyone says, “The solution is education.”

But what they don’t say (or understand) is that things like drug abuse, violence, and abortion don’t fall into the cognitive realm (logic and similar matters) but into the affective realm (emotions, values and attitudes.) To educate people in the affective realm, you must use affective strategies – which is precisely what these “shocking and graphic images” do.

I think drug abuse does fall in the cognitive realm. I haven’t tried cocaine or meth, but I did try marijuana as I thought it was a beign drug (it is). It is in my own personal experience taking a few hits from a joint about three years ago although I didn’t get “$t0n3d.” Personally, I wouldn’t do it again as it might increase my risk for lung cancer, and the ancedotes were correct; I had a moderate decline in short term memory for about four hours and no long term effects.

From my own personal experience with marijuana, I think it should be a schedule II substance, although I would permit medicinal use of the drug as the side effects are very managable. I think continued use of marijuana could destroy my life and consume me.

But regarding drug abuse, you can educate people not engage in that destructive activity. You can tell them various experiences and stories about the lives of drug addicts and how one can get become miserably addicted.

How do you educate people against homosexuality in an affective fashion? Showing people having homosexual intercourse? That would disgust me…

Abortion, too, falls in the cognitive realm; you can use ethical arguments to demonstrate why it can or cannot be morally acceptable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think drug abuse does fall in the cognitive realm.

You have anything to back that up?

I haven’t tried cocaine or meth, but I did try marijuana as I thought it was a beign drug (it is). It is in my own personal experience taking a few hits from a joint about three years ago although I didn’t get “5t0n3d.” Personally, I wouldn’t do it again as it might increase my risk for lung cancer, and the ancedotes were correct; I had a moderate decline in short term memory for about four hours and no long term effects.

Can you explain why you used Marijuana?

But regarding drug abuse, you can educate people not engage in that destructive activity. You can tell them various experiences and stories about the lives of drug addicts and how one can get become miserably addicted.

You can read books on baseball – that won’t make you a major league player.

How do you educate people against homosexuality in an affective fashion? Showing people having homosexual intercourse? That would disgust me…

Abortion, too, falls in the cognitive realm; you can use ethical arguments to demonstrate why it can or cannot be morally acceptable.

And you can prove that this works?

 

[ribozyme]

You have anything to back that up?

Can you explain why

You have anything to back that up?

Here is a list of news articles showing how scheduled substances affect the brain. They can be used to deter people from using drugs without recourse to “affective” reasoning. One can rely on empirical arguments along for arguments against drug abuse as it leads to increased human suffering and crime.

futurepundit.com/archives/cat_brain_addiction.html

But if MDMA (ecstasy) has a “clean” side-effect profile (it doesn’t), I wouldn’t mind if it was sold over-the-counter. However, one can legitimately oppose MDMA’s legalization based on its side-effect profile.

[/QUOTE]

 

[estesbob]

vern humphrey;3066962:

You have anything to back that up?

Because I was curious and an acquintance had some, ok… and I am unrepentant regarding this action as I didn’t harm anyone.

.

I would love to take you to an AA meeting sometime so you could talk to a whole bunch of people who took that first drink/hit etc and just knew they werent harming anyone. Hopefully you are right. But we’ll be there for you if you arent.

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme;3067007:

I would love to take you to an AA meeting sometime so you could talk to a whole bunch of people who took that first drink/hit etc and just knew they werent harming anyone. Hopefully you are right. But we’ll be there for you if you arent.

Well, self-restaint is a virtue, ok… And yes, I have tried some wine too. I do not have any desire to smoke cannabis now or drink alcohol profusely.

Wanna know what I do for some of my free time? I read this book.

Let’s thank the NIH for providing that book for free. I doubt $t0n3d people would know what the VEFGR does. And I cannot be $t0n3d while trying to comprehend relatively complex signal transduction pathways.

I wasn’t endorsing a libertarian policy on scheduled substances ok; in fact, I support the illegal status of abusive drugs as I have conveyed in my posts on this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because I was curious and an acquintance had some, ok… and I am unrepentant regarding this action as I didn’t harm anyone.

