It may very well be conundrum for you Z but it is not a conundrum for libertarians.
A federal ban on abortions is as unconstitutional as its federal legalization. Viewing abortions as an act of violence against a human being, and the enforcement of civil and criminal law constitutionally reserved to the states, this is the responsibility of the states to restrain, not the federal government.
Soap I wasn't really getting into a whole legalistic/constitutional debate about what to do with Roe vs. Wade just that libertarian philosophy seems to me should at least be in favor of the unborn, say encourage the woman to give birth otherwise how can that fetus/child grow up to do the normal libertarian things later in life like watch porn while on angel dust?
I get your point Dave. Soap strongly favors the state over the federal gov't but seems to me he should be against the state too. What matter if the feds or the state says you have to eat your brussel sprouts, it's still an infringement on YOUR liberty.
I've answered this question for you once before Dave. And with all due respect it is an extremely naive and ignorant statement.
It most certainly matters and there is most certainly a difference.
The more localized government is the more choice you have in the sort of government you live under.
Don't like the property taxes in one city? Move to another. Don't like the income tax? Move to Texas or one of the other states without one.
Further, if you pay $5000 in taxes to the Feds you are hoping to receive $5000 in services in return. There is no way to guarantee that. Suppose the Feds siphon off $3000 of it and sink that money into a state that is more sympathetic to their policies.
It breeds corruption. A sort of corruption and tyranny and oppression that is far more difficult to get out from under than it would be were it much more localized.
There is never a simple answer to that question, because it’s never a simple question. One can answer you by saying if we do have liberty then we should have the right to choose. This is something that I believe is a women’s choice, not mine. I know that I’m going to have a lot of people mad but I must say what I must say. Why shouldn’t not a woman have the choice according to her own will? The answer is never simple, some may say yes she should have the rights to decide for herself, and that’s what “Liberty” is all about. And I must say that I agree with whatever her decision may be. It’s her decision to make. I don’t think that I have the right to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body. If you wrote this post to get into argument about “pro-choice” versus “pro-life", this is an argument that I won't get into. I gave my opinion and I won’t get into any debate over it. Because I know I won’t convince anyone, nor will anyone convince me. What is right for someone, may be wrong for others, that’s what I call Liberty. I happen to value all human life, and i wouldn’t want my wife to about a child. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t force my opinion on everyone else. And I certainly DON'T want my Government to be funding abortions And I don't think that the abortion subject should be in any political platform or in anyone's campaign Democratic or Republican.
"...libertarian philosophy seems to me should at least be in favor of the unborn, say encourage the woman to give birth.."
Libertarian philosophy is antithetical to what you've suggested because it is in favor of individual liberty not bending people to our whim or making people think and act as us.
I happen to think your suggestion in fact is much more in tune with the modern day conservative movement. This is why I rarely if ever use the term conservative to describe myself or my philosophy/ideology/beliefs.
The modern day conservative movement is largely comprised of christians/evangelicals (just ask Karl Rove) many of whom have quite different beliefs about the role of government than do I.
Soap, I 100% understand the local issue regarding taxes, but it ain't gonna make any difference in practice.
If my city needs 300 policemen and those 300 needed cops cost 3.5 million, including admin, etc., we are gonna pay it, whether all of that money is local, or comes from the feds.
In practice, the results are the same.
It just bugs me that people are increasingly critical of the feds collecting and disbursing funds, when the local taxing authorities are just as bad and corrupt, and ask for the same amounts.
Where is the difference.
Mal, I hear what you are saying... it is kind of a live and let live argument. What's right for me may not be right for you.
But if we accept that philosophy, how can someone say anything is immoral, or in your example, why shouldn't the Gov't fund abortions?
just because it is wrong for you and you'd never do it, or be involved in it, is it wrong for someone else?
By what objective standard is something deemed wrong for everybody?
I already told you my position on abortion. My position is, I don't think it should be a political issue, it should be off the table, and out of Presidential politics, period.. And I won't discuss it any further..
"If my city needs 300 policemen and those 300 needed cops cost 3.5 million, including admin, etc., we are gonna pay it, whether all of that money is local, or comes from the feds."
If your city needs 300 cops then the residents of said city are paying for the government they get (unless the city is receiving LGA from the state in which case citizens from other cities in the state are subsidizing a police force in your respective city).
If the Feds are giving money to your city for police then citizens in other states are subsidizing your police force.
I am all about reducing and minimizing government at all levels Dave. But, the biggest obstacle is the Federal government. If we can empower government at the local and state level it will be far easier to tackle.
Okay Soap, what about big ticket items that locals seem unable to do effectively in a 50 state Union?
Is not there some real value in a strong central authority to direct anything?
For instance road construction and the highway system.
I spend almost half my year every year working in Mexico. They leave tons to the states, and the people still get screwed.
You also see that the richer states are the best looking places, best roads, best education, etc., and they set up systems to not allow people from other states to get in.
How would we ensure that does not happen here without a strong federal presence? Isn't that what happened in the south?
And you know I am not trying demagogue or be a jerk. I am just asking questions for information.
Actually, this would be a great coffee/beer/cigar session with a select few others of our "blog ring."
No shouting allowed and you gotta agree to be civil...
"Actually, this would be a great coffee/beer/cigar session with a select few others of our "blog ring."
No shouting allowed and you gotta agree to be civil..."
If you ever make your way to Minneapolis, MN head to Clubhouse Jager (http://www.clubhousejaeger.com/) on a Tuesday night, Italiani's on a Sunday night or Sweeny's in St. Paul on a Monday night for such a discussion.
"Is not there some real value in a strong central authority to direct anything?"
Yes there is. Those items can be found in the Constitution (of course paying close attention to Article I Section 8).
As for the interstate highway system, the necessity for the federal government was for the sake of eminent domain as well as in part military necessity.
I have to stop here before plowing through these comments again because soap you're not getting why I even posted this thread in the first place. Here it is again -- Mal and you are eloquently stating the case for liberty but my whole point is HOW do you get to that point of enjoying your liberty if you never get to be born? It's a kind of philosophical thing -- do you enjoy your life soap? I'll bet you do but would you rather your Mom had aborted you? in that case your liberty would have been sucked down an existential black hole. This is why libertarianism will never be a majority movement, even some pro-choice folks have problems with abortion (and hardcore drugs and porn shops by schools etc.) whereas the libertarian is just blase about the whole thing.
soapie: "The more localized government is the more choice you have in the sort of government you live under."
That's a good one. Down here in Yonkers NY most folks are against these red-light traffic cams as I've blogged about so why are they still up dude? Not only that more towns, cities and localities have them so that kind of offsets your whole freedom to move argument. I agree with Dave here because I've seen it firsthand, local and state governments can be just as corrupt as the feds. You really should be against the state(s) too soap.
With all due respect I think it's a rather stupid question to ponder because the unborn have no conceptual faculties, no cognitive ability with which to perceive liberty much less the world around them.
Existence exists. I don't really care to examine why I am here or what is the reason I am here.
I merely need to understand that I am here.
So long as I am here; that is to say I exist, I aspire to have individual freedom and liberty.
If someone isn't born they don't have liberty and they will never have liberty. And you know what? It doesn't much matter because one never develops the cognitive ability to understand it.
It'd be like asking how can you have bacon without a pig?
And of course you can't which makes it a ridiculous question to ask because the whole concept of bacon ceases to exist without a pig.
"You really should be against the state(s) too soap."
Pretty sure I covered that here:
"I am all about reducing and minimizing government at all levels Dave. But, the biggest obstacle is the Federal government. If we can empower government at the local and state level it will be far easier to tackle."
"Not only that more towns, cities and localities have them so that kind of offsets your whole freedom to move argument."
Does it? Does it really?
We don't have them any longer here in Minneapolis, or St. Paul, or Bloomington, or Crystal, or Eden Prairie. In fact, we don't have them in our state period!
So yeah, my argument stands. You have freedom to move from a city or state which has them to a city or state which does not.
BUT, if the Federal government runs roughshod over all of the states and thereby mandates that they will be used in every city, in every state, then where ya gonna go?
"So long as I am here; that is to say I exist, I aspire to have individual freedom and liberty."
But you cannot have or even aspire to individual freedom and liberty if you were never allowed to exist in the first place, if someone snuffed you out in utero. Sorry to fuck with your head. Re red-light cams what if I can't pony up the money to move to St. Paul?
If you can't pony up the money then that is a separate issue entirely. The issue we began with was whether or not another option existed. Indeed it does.
Moreover, it's gonna cost alot less to move from Yonkers to St. Paul than it is to move from Yonkers to another country.
Getting back to abortion what I never got was this. Say I'm pro-life, fervently so (which I am) by what process of mystical magical powers would I be able to ban abortion for all Americans tomorrow? Even if in my wildest dreams it ain't gonna happen......so basically pro-life is my opinion, a kind of coffee-table view to be proferred or if you asked me my POV around beers if you prefer. It's a mental shading that's all. Being pro-life is a hobgoblin of the pro-choice mind and get this, even if abortion is someday banned in this country that can ONLY happen if there's a consensus in this country re abortion since that's how the system, the whole process is set up. Me having an opinion is what? why does it upset people so?
Malcontent, Does a Gun Owner also have the Right to "Choose" rather or not to use that Gun to Shoot someone? Pro-Choicers Talk as if there is Never any Time in which the Right to Choose is Limited, but this is not so.
Why Shouldn't a Gun Owner "have the Choice According to his or her Own Will"? Isn't the Right to Murder someone "What 'Liberty' is all about"?
Do you Agree with what ever Decision this Gun Owner Makes, even if it involves the Taking of another Life? It's his Decision to Make, Right?
Perhaps the Government should not "'Dictate' what a Women" (or Person) "should and shouldn't do" with his or her "OWN" Gun, Including Using it to Shoot Someone.
Murder may be Right for some People and Wrong for Others. That's Liberty, Right?
All I did was Reword your 10/26 - 3:00 PM Comment a Little. You tell me whether or not it still makes sense to you.
Also, I Like what Dave Miller said...
"But if we accept that philosophy, how can someone say anything is immoral?"
Soap & Malcontent, You are both forgetting the Rights of the Baby and the Subject of Rights is a Political Issue, not a Religious One.
Yes, Mal, it IS a Political Issue because it has to do with Rights and the Rights of the Unborn should not be Pushed Aside. Discuss it or Don't Discuss it. It doesn't Matter. This Issue is not going to go away.
Dave, Another Way of saying what Soap is trying to say is that if One City has more Crime and therefore Needs more Police then another, then the One that has less Crime should not have to "Subsidize" or help Pay for the Crime in the other City. I'm not saying that I Entirely Agree with him, yet it is good to Understand that the Expenses in One City or State may not be Equal to the Expenses in another.
Z-man, The Statement that I Most Liked from you is...
"Re red-light cams what if I can't pony up the money to move to St. Paul?"
And then Soap said...
"If you can't pony up the money, then that is a separate issue entirely."
Actually, Soap, the Issue of a Person's ability or Lack thereof to Make Money has Everything to do with Libertarianism, Capitalism, Socialism or any Form of Government in-between. IMO, this is the Most Key Issue of all.
Also, an Option is not Really an Option if it is not Obtainable, so this is Totally Relevant to the Subject of "whether or not another option exists".
Your Last Sentence in your 10/28 - 11:23 AM Comment is a Good Point, though.
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Mal on the abortion thing. I am fervently against a religious group trying to legislate their morality onto other people, and this is happening more and more lately (see: Tony Perkins, see James Dobson, see D. James Kennedy, see Dominionism), and by this I mean ANY religious group. I don't go around trying to turn my religious beliefs into laws that affect people who don't share my religious beliefs. No one has any right to legislate theirs onto me.
The Republican party seems to spend all their time lately on the social issues (Rick Santorum would like to make all kinds of contraception illegal) like fighting gay marriage and trying to make all abortions (even in rape or incest according to Cain) illegal and claiming class warfare. I thought this Republican congress was going to make jobs their number one priority.
I have had a very bad couple of days dealing with orthopedists (proper word: orthopods... no I'm not kidding about that) about my hand and it's put me in a pissy mood. Although I stand by everything I said there regardless.
What I've Said about this being an Issue of Rights, rather then of Religion has Completely Fallen on Deaf Ears. We Might as well Call Murder a Religious Issue as well and Legalize it. Apparently the "RIGHT" to Life is a Meaningless "RIGHT", so if we have "the Right Choose"TO KILL within the Womb, then Why not Out Side of it as well?
Way to Change the Subject, Satyavati, from Rights to Religion and from Abortion to Contraception. My Religion Forbids Theft and Rape and Murder, so I'll Tell you What? Since Theft and Rape and Murder are all Matters of Religion, let's Legalize them as well.
And Yeh! It's too Bad that Cain has Taken such an Extreme Stand, yet that is no Excuse for Allowing Abortion on Demand.
Lista brings up a good point on guns. Now stop to think about it, what is the only purpose of a gun? - in theory at least it's to hurt or even kill another human being so basically you're buying a product that if you're a responsible and ethical human being you never hope to use. Oh sure you might caress it at night and polish it and make love to it but it's the only product I can think of that's legal in some sense and that you never hope to use in your whole life (I'm not talking hunting here but the nonhunting type guns). You buy a book you open up and read its pages, you buy a yo-yo and you play with it, you buy a car and you drive it but your little old gun sits in a shoebox somewhere in the closet. Guns is a great subject and I'm not all that hardcore conservative on the issue, in fact I think many right-wingers are rather creepy on the issue.
This bugs THE HELL OUT OF ME but why oh why must pro-choicers always drag religion into the whole abortion debate?????? In fact they bring the subject up more than the lifers it seems. I would agree that laws against abortion should not be based on faith although I think a spiritual discussion on abortion is a wonderful one to have. Ex-NY Governor Mario Cuomo really is the godfather of this line of thinking, it all emanates from him and the skip on this record just annoys me...Mal I thought you knew better!
I knew that I shouldn't have gotten into this discussion. What do you mean that I should have know better, do you meant that you though I would agree with you? Maybe I do and maybe I don't, but that was not the basis of my comment. I don't know what part of my comment you people can't seem to understand? I Never said ONE word about MY opinion of the rights of a women, (Mother) or whoever. Or if “I” believed in abortions or not, or if I was Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. What MY belief on the subject is not the issue. What I DID say was that I didn’t think or believe (if you will), that the subject of abortion one way or the other should be in the political platform of any party. And I said that this is something that I believe is a women’s choice, not mine. Why shouldn’t not a woman have the choice according to her own will? The answer is never simple, some may say yes she should have the rights to decide for herself, and that’s what “Liberty” is all about. And I must say that I agree with whatever her decision may be. It’s her decision to make. I don’t think that I have the right to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body. And I stand by that. If you are disappointed in my belief than I'm sorry,but you don't even know my belief.
And to turn this around and say Does a Gun Owner also have the Right to "Choose" rather or not to use that Gun to Shoot someone?" is absurd.
Well Z, Guns are also Used for Hunting and it is too bad that you have Left Malcontent and Soap an Opportunity to Change the Subject. They are in Denial about the Fact that Abortion is a Form of Killing and the One being Killed is not even an Animal, but a Human Being. Abortion on Demand is not an Issue of Self Defense and it has nothing to do with War.
I am Only Mentioning that because that is what Guns are used for, but Abortion on Demand is not Self-Defense Unless the Woman's Life is in Danger and that is a Situation in which Abortion would be Totally Appropriate.
Yes, it is the Pro-Choicers who call Abortion a Religious Issue. Most Pro-Lifers will Call it an Issue of Rights, not Religion. This is because it gives them an Excuse to not Really Look at it from the Perspective of Rights in Relation to the Unborn.
What I'd Like to Know is exactly why they Think that things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, are not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal? Just Watch, for I am sure they will simply Ignore and Avoid this Question.
Malcontent, "What I DID say was that I didn’t think or believe (if you will), that the subject of abortion one way or the other should be in the political platform of any party."
Why? Cause it's Religious. I'm Telling you that it is no more Religious then the Issue of Theft and Rape or any other form of Crime. Crimes are Crimes because they Infringe on others Rights, Mal, and Abortion Infringes on the Rights of the Unborn. Your Statement that this should not be a Political Issue has no Basis at all.
"Why shouldn’t a woman have the choice according to her own will?"
I've been Answering this Question for you, but you just don't want to Hear the Answer.
I Wonder if you have Taken the Time to Read my Comments. It really doesn't Appear so.
Abortion is about Rights, not Religion. That is the Rights of the Unborn and the Baby is NOT"Her Own Body". He or She is a Separate Individual with his or her Own Unique Genetic Make Up.
"If you are disappointed in my belief, then I'm sorry, but you don't even know my belief."
You have told us very Clearly what your Political Belief is and it is your Political Belief, not your Personal Belief, that we are Responding to.
Does a Person, Gun or no Gun, have the Right to Kill? Forget the Gun. That was not the Point I was Making. Does any Person have the Right to Rape, Steal, Abuse, etc., etc. My Bible Says No and Interestingly, so does the Secular Law, yet these could also be Called Religious Issues. Perhaps there should be no Laws at all, because they all have Religious Roots. Take your Blinders Off and you will Understand what I'm saying.
Soap, My Emphasis was "Choice", not Aggression. Any Person who Owns a Gun Can "Choose" to be a Defendant or an Aggressor, just as a Woman can "Choose" either Death or Life for the Life inside of her. "Choice" is the Subject here, not Aggression, but you Keep Insisting on Focusing on something other then the Point being Made.
Also, just in Case you are Thinking about yet another Subject, my Comment was also not about Gun Control, but rather "Choice" and how some Choices", such as the Choice to Steal, Rape or Murder are not Allowed.
"Also, just in Case you are Thinking about yet another Subject, my Comment was also not about Gun Control, but rather "Choice"
Choice? Very well. You don't like abortion Lista? Great, then choose not to have to have one. Choose to let others make their own decisions and answer for them (and not by you).
Z-man, Guns are also Used for Hunting, as well as Target Practice.
I Liked your Comment about the Skipping Record, though. That is so Very True. And when Malcontent Said "And I won't discuss it any further." this showed Evidence that Repeating the Information on this Skipping Record is all that he Knows how to do and the Last of his Comments was Quite Repetitious in relation to the One he Wrote Previously.
Malcontent, You should not even Mention that which you are not willing to discuss. I do not Blog in Order to be Preached to. I Blog in Order to Discuss.
And here is a Contradiction.
"I Never said ONE word about MY opinion of the rights of a women, (Mother) or whoever."
And then Later...
"And I said that this is something that I believe is a women’s choice, not mine."
Soap, Your 10/31/11 - 8:16 AM Comment was a Change of Subject because the Subject of Abortion on Demand is about Convenience, not Self-Defense.
"In your example (or rather Lista's) it is suggested that the gun owner is the aggressor."
No, my Comment was about Choice, not Aggression. You are Focusing Only one the Gun Owner that Makes Responsible "Choices". I was Focusing on the Fact of "Choice" itself and the Subject of "Choice" Suggests Both of the Options, not Just the Self-Defense and not Just the Aggression. You are the One who is Focusing on Only One of these Options of Choice.
Malcontent, "Why shouldn’t a woman have the choice according to her own will?"
You Ask Questions, but are Unwilling to Answer Mine.
"Why are Things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal?"
Hi Soap, Why am I not Surprised that you are on Line as I am Writing a Comment. It is actually rather Rare when you are not.
"Choice? Very well. You don't like abortion, Lista? Great, then choose not to have one. Choose to let others make their own decisions and answer for them (and not by you)."
My Comments are also not about My Choice, but about Choice in General and how the Law does Occasionally Place Limits on them. There is absolutely No One Present that is Responding to my Actual Point and to my Question.
"Why am I not Surprised that you are on Line as I am Writing a Comment. It is actually rather Rare when you are not."
Man you live a sheltered life.
There's nothing remarkable about it. You see, I have this device called a smart phone. And when I comment on a blog post I can check that little box down below that notifies me when a comment has been made.
With this nifty little device I am always online. I can check my facebook, my email, and keep up to speed with the latest news via my twitter feed.
It is Better when you Think Through, rather then Responding Immediately to Comments as they come in. I am not a Multi-Tasker and Never have been. Due to ADD, if I allow Continuous Interruptions, such as your Above Comment has Suggested, I would Never Get a Single Thing Done, for Once I am Interrupted, it is Hard for me to get Back on Track again.
"It is Better when you Think Through, rather then Responding Immediately to Comments as they come in."
If you know the equation by which you find the answers, it doesn't require much time to think through.
I know my moral compass. I know the basis by which I make decisions and navigate life. It doesn't require me to ponder on them or to hesitate when responding. And, you'll notice that I have an impeccable record of consistency in that regard.
Have you ever Stopped to Think, Soap, that Perhaps the Equations that Work for you in your Life, do not Work for Everyone? Your Mention about the Smart Phone Notifying you when ever there is a Comment or Message on a Blog, Facebook or your Email is a Good Example. Those who Multi-Task Well can Make that Work, but those who do not are going to Need a Different Equation.
I Check the "Follow-Up Comments will be sent to..." Box as well, but I Check my Email Only when I have the Time to Focus on what I will be Reading. I would Never Dream of Having my Phone Notify me. Nothing is that much of an Emergency.
Politics is about Everyone and the Equations Used in that Setting have to Work for Everyone, not just the Person who has a Particular Opinion.
We must Allow Information to not Only Pass Through our Accepted Equations, but also to Challenge our Equations. To Not do so is to Give in to Bias because that is what our Pre-set Equations actually are.
"Your moral/ideological/philosophical compass is not the same as mine. I never inferred that it was."
Neither did I.
"If you know the equation by which you find the answers, it doesn't require much time to think through."
Yes, but Politics is not just About You and it is not just About Me. Politics is about Everyone and so the Equations Used in Politics have to Work for Everyone, not just the One who has a Particular Opinion. Once Again, Soap, you are Off Subject because Politics is the Subject, not the Equations that Work for any One Individual.
It just so Happens that the Pro-Choice Equation does not Work Out too Well for the Baby.
When Making Decisions that Affect Other People besides myself, I have to have an Equation that also Works for others and not just for myself. This Requires more thought and to not enter into this type of a thought process is Self-Centered. Since Politics Effects Everyone, it can not be Self-Centered.
I was Doing a Project on the Computer Yesterdau Morning, but Eventually had to Discipline Myself to not Keep Checking my Email. IMO, Easy Access can Often Lead to Obsession.
"Politics is about Everyone and so the Equations Used in Politics have to Work for Everyone.."
That will never happen. You can surely get a majority but you cannot and will not ever find a political equation that will work for everyone because "everyone", it must be remembered is every one.
I've Come to the Conclusion, Soap, that your Statement about not Needing as much Time to Think Things Through when you Know "the Equation by which you Find the Answers" is Nothing more than a Cope Out Designed to Justify your Lack of Willingness to Think Things Through.
To Fully Think Things Through, Soap, we Need to Consider the Equations of Others and not just the Equations of Ourselves and to Consider what Works and does not Work for Others and not just for Ourselves. That is what Communication is all about.
As to your more Recent Comment, Perhaps I Misspoke. I should have said that since Politics is about Everyone, the Equations Used in Politics Need to Work for as Many People as Possible, not just for the Person who has a Particular Opinion.
Pointing Out the Impracticality of an Absolute or Extreme, though, does not Negate the Value of Striving for the Best that is Possible. This too is a Cope Out and it is One that You Use Often.
Who's to say I don't think things through? I don't need to think things through while standing in your shoes Lista. You know why? Because I don't live in your shoes. I live in my shoes. I make decisions and and live with the consequences of those decisions.
"...the Equations Used in Politics Need to Work for as Many People as Possible"
Ahh...the majority. The blessed majority.
""Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin
Your Quick Responses are Evidence that you have not Taken the Time to Think Things Through.
"I don't need to think things through while standing in your shoes, Lista. You know why? Because I don't live in your shoes."
That doesn't Matter. Many of your Decisions Effect Other People, Especially Political Ones. Some of the Consequences of Selfishness do not Come until the After Life.
"Ahh...the majority. The blessed majority."
No, Actually 51% is not that High of a Number. If People would put their Selfishness Aside, the Number of People Benefited by Political Decisions would be Higher than that. Fortunately, there are those who do Vote for the Good of all People and not just for themselves. Remember, the Unborn are not Able to Vote.
That's a Very Interesting Benjamin Franklin Quote, Soap. If the Strong (That is the Wolves) would Vote more Lovingly, though, then the Lambs would not have to resort to War.
Put another Way, if the Strong would Think Their Equations Through in Relation to the Effects on Others and not just on themselves, then Perhaps War could be Avoided.
Interesting how the Discussion has Turned from Abortion to Selfishness, yet in Reality, we are really not all that much off Subject.
First of all, Soap, you are Assuming that I am just as Self-Centered as you are. My Concern about Unborn Babies has Very Little to do with me Personally. Remember the Unborn have Neither a Vote, nor a Gun.
As to me Personally, though, if Food is not Regulated, then I may be One of the One's who Gets Sick and if there are not a few Safety Regulations in the Work Place, then this may Effect me in the event that Finding Work becomes Necessary.
Personally, though, I Think that your Question is quite Naive and Foolish because any Decision that Effects either the Economy or the basic Safety of our world Effects Everyone, especially the Poor who can not Afford to Buy Products that are Safer, but more Expensive.
If Food is not Safe, that Effects me and if Safe Food becomes more Expensive, that Effects me. If the Economy is Bad, that Effects me. If Social Security or Medicare was Reduced, that would Effect me. If the Medical and Insurance Premiums are not Kept at Bay, that would Effect me. Really, Soap, is there any way you could have Asked a More Ridiculous Question.
Let us take a moment to applaud the FDA, USDA, and the Agricultural department for keeping us safe from food born illnesses. Their record is impeccable.
It Could be Worse. There you go Again Using a Lack of Perfection Argument to Refute all Efforts to Improve on a Situation. Nothing is 100%. The Issue is Never about Perfection, only about what is Better and what is Worse.
And anyway, I don't know if your Question was Meant to be a Way of Changing the Subject, but the FDA and USDA were not the Subject of this Post. I Answered your Question, Soap. Now let's get back to the Subject of this Post.
Well, I have now Responded to you in the Comment Section of the Post that you gave a Link to above. I Figured Out how to View the Flow Chart. What it really comes down to, though, is that I am Very Reluctant to Allow you to Make the Rules because I do not Trust you to be Fair.
I guess I do Wonder if I have Been too Hard on you at Times and yet I also Know that I have been no Harder on you than you have been on me.
Here is the Question that No Body on this Blog has been Willing to Answer, just as I had Predicted...
"What I'd Like to Know is exactly why they Think that things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, are not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal? Just Watch, for I am sure they will simply Ignore and Avoid this Question."
I Guess I was Addressing Everyone and not just you, but My Prediction did indeed Turn Out to be Correct.
Oh and BTW, if I have Misunderstood you in any way, that is not the Same as "Perversion of Facts". It is just Easier for you to Imagine that a Person Perverts the Facts, than that you have not Stated Things Clearly. At Present, though, I have no Idea at all what you are Talking about.
Yes, I Knew that that was One Possible Answer that you might Give me. In Reality, this Question was more Meant for Satyavati and Malcontent, yet Neither or them Responded.
The Only Part of the Question, then, that Applies to you is the Second Part...
"if they are, then why are they Illegal?"
What I'm Actually Getting at is Why are Things such as Rape, Theft and Murder Illegal and yet Abortion is not?
Abortion is not "Exclusively Religious" either, because it has to do with Rights. That is the Rights of the Baby.
As to your Flow Chart, Soap, Of Course I can Imagine Changing my Mind on the Issue because I already have, but not in the Direction that you would have Liked.
I Read some Materials on Abortion and Rape and Changed my Mind about the Idea that Abortion is the Solution to the Rape an Incest Issue. Though I would Never Push this Extreme Politically because of my Belief in Compromise, this was a Change in my Belief, so yes, it does Happen. Can you say the Same?
You can Read about my Beliefs on the Rape Issue here if you Desire, yet I do not Want to Allow this to be a Change in Subject. I was Simply Addressing the Flow Chart and Explaining how my Opinions can and do Change, so this is not to be Taken as a New Argument Presented for Discussion.
The Subject that I would like to Focus on now is the Question that I've just Asked above, for One of your Rules is "Do not Introduce New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved."
I don't believe that rights extend to the unborn. Rights, as a concept, exist in an environment outside of the womb. Rights are defined as action. We do not have a right to food, clothing, and shelter. We have a right to take action (to have liberty, to pursue) to acquire the aforementioned. The unborn are confined to the environment within the mother. Thus, they cannot take action outside of their confined environment.
With respect to the unborn and rights, the rights actually reside with the woman carrying. To the cause or pursuit that one who is pro-life should advocate, in my view, is to encourage the woman carrying to exercise her right to life and her liberty to make her own choices.
Wow! That was Fast! Thanks so much for Addressing the Issue of Rights and not Evading it Like the Others have done.
Many People Believe, Soap, that Rights should be Given to the Unborn and this is the Real Basis of the Conflict. Religion has nothing to do with it. I say that for the Sake of those who Keep Using the Religion Card.
It is not True that the Baby does not Take Action, for he or she is Involved in the Action of Breathing and his or her Heart is Involved in the Action of Beating. Because this is True, it is an Action of the Pursuit of Life.
The Heart Begins to Beat at Day 21, or at Three Weeks. This is the Amount of Time it Takes for a Woman or Young Girl to Realize that she has Missed her Period. In Short, Once she becomes Aware of the Pregnancy, the Child is already Taking Action in the Pursuit of Life.
Naturally, Soap, you have Every Right to Decide that the Initial Issue has not been Resolved and to not Move on to the Next Point. That is your Right and I will not Require you to Move on before you are Ready to.
Yes the fetus/baby takes action. But the occurences are within the confines of the womb.
Until that child passes through the birth canal and enters the world, the concepts which we apply to us in the external world do not apply fully and completely to that little one.
It's like in science when experiments are conducted within certain environments. There is no way to confirm that the findings within the controlled environment will occur outside of that controlled environment until that moment actually occurs.
Perhaps I should Tell you Now that I don't have as much Time this Morning and therefore, will have to Reply to your Next Comment Later in the Day and I see you have already Submitted it. Oh well.
Thanks for Acknowledging a Misunderstanding, rather than Accusing me of Distorting. I Really do Appreciate that.
"Until that child passes through the birth canal and enters the world, the concepts which we apply to us in the external world do not apply fully and completely to that little one."
Your Explanation of why this is so is Inadequate. The Baby IS Involved in an Action.
"There is no way to confirm..."
Confirm What? That the Action of the Heartbeat will Still Continue Outside of the Womb? Usually it does. Try again. You are Still not being Clear.
The Way it is Usually Stated, Soap, is that the Woman should be Able to "Decide what to do with her Own Body". The Words "Part of" are not Usually Mentioned. These are Two Separate Issues and the Fetus is not the Same as the Woman's Body, rather it is Connected to her Body or not is not really Relevant. I Addressed this Issue on the Post that I have just given a Link to, yet Perhaps the First of the Issues has not been Fully Resolved yet, so let's not Move on. Let's Keep Working on the First Point.
Children do not have "Complete Independence" Until they become 18, 21 or Until they Move into their Own Homes, yet Children's Rights are Protected, so your Argument Still has a Flaw.
Yeah and "usually" the lungs work, the kidneys work, the child has 8 fingers and 2 thumbs and 10 little toes...
I am not talking about speculation here Lista. It is not inadequate in the least. What is inadequate is your ability to reason (see item #3 on the flowchart).
It'd be like painting a room canary yellow, putting a crib, a changing table, and a rocking chair in it, filling it with cute stuffed animals and the like...
So long as the child remains within the confines of the womb, none of those things, which exist here in our world, can be applied to the child.
The child cannot see the yellow room, be rocked to sleep in the chair, smell the lotion that the parent rubs on them after a bath.
To experience those things requires that the child comes into our world.
You'll need to understand this basic concept before we can proceed.
I just wanna state for the record that I am not evading this, I am tired of being accused of 'assigning motives', of endless semantics (see recent 'independence' thing) and fighting a basic refusal to deal in fact.
I therefore am exercising my right to independent choice and choosing to not participate in what has proven in past instances to be a worthless waste of my time.
However, to diverge somewhat from the current focus:
We all know that the GOP is the Pro Life Party, as we have seen lately as the candidates vy to prove that they are more pro life than their competition.
But it seems this fanatical devotion actually STOPS at birth.
These are the same group of people who would like to outlaw abortion on demand (except Herman Cain, who changes his stance hourly) and actually, see Rick Santorum, make contraceptives illegal.
Before I move on let me point out that by outlawing contraception, you not only increase the incidence of STDs and bloodborne illnesses, you also eliminate effective treatment for many hormonal disorders that affect women. Not to mention that it would be the woman, not the man, who would be criminalized and punished for abortion, and even as has recently happened, investigated in the event of a miscarriage to prove it wasn't intentional. So much for innocent until proven guilty, and so much for women's rights.
But beyond this, the party that is so intensely concerned with prenatal issues isn't particularly concerned with postnatal ones.
As evidenced by the attempts to reduce programs like WIC, head start, other education, and through attempting to repeal, block or otherwise eliminate insurance access for women and children. This disproportionately affects poor and minority groups, and also leaves those born with congenital defects out in the cold.
Of course, politicians on the right such as Michelle Bachmann insist that these kinds of things be handled by the churches. This, of course, would be predicated on the person in need being of the same (exact) religion as the religious group handing out the old clothes and baskets of canned goods, and again leaves whole groups who don't qualify according to their religious requirements out in the cold.
So all this focus on 'life' beginning 'at the moment of conception', all this concern, but it ends 'at the moment of birth'.
I don't feel that any of this is particularly up for debate or opinion, which is why I am even willing to engage. What I've presented here are facts; you may debate them as you will but you aren't going to change them.
You forgot to mention that all these GOP Pro-Lifers (save for Ron Paul) would also be more than willing to send the off to foreign lands to fight for corporate interests where they might come back either maimed or in a flag draped casket.
Not to mention that (their extended tours and all) sorta flies in the face of that whole family values thing and the significance of a mother and father in a child's life.
Obviously the child is it's only biological entity as it has its own individual features.
What I mean to say is that, its existence; its ability to conceptualize requires that it be able to function independently of the environment from which it orginated.
So long as the fetus/baby/child remains within the confines of the uterus/womb I am asserting that it is part of the woman's bodily functions.
It is true that babies are born prematurely and that state of viability is well before 9 months. I get that. However, 9 months is the norm and again, so long as that fetus/baby/child remains inside that mother. It isn't in my view independent in the context of which I am applying it.
"What is inadequate is your ability to reason (see item #3 on the flowchart)."
Come on, Soap. It is not as if I have "Item #3" Memorized. I had to go Back Up to the Link again, which is now Quite a Few Comments Up. I'm not always going to be Able to Know what you're Talking about by the Mention of an Item #.
I'll Let you have it this time because I did Find the Link again. You are Referring to...
"Are you Prepared to Abide by Basic Principles of Reason in Discussing the Topic."
In the Comment Section of your Post, Soap, I said "You may have Different Opinions on whether or not I am Abiding by Principles of Reason, whether or not a Position is more Realistic, whether the Evidence Offered is Significant or even Adequate, etc."
These Things are Subjective, Soap, and I will not Allow you to Insult me Based on your Opinion about my ability to Reason.
I Told you I Smelled a Rat and this is Exactly what I was Talking about.
The Right in Question is the Right to Life and the Child has Life in the Womb. All that the Child does not yet have is Irrelevant. Life is the Issue being discussed, not Cribs, Rocking Chairs and the Like.
Life, that which we are Discussing the Right to, Exists just as much inside the Womb as Out of it. My Ability to Reason is just Fine. You are just Refusing to Accept what I'm Saying. It just so Happens that you call Everything that you Disagree with or do not Understand Complicated and everything that you do Agree with Simple.
I wasn't Talking about Adulthood, either. I was Talking about "Complete Independence" (Your Words).
Satyavati, When you Insist on "Semantics" that Support your Point of View and Refuse the "Semantics" that Support someone else’s, the Issue of "Semantics" Needs to be Addressed.
Referring back to One of Soapster's Rules, "Do not Introduce New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved"
You have Introduced Multiple Issues in the Second of your Comments Today. Though they can all be Addressed, I can Only Touch the Surface due to the Time Available for me to Debate with you. I've Decided that I do, In Fact, Like Soapster's Rules and I wish you were Willing to Follow them as well.
All I want to say for now is that Pro-Life People can not be Blamed for all of the Woes that you have Mentioned and those who are Willing to Compromise can not be Held Responsible for the Political Views of those who are not.
I Agree with you that Making Contraception Illegal is not Right. That Position is not Held by all or even Most Pro-Lifers, so it is Actually a Change in Subject. Pro-Life is what we are Talking about, not Contraception.
"It would be the woman, not the man, who would be criminalized and punished for abortion."
My Understanding is that it would be the Doctor who would be Penalized. I'm not sure where you have Received your Facts.
Satyavati, When I Mentioned "the Second of your Comments Today", Well, I Wrote that Yesterday and Forgot to Edit it. I Guess I didn't Catch it. Sorry.
"The party that is so intensely concerned with prenatal issues isn't particularly concerned with postnatal ones."
I do not Believe that to be True.
You are Talking about all of the Extremes, Satyavati, and not Realizing that there are Those who are Willing to Compromise and Work Out more Rational Solutions.
"This, of course, would be predicated on the person in need being of the same (exact) religion as the religious group handing out the old clothes and baskets of canned goods."
That's not True. Churches do this Kind of Thing for the Purpose of Reaching Out to the Community. Sure they Hope for Converts, but Conversion is not a Prerequisite for Assistance. It Never has been. I've been Raised in the Church and have been a part of Many Programs that Help Out the Poor and even Unwed Mothers. You simply do not Know what you are Talking about.
"I don't feel that any of this is particularly up for debate or opinion."
Then this is not a Discussion. It is you Preaching at me. What you have Presented are not Facts, Satyavati. At Most, they are Scattered Examples of People who have Extreme Ideas that I do not Agree with any more then you do.
If you are not Willing to Discuss, Satyavati, and Insist on Preaching Instead, then you Really shouldn't Participate at all.
Soapster, First Satyavati Breaks your Rules of "Not Introducing New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved" and Now you are Doing it as well. Do your Rules Apply to Everyone, or just to me? When did this Become a Mud Slinging War Against Pro-Lifers?
I should End this Discussion Right now Based on the Fact that you both have Broken the Rules on your Flow Chart.
"You see how you make things so complicated, Lista?"
I have done no such Thing. There is nothing Complicated about what I am saying. You just do not Agree with it, so to you it is Complicated.
"What I mean to say is that, its existence; its ability to conceptualize requires that it be able to function independently of the environment from which it originated."
To me, this is a Rule Chosen at Random for when someone's Rights should Begin. There is no Logical Reason to Believe that "Independence", Defined in this way, should be the Starting Point. You Agree that it should be. I do not and my Decision is just as Rational as yours.
"It is true that babies are born prematurely and that state of viability is well before 9 months. I get that. However, 9 months is the norm and again, so long as that fetus/baby/child remains inside that mother. It isn't in my view independent in the context of which I am applying it."
This Paragraph shows Evidence that the Age of Independence, Usually Called, "The Age of Viability", is In Fact, Debatable.
I don't Know. Perhaps I'll Quit This Discussion Soon Based on the Fact that Soap's Rules do not appear to Apply to anyone except me.
Soapster, "Yeah and 'usually' the lungs work, the kidneys work, the child has 8 fingers and 2 thumbs and 10 little toes...
I am not talking about speculation here, Lista."
Neither am I. There is nothing Speculative about the Statement that Most Babies are Born with the Heart Still Beating.
"We're not talking about adulthood for christ's sake.
We are talking about a biological process. A child does not become it's own independent biological entity until it is removed from the mother and thus comes into the world."
Ok, Let's Talk about something Earlier than Adulthood. A Child, Once Born, will Still Die if Abandoned by the Mother. I don't Call the "Complete Independence", Soap.
Satyavati, "I am tired of being accused of 'assigning motives'"
Yeh. Like you're so Innocent.
"I therefore am exercising my right to independent choice and choosing to not participate."
If you are Unwilling to Participate in Discussion, then it would be better if you did not Participate in Preaching either.
Here are the Links if anyone Wants to Read more about my Views on the Subjects that have been Mentioned.
"Do not Introduce New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved"
I'm not introducing an argument, because there's nothing to argue about with anything I've said.
They are not up for argument as they are available for your perusal in full color being presented by the candidates themselves.
I did have an error regarding women being investigated for miscarriages. That bill is Georgia HB1, which from what I can gather from the Georgia Legislature website, still in process. This bill contains the following:
(3) When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs 211 without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is 212 required by the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the 213 proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare 214 and file the report within 30 days;
And this:
a) Every person in charge of an institution shall keep a record of personal data 227 concerning each person admitted or confined to such institution. This record shall include 228 such information as required for the certificates of birth and death and the reports of 229 spontaneous fetal death and induced termination of pregnancy required by this chapter. 230 The record shall be made at the time of admission from information provided by the person being admitted or confined but, when it cannot be so obtained, the information shall be 232 obtained from relatives or other persons acquainted with the facts. The name and address 233 of the person providing the information shall be a part of the record."
And that would be a HIPPA violating investigation into why a woman had a miscarriage. If investigators aren't happy with the answer, it's called murder. She's prosecuted.
So, I apologize, but the bill is in progress as far as I can see. So the attempt is being made to make this law.
You are Talking about all of the Extremes, Satyavati, and not Realizing that there are Those who are Willing to Compromise and Work Out more Rational Solutions.
What you have Presented are not Facts, Satyavati. At Most, they are Scattered Examples of People who have Extreme Ideas that I do not Agree with any more then you do.
These are the people who are vying for the Republican presidential nomination. And it is FACT that these candidates have made these statements. I'm not sure how you can call these things 'scattered examples' when these candidates have spent an enormous amount of time in very public debate presenting these viewpoints. The FACT is that these persons are virtually universally positing these viewpoints as potential Republican presidential nominees, who would presumably support the majority view of their party.
The attempts to reduce programs such as WIC, women's health services, Head Start and general education are also well documented and fall into the category of FACT.
So to sum up, Lista, I'm not presenting an 'argument'. You may agree or disagree with these FACTS, but that's not my issue nor my concern. What I'm presenting here are FACTS; I have acknowledged my confusion regarding HB1-which doesn't negate the FACT that it mandates investigation of a woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage without a physician present and that said investigation could potentially result in the woman being charged with murder.
FACTS aren't up for debate, Lista. FACTS simply are. What I've presented here are FACTS. Regardless of your belief or agreement with them they continue to exist as they are. Thus no argument from me in this discussion. Simply a presentation of what is.
If we may backtrack here hey Mal I really don't care that you're pro-choice or Whatever just that you dragged religion into it as many people do. I think one can be pro-life without offering any religious arguments whatsoever but again whatever floats your boat. I really don't expect you to agree with me or for me to agree with you just maybe God is a little tired of being dragged into this all the time (mostly by the pro-choicers it seems).
Soap I'm still getting up to speed here but something you said awhile back:
"People have guns to kill other people?"
Theoretically yes as that is the purpose, the teleology of the gun itself. Name any other product you buy and never plan on using. You buy Tylenol, you don't hope to use it that much but the time will come when you will. OK go to Sears and buy a new TV set that you will park in your living room and never watch for the next ten years. So bearing in mind the real purpose behind the product called a gun what I am submitting is that many gun owners will have a propensity to use that gun sooner or later say when they see a young black guy at 2 in the morning getting ready to break into their car......
If we may backtrack here hey Mal I really don't care that you're pro-choice or Whatever just that you dragged religion into it as many people do. I think one can be pro-life without offering any religious arguments
Maybe so, but it's the religious right that's pushing so hard and working so hard to get abortion outlawed. It's the FRC, it's James Dobson, it's Tony Perkins, it's the Christian Coalition, hell it's even the Catholic Bishops (despite a vast majority of Catholics admitting they ignore the Church's teaching on contraception).
It's the candidates at religious gatherings, these big meetings sponsored by giant religiously based lobbying groups, who are promoting pro-life legislation in the same breath as they affirm that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.
This is one issue where it's virtually impossible to pick apart politics and religion. And maybe it appears to you that the Left is the group bringing it up in discussion because the Right doesn't want to look like they're trying to impose a theocracy, an American Sharia if you will.
And if that sounds inflammatory to you, let's stop and think: if you read (seriously read) through the platforms and policies that these religious groups would like to see made law, they have more in common (from a moral behavior standpoint) with Sharia law than they do with anything else. I doubt, well let's say fervently hope, that the majority of the American public is too bright and too rational to ever let this kind of shit get through the system, but it's still worth noting that they're trying like hell to chip away at the seperation of Church and State and to enact legislation that is based on their own religious beliefs, which then would be forced upon everyone else under threat of criminal charges.
There are fanatics in every religious group, including my own.
There are groups of Catholics who insist the current pope and all the popes since Vatican II are the antichrist.
There are those Fred Phelps lunatics in Kansas or wherever they are.
There are Christian Nationalist groups, they're the ones who stockpile weapons and go after anyone who has a last name that sounds foreign to them.
There are LDS groups that go in for polygamy (personally that squicks me out).
Okay, so far I haven't mentioned any religious groups that go around blowing other people up, right?
How about the Catholic/Protestant Irish thing that's been going on for generations? It's so bad that they even have a special Parade Commission (the Irish are big on parades, which is one of the reasons NY is so hugely big on parades) that determines where one group may or may not march based on whose 'territory' it is and whether the presence of the paraders might be considered inflammatory and incite violence. They go around bombing each other all the time, in a mix of religion and politics. That's how they roll.
Point being there are religious extremists, schismatic groups and lunatics that wrap themselves in religious excuses everywhere. And these groups don't usually bear much relation to either the teachings they profess to hold dear or the ordinary, rational believer.
Seriously, there's not much difference between the religious right's train of dearly-hoped-for legislative thought and that of repressive fanatical Muslim groups.
After Submitting my Last Comment, I Decided to Reread the Above Comments from Yesterday again, cause I Keep Getting Additional Thoughts that are Worth Adding.
Satyavati, "I'm not introducing an argument, because there's nothing to argue about with anything I've said."
Sorry, My Mistake; What you are Actually doing is Preaching, rather then Discussing.
"FACTS aren't up for debate, Lista. FACTS simply are."
Here is something that you said in a Previous Comment that is NOT a FACT, as I Explained in my 11/04/11 - 6:12 AM Comment.
"This, of course, would be predicated on the person in need being of the same (exact) religion as the religious group handing out the old clothes and baskets of canned goods."
"FACTS" ARE Up for Debate, Satyavati, if they are Reported Incorrectly.
Your Arguments are Implied, rather then Stated, for you have Definite OPINIONS about what all of your Reported "FACTS" Mean.
Z-Man, Guns are also Used for Hunting and Target Practice.
Satyavati, "because the Right doesn't want to look like they're trying to impose a theocracy, an American Sharia if you will."
Maybe that is because most of them Aren't. This is not Inflammatory, Satyavati. It's just an Incorrect Exaggeration and a Focus on an Extreme.
Should I also say AOM. Yeh, I Know. You're Tired of that one, yet you do Need to be Aware that you Do it and your Assumptions of Motive are not Correct in most Cases.
"I doubt, well let's say fervently hope, that the majority of the American public is too bright and too rational to ever let this kind of shit get through the system.".
They are and the Reason Why is because those who are Pushing the Extremes that you Fear are Actually a Smaller Minority than you Realize.
Satyavati, I have Written Lots of Comments Expressing my View Point on the Comment Thread. There is no Law Against Writing Comments that are more of a Critique. My Point, though, is that your Exaggeration and Mud Slinging does not Negate any Point that I have Made in Previous Comments.
Satyavati, My Point is that there are Extremes on Both Sides and that your Facts Only Focus on the Side that you are Opposed to.
My Point is that what you are Implying by your Facts, which is that it is the Right that is all Messed up and not the Left, is not Correct.
There is Mud to Be Slung at the Left as well. I just don't Like to Participate in Mud Slinging Wars.
My Point is that there are many that are Willing to Work Towards Rational Compromise and that Focusing on Extremes all the Time, Hinders their Efforts.
So, Lista, are you saying that the entire group of Republican candidates are extremists? It's their words, not mine...
...wait a minute...
...maybe during the debates, the people in charge of the broadcast put a 30 second delay on everything, and took everything the candidates ACTUALLY said, deleted it, and replaced it with the kinds of things I and millions of other people heard.
That's a possibility, right? Everything they said was removed and replaced.
Voice synthesizers are really high-tech these days.
No Satyavati, Now you are just being Silly. There are Only Two Candidates that have most of the Public Support and that is Cain and Romney. The Rest are Supported by Smaller Minorities and are not Likely to be Elected.
Romney is the One who is more Moderate. I Admit that some of the Candidates have Ideas that I might even Consider Extreme. I've always been Skeptical of the Flat Tax Idea, so I'm Probably not going to Vote for Cain, even though Initially he Impressed me.
Here are somethings that I Feel are worth Repeating...
"At the Moment, there is an Out Cry because of the Extremism of things such as Obama Care and the Like. Extremism Breeds Extremism. That’s just the Way Politics Work." This is the Reason why there are so many Candidates that are Pushing Extremes.
"Those who are Willing to Compromise can not be Held Responsible for the Political Views of those who are not."
"You are Talking about all of the Extremes, Satyavati, and not Realizing that there are those who are Willing to Compromise and Work Out more Rational Solutions."
"Extremists on Both Sides Defend their Own Positions by Pointing Out the Extremes of their Opponents and the Rational People in the Middle who what to Find a Reasonable Compromise Get Drowned Out in all of the Screaming and Slinging of Mud."
and
"It Appears that Extremism is all you can see and that you are Incapable of seeing anything Else."
Remember, though, I've been Responding to all that you said in your Comments, not just to the Part about the Candidates.
There are only two candidates that have most the support (Romney and Cain)?
You are an idiot if you believe that nonsense.
The overwhelming majority of the polls from which I suspect you are basing this on are next to worthless.
For one they are primarily conducted by contacting potential voters with landlines. Two, having conducted a flurry of phone banking myself, it is quite a different thing to have someone respond to a poll over the phone than it is to get those people to turn out to either vote in the primary or participate in their caucus, BPOU, or state party system.
Candidates aren't nominated through a phone survey.
The straw polls are a far better barometer of gauging where the momentum is; much more so than the zogby/gallop etc phone polls. People have to actually get off their ass and sometimes pay to vote in the straw polls.
your Facts Only Focus on the Side that you are Opposed to
what do you want me to do, Lista? These are the words the CANDIDATES said. I can't put words in their mouths... I mean, seriously, what are you wanting me to do? I can't help what the people say themselves.
And yeah, facts are not debatable. You breathe oxygen. Not debatable. The earth orbits the sun. Not debatable. Water is wet. Not debatable.
Rick Santorum said he would like to make contraception illegal. He said it. It's a fact he said it. That's not debatable. You can agree or disagree with what he said, but he DID SAY IT and you cannot debate that HE DID SAY IT.
So it is FACT that these people have made these statements. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees or disagrees with what they said, they cannot say it didn't get said, cause the FACT is it did.
Rick Santorum loves life so much that he wants more of our precious children to fight wars against evil Mooslims in Iran. He should send his own kids and go to the front lines himself.
Satyavati, You have not always been Clear on Exactly which Candidates Said what. It is Better to Criticize Individuals rather then Entire Groups and Allow each Person to Take Responsibility for their Own Words. For Example, the Entire Republican Party is not Responsible for the Opinion of Rick Santorum on Contraception.
The Importance of that Fact and it's Relevance to the Entire Republican Party IS Debatable, Satyavati.
"So it is FACT that these people..."
When you say "these People", Satyavati, rather then just Rick Santorum, this is when your Statement Ceases to be Fact.
Ok, Maybe there are some Facts that are not Debatable, yet you are Arrogant to Make that Claim about all of your Facts. I have Pointed Out One that is not and I'm not going to Keep Repeating myself in Relation to that one.
I was Hoping to Get a Discussion going on my Own Blog about this Very Thing and I've already gotten a Few Comments on the Matter. If you Like, you can Take this Matter Up with me there.
Soapster, "The straw polls are a far better barometer of gauging where the momentum is; much more so than the zogby/gallop etc phone polls. People have to actually get off their ass and sometimes pay to vote in the straw polls."
Straw Polls are no less Biased then Phone Polls, Soap. In Phone Polls, you are Polling Only Those who have Landlines and Happen to be Home at the Hours in which you Call. That is a Biased Sample.
If Paying to Vote is a Requirement, then the Biased Sample will be Excluding those who Lack the Funds and this will be a Biased Polling of those with Higher Incomes.
Even if the Biased Sample is of those who are Politically Active, this is Still a Bias, because there are Lazy, Non-Politically Active People who do Show Up at the Polls and Vote.
Actually, I Think that they do, Soap. For these are the Ones who are more Wishy Washy and can be Swayed by those with Stronger Opinions. This is Why Part of the Strategy of Trying to Win Elections is the Persuading of the "Lazy" who are in their Political Party to Get Out there and Vote. The Non-Lazy will Show Up on their Own Initiative with or without such Persuasion.
It may very well be conundrum for you Z but it is not a conundrum for libertarians.
ReplyDeleteA federal ban on abortions is as unconstitutional as its federal legalization. Viewing abortions as an act of violence against a human being, and the enforcement of civil and criminal law constitutionally reserved to the states, this is the responsibility of the states to restrain, not the federal government.
End of discusson from this libertarian.
That ought to have been in quotes.
ReplyDeleteIt is a section from the Abortion chapter of Ron Paul's book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom
I posted it because it is so succinctly stated.
Soap, but the state is still the state.
ReplyDeleteThis is part of the argument I never understand.
For instance, who cares if I pay my $5000 in taxes to the feds, or the state?
It is still taxes I have to pay.
WHo cares if the law is federal or state? it is still the law, right?
The result is no different, just the collector.
Soap I wasn't really getting into a whole legalistic/constitutional debate about what to do with Roe vs. Wade just that libertarian philosophy seems to me should at least be in favor of the unborn, say encourage the woman to give birth otherwise how can that fetus/child grow up to do the normal libertarian things later in life like watch porn while on angel dust?
ReplyDeleteI get your point Dave. Soap strongly favors the state over the federal gov't but seems to me he should be against the state too. What matter if the feds or the state says you have to eat your brussel sprouts, it's still an infringement on YOUR liberty.
ReplyDeleteI've answered this question for you once before Dave. And with all due respect it is an extremely naive and ignorant statement.
ReplyDeleteIt most certainly matters and there is most certainly a difference.
The more localized government is the more choice you have in the sort of government you live under.
Don't like the property taxes in one city? Move to another. Don't like the income tax? Move to Texas or one of the other states without one.
Further, if you pay $5000 in taxes to the Feds you are hoping to receive $5000 in services in return. There is no way to guarantee that. Suppose the Feds siphon off $3000 of it and sink that money into a state that is more sympathetic to their policies.
It breeds corruption. A sort of corruption and tyranny and oppression that is far more difficult to get out from under than it would be were it much more localized.
There is a stark difference between The STATE and The STATES.
ReplyDeleteThe Federal Goverment works to fuck all the states. The states (respectively) work to fuck all the cities therein.
Still, there's more room to maneuver under Federalism where state's rights prevail over the federal monolith.
+1 for that post Mal.
ReplyDeleteIt was very well stated.
Which I see you've now deleted.
ReplyDeleteI deleted it to correct some spelling errors.
ReplyDeleteThere is never a simple answer to that question, because it’s never a simple question. One can answer you by saying if we do have liberty then we should have the right to choose. This is something that I believe is a women’s choice, not mine. I know that I’m going to have a lot of people mad but I must say what I must say. Why shouldn’t not a woman have the choice according to her own will?
The answer is never simple, some may say yes she should have the rights to decide for herself, and that’s what “Liberty” is all about. And I must say that I agree with whatever her decision may be. It’s her decision to make. I don’t think that I have the right to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body.
If you wrote this post to get into argument about “pro-choice” versus “pro-life", this is an argument that I won't get into. I gave my opinion and I won’t get into any debate over it. Because I know I won’t convince anyone, nor will anyone convince me. What is right for someone, may be wrong for others, that’s what I call Liberty.
I happen to value all human life, and i wouldn’t want my wife to about a child. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t force my opinion on everyone else.
And I certainly DON'T want my Government to be funding abortions
And I don't think that the abortion subject should be in any political platform or in anyone's campaign Democratic or Republican.
"...libertarian philosophy seems to me should at least be in favor of the unborn, say encourage the woman to give birth.."
ReplyDeleteLibertarian philosophy is antithetical to what you've suggested because it is in favor of individual liberty not bending people to our whim or making people think and act as us.
I happen to think your suggestion in fact is much more in tune with the modern day conservative movement. This is why I rarely if ever use the term conservative to describe myself or my philosophy/ideology/beliefs.
The modern day conservative movement is largely comprised of christians/evangelicals (just ask Karl Rove) many of whom have quite different beliefs about the role of government than do I.
Soap, I 100% understand the local issue regarding taxes, but it ain't gonna make any difference in practice.
ReplyDeleteIf my city needs 300 policemen and those 300 needed cops cost 3.5 million, including admin, etc., we are gonna pay it, whether all of that money is local, or comes from the feds.
In practice, the results are the same.
It just bugs me that people are increasingly critical of the feds collecting and disbursing funds, when the local taxing authorities are just as bad and corrupt, and ask for the same amounts.
Where is the difference.
Mal, I hear what you are saying... it is kind of a live and let live argument. What's right for me may not be right for you.
But if we accept that philosophy, how can someone say anything is immoral, or in your example, why shouldn't the Gov't fund abortions?
just because it is wrong for you and you'd never do it, or be involved in it, is it wrong for someone else?
By what objective standard is something deemed wrong for everybody?
I already told you my position on abortion. My position is, I don't think it should be a political issue, it should be off the table, and out of Presidential politics, period.. And I won't discuss it any further..
ReplyDelete"If my city needs 300 policemen and those 300 needed cops cost 3.5 million, including admin, etc., we are gonna pay it, whether all of that money is local, or comes from the feds."
ReplyDeleteIf your city needs 300 cops then the residents of said city are paying for the government they get (unless the city is receiving LGA from the state in which case citizens from other cities in the state are subsidizing a police force in your respective city).
If the Feds are giving money to your city for police then citizens in other states are subsidizing your police force.
I am all about reducing and minimizing government at all levels Dave. But, the biggest obstacle is the Federal government. If we can empower government at the local and state level it will be far easier to tackle.
Okay Soap, what about big ticket items that locals seem unable to do effectively in a 50 state Union?
ReplyDeleteIs not there some real value in a strong central