100 years ago in America (and of course in other places), racism was institutionalized. Blacks could be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit, even when the law didn't actually exist.

So, I was wondering... If I were alive 100 years ago, would I think that was wrong? I like to think so. There were a fair number of people who were actively fighting against those kids of attitudes and beliefs 100 years ago.

What about abortion? I can imagine that I might have thought abortion was wrong if I grew up 100 years ago. Abortions began to be outlawed in the early 1800's. Feminists, physicians, and obviously religious leaders were all opposed to abortions.

These days, I think abortion is okay, in the appropriate circumstances. It is almost always unfortunate, and never a pleasant experience for anyone involved, but it might be the right choice, considering all of the options and consequences.

I try to imagine what things that I believe today will be thought of as "crazy old world thinking" 100 years from now.

I already think cloning will become commonplace, and don't have any real moral qualms about it. I believe that there will be less and less consideration of privacy, and that this will be accepted as normal, with people's lives exposed in ways that we consider horrific today, and for most people, it will not be a major concern.

I'm not sure what I hold firmly that will be thrown away as society moves on.

What about you?

What a great question to ponder.

I believe in democracy, but I don't have very much faith that that will never become obsolete. Perhaps someday divine right will be claimed by rulers again.
On that same note, I think that most of my religious beliefs will fall victim to obsolescence (if beliefs can become obsolete, which is another point of discussion) in the next few centuries.

At my school, they're trying to become "paper-free". This means that most books are being replaced by tablets, iPads, and other electronic devices. To be honest, I don't think this will have a lasting impact on learning, because everything will literally become outdated in a few years anyway.



The thing about this is that one can predict that most of these methods will eventually become obsolete, but one probably doesn't have enough foresight to see what their replacements will be! I guess I'll never know if I'm right or wrong.

Oh yeah, gay marriage. That is one of those things that will completely make it over the societal approval hump in the very near future.

Posted by MutantMandias Oh yeah, gay marriage. That is one of those things that will completely make it over the societal approval hump in the very near future. https://fbcdn-spho...8_1116746517_n.jpg

Yeah that was the first thing that came to my mind too. I think it is truly baffling that this is still even an issue, but at the same time racism hasn't exactly vanished either. I'd like to think that its at least a little less prevalent, but I know it is far from being gone. Even up here.

I think until we all come to some form of enlightenment there will always be something in society that is considered evil and disgraceful that will end up legalized/decriminalized/socially acceptable/whatever.

Sodomy/mixed races/prohibition/womens rights/gay marriage/stem cells/abortion/marijuana... It goes on...


Edit: to actually answer the question...

The way I figure it, there isn't really anything that comes to mind right now that I am against that should be legal/acceptable. I'm not against gay marriage/legalization of marijuana/stem cell/whatever. I suppose if I am this way now, it is more likely that I would be the same way back then. If I was homophobic now I would probably be more inclined to be racist then. That's... kinda my somewhat thought out logic.

Posted by Oryx I think until we all come to some form of enlightenment there will always be something in society that is considered evil and disgraceful that will end up legalized/decriminalized/socially acceptable/whatever.

And even if/when that happens, there will be some who simply don't believe in it.

I hope I'm not wrong in my disbelief in Bigfoot.

Posted by HarvestmanMan At my school, they're trying to become "paper-free". This means that most books are being replaced by tablets, iPads, and other electronic devices. To be honest, I don't think this will have a lasting impact on learning, because everything will literally become outdated in a few years anyway.

one of the worst things I have heard all day! A world without books? I mean books you can hold, smell, turn the pages, feel... fuck that.

i sincerely think this e-book bullshit sucks the very soul out of the printed word!

But back to the question... Look at debtors? You could be put in prison for owing people money? That's starting to come back around again, cleverly camouflaged in legalese and shady maneuvring.

I know this will catch some flack some folks, but I feel the exact opposite on abortion. the better science gets, the more likely it is for them to be able to prove life at an earlier stage. We were able to see my sons heartbeat at 6 weeks I believe. I've been told that they can do that at 5 weeks now. Pretty soon its going to be pretty hard to say, its just a mass of cells, when you can see the beating heart sooner and sooner.

Then again, I have never understood why someone would want/choose to get an abortion.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby I know this will catch some flack some folks, but I feel the exact opposite on abortion. the better science gets, the more likely it is for them to be able to prove life at an earlier stage. We were able to see my sons heartbeat at 6 weeks I believe. I've been told that they can do that at 5 weeks now. Pretty soon its going to be pretty hard to say, its just a mass of cells, when you can see the beating heart sooner and sooner. Then again, I have never understood why someone would want/choose to get an abortion.

here's the argument... it's not about whether abortion is right or wrong. What I feel the argument is about is how you can tell someone what to do with their very personal biological functions. Now with that out of the way, sometimes, Monkey, an abortion makes more sense than having ANOTHER unwanted child, especially in cases where the parents are neither intellectually or financially able to care for the child. In some cases, consider what kind of life that unwanted, accidental child is going to have? The world is not sweetness and rainbows and sometimes mistakes do happen.

Posted by Samurai here's the argument... it's not about whether abortion is right or wrong. What I feel the argument is about is how you can tell someone what to do with their very personal biological functions. Now with that out of the way, sometimes, Monkey, an abortion makes more sense than having ANOTHER unwanted child, especially in cases where the parents are neither intellectually or financially able to care for the child. In some cases, consider what kind of life that unwanted, accidental child is going to have? The world is not sweetness and rainbows and sometimes mistakes do happen.

my son was unwanted and accidental, well as accidental as knowingly having unprotected sex. i don't make much money, and i have struggled the whole time. but he is still my son, and he is the greatest thing to ever happen to me. i sucked it up and took responsibility.

also i don't see why killing your child, lets be honest that what it is, is an option. when you get pregnant there is only one thing that is coming out, a human child. i don't think preventing abortions is telling someone what to do with their own bodies, any more than a doctor telling you need to quit smoking. you know the potential risk going in to, if you don't want to potentially get cancer, don't smoke. if you don't want to potentially get pregnant, don't have unprotected sex or just don't have sex. there are dozens if not hundreds of options out there to prevent from getting pregnant, people are just too lazy and too irresponsible to do the right thing.

then on top of that, that are thousands of people out there that want to adopt. we almost put my son up for adoption, but decided to try and make it work. unfortunately for him, his mother is a train wreck and has barely seen him the past three months because of horrible decisions she has made. So i'm now a single full time parent. its really hard, but I have found a way to make it work, and best of all I'm only using one government program, which is for his healthcare.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby my son was unwanted and accidental, well as accidental as knowingly having unprotected sex. i don't make much money, and i have struggled the whole time. but he is still my son, and he is the greatest thing to ever happen to me. i sucked it up and took responsibility. also i don't see why killing your child, lets be honest that what it is, is an option. when you get pregnant there is only one thing that is coming out, a human child. i don't think preventing abortions is telling someone what to do with their own bodies, any more than a doctor telling you need to quit smoking. you know the potential risk going in to, if you don't want to potentially get cancer, don't smoke. if you don't want to potentially get pregnant, don't have unprotected sex or just don't have sex. there are dozens if not hundreds of options out there to prevent from getting pregnant, people are just too lazy and too irresponsible to do the right thing. then on top of that, that are thousands of people out there that want to adopt. we almost put my son up for adoption, but decided to try and make it work. unfortunately for him, his mother is a train wreck and has barely seen him the past three months because of horrible decisions she has made. So i'm now a single full time parent. its really hard, but I have found a way to make it work, and best of all I'm only using one government program, which is for his healthcare.

see this is where the discussion goes from objective to anectdotal. I have never wanted children and with the way I am, it's pretty much NEVER going to happen. How you differ from my argument is that you may not be or been financially capable of caring for the child, but you and your other are INTELLECTUALLY capable of the task and that makes the difference. Pro-lifers (No, i'm not lumping you into that, just going with my thought) always argue that adoption is an option. Oh really? What happens if that child is NOT adopted and becomes another cog in the state machinery?

Personally, i am neutral on the whole 'when life begins' argument. Personally, I don't care when or how it begins. I am more concerned with managerial rights being removed on our bodies.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby I know this will catch some flack some folks, but I feel the exact opposite on abortion. the better science gets, the more likely it is for them to be able to prove life at an earlier stage. We were able to see my sons heartbeat at 6 weeks I believe. I've been told that they can do that at 5 weeks now. Pretty soon its going to be pretty hard to say, its just a mass of cells, when you can see the beating heart sooner and sooner. Then again, I have never understood why someone would want/choose to get an abortion.

There is no such thing as proving life at any stage. Sure, life begins at conception if you want. But honestly, as far as I am concerned, that tiny little organism is no more alive than the sperm was one instant before it touched the egg, so therefore, life began billions of years ago and has never stopped.

Posted by Samurai see this is where the discussion goes from objective to anectdotal. I have never wanted children and with the way I am, it's pretty much NEVER going to happen. How you differ from my argument is that you may not be or been financially capable of caring for the child, but you and your other are INTELLECTUALLY capable of the task and that makes the difference. Pro-lifers (No, i'm not lumping you into that, just going with my thought) always argue that adoption is an option. Oh really? What happens if that child is NOT adopted and becomes another cog in the state machinery? Personally, i am neutral on the whole 'when life begins' argument. Personally, I don't care when or how it begins. I am more concerned with managerial rights being removed on our bodies.

well i know i'm intellectually able to take care of him, not so sure about his mother. As for what happens if the kid isn't adopted, i don't know, but at least they had they chance live, and to me thats all that matters. a life in foster care is still better than being dead or with horrible parents.

i am pro-life, but i'm consistent with my beliefs as i'm also against the death penalty.

personally my view is that vasectomies and hysterectomies should be provided for free or at a low cost. I also believe that sex education needs to reformed and teach children about using birth control, instead of teaching abstinence. in this day and age being abstinent is not going to happen unless you are some super religious person.

just my opinion.

Posted by MutantMandias There is no such thing as proving life at any stage. Sure, life begins at conception if you want. But honestly, as far as I am concerned, that tiny little organism is no more alive than the sperm was one instant before it touched the egg, so therefore, life began billions of years ago and has never stopped.

so you're saying a heart beat doesn't make it alive? what does that make it then? i have a heart beat. sperm and eggs alone are not alive, but them together, and if it all works out, then you have life.

"Alive" has no meaning.

Sure, there is a technical definition of "alive," just like there is a technical definition of "megaphone," but it really has absolutely zero relevance on the topic of abortion.

A zygote has just as much chance of surviving on its own as a sperm does, which is zero. Of course, this is true for a baby that has already been born as well. Does that mean that all three are equal?

"Alive" as it relates to abortion can only be defined in societal terms: The perception of society as an average regarding when it is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.

I don't care if there is a heartbeat. I don't care if there is involuntary movement. Sure, there is obviously potential for a fertilized egg to born and become someone who can get on the internet and argue about whales being sexier than dolphins or vice versa, but I have no concerns about snuffing out that potential.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby well i know i'm intellectually able to take care of him, not so sure about his mother. As for what happens if the kid isn't adopted, i don't know, but at least they had they chance live, and to me thats all that matters. a life in foster care is still better than being dead or with horrible parents.

that's just it... you're talking about chance. I'm saying that statistically, an unexpected, unwanted child really has the deck stacked against it.

i am pro-life, but i'm consistent with my beliefs as i'm also against the death penalty.

So you're for the government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies and functions therein? With the death penalty, I am only in favor of it when there is absolutely NO DOUBT that the person was guilty and their guilt has been proven scientifically... and even then, it would be case by case. I often shudder when I think of all the people on Texas' Death Row who have been exonerated after their case has been reviewed. Can you imagine THAT feeling?

personally my view is that vasectomies and hysterectomies should be provided for free or at a low cost. I also believe that sex education needs to reformed and teach children about using birth control, instead of teaching abstinence. in this day and age being abstinent is not going to happen unless you are some super religious person.

i agree with this comment and my only change would changing 'super religious person' to 'super ignorant person'.

just my opinion.

and you are more than welcome to it.

so you're saying a heart beat doesn't make it alive? what does that make it then? i have a heart beat. sperm and eggs alone are not alive, but them together, and if it all works out, then you have life.

this is where things get... philosophical. Yes, a beating heart indicates life. Now by that definition, life is like an engine in a car. It's rhythmic and its pumping things, but there's no intelligence operating behind the wheel. That's the way our bodies work. Even if the higher brain functions are smashed into pulp, the automatic stuff at the base of the brain will continue to keep house. That, in the strictest definitions, is life, BUT... is it life?

I don't really thing this is the place for a debate about abortion, but I would like to suggest that you both read this great essay about abortion by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

i thought we were doing okay, but point taken... was it really a debate? I thought we were having a discussion?

The thing that strikes me whenever I consider discussion around abortion is that we have a large global population that is only ever going to increase (cataclysms and apocalypses notwithstanding.) From a purely pragmatic point of view, a global population that's ever more pressed for resources (even drinking water) just can't be too squeamish about the basics of population control.

I think about a population of fifty years from now, and envision a society that simply can't afford to stigmatise abortion.

I also just invented my new favourite term, recreational abortion, which I hope offends as many people as possible.