In other words, it was an affective act – involving valuies and attitudes, not cognitive, involving logic.

Here is a list of news articles showing how scheduled substances affect the brain. They can be used to deter people from using drugs without recourse to “affective” reasoning. One can rely on empirical arguments along for arguments against drug abuse as it leads to increased human suffering and crime.

futurepundit.com/archives/cat_brain_addiction.html

But if MDMA (ecstasy) has a “clean” side-effect profile (it doesn’t), I wouldn’t mind if it was sold over-the-counter. However, one can legitimately oppose MDMA’s legalization based on its side-effect profile.

And your own reference shows that people do not initially take drugs because of logic – they take them because they want to take them. That’s the affective realm.

 

[ribozyme]

Here’s an entry:
Randall Parker:

The reason why your stoner friends can’t remember all too well begins to become clear by looking at the effects that marijuana compound tetrahydrocannabinoid (THC) has on the brains of rats.

Neuroscientist David Robbe of Rutgers University and his colleagues tested the impact of THC and a synthetic cannabinoid on rats that had their heads restrained. The drugs affected certain brain waves: the theta (four to 12 hertz) and fast ripple (100 to 200 hertz) waves diminished significantly, whereas the drug had a slightly lesser impact on gamma (30 to 80 hertz) waves. Because theta and gamma oscillations are thought to play a critical role in creating and storing short-term memories–and fast ripple oscillations may allow such short-term memories to be moved into long-term storage–this suppression could mean missing memories for the rats.

The stoners ought to try to remember the details of this research to think about it next time they take a toke.

The THC caused hippocampus nerve signal firings to fall out of sync and to fire less powerfully. The rats had been trained to alternate their routes through a maze and the rats on THC did a far worse job of remembering which route to take next based on which route they took previously.

Normal rats accurately alternate their routes about 90% of the time. But rats given THC, which caused asynchronous nerve firing, chose a random direction on each run, and so chose the correct route 50% of the time.

The disruptive effect of THC wore off within a few hours. Robbe says he hopes to find out whether chronic exposure to the drug causes lasting effects on the hippocampus in rats. Scientists studying people have found that long-term marijuana users gradually become worse at learning and remembering things (see Pot-smoking your way to memory loss).

Neurons that spend a lot of time firing in some different way in response to a drug probably reconfigure somehow in response to the different pattern of firing. Brains strengthen and weaken connections in response to stimuli, whether those stimuli come from the environment or from drugs or an interaction of the two.

What I’d like to know: What does the THC do to change the development of a fetal hippocampus?

I presume the similar effect will be produced in humans. I do not know if inferior ability to recall facts will deter people from smoking marijuana, but this is an empirical reason for one not to smoke marijuana (unless one thinks decreased retention is a good thing). One can use empirical reasons to deter drug use, but as you know, it does not complete deter drug use. For example, with the surgeon general’s warnings on tobacco products, people still buy them.

Also, another entry provides evidence for the “gateway hypothesis” on marijuana although I do not know if the “gateway drug hypothesis” is a valid reason to oppose drugs.

 

[estesbob]

All right guys-you hijacked my thread:shrug:

 

[ribozyme]

Bifurcate the thread please, I think drug reform moderately interests me. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the government has the right to interfere in drug laws.

The derail started with this:

Or to put it another way, everyone says, “The solution is education.”

But what they don’t say (or understand) is that things like drug abuse, violence, and abortion don’t fall into the cognitive realm (logic and similar matters) but into the affective realm (emotions, values and attitudes.) To educate people in the affective realm, you must use affective strategies – which is precisely what these “shocking and graphic images” do.

And then my subsequent reply where I disagreed that “drug abuse” does not fall in the cognitive realm; it is an empirical question: Does drug use harm individuals and society? Neurological evidence is one source of empirical evidence.

Surprisingly, this is one topic where I advocate the conservative position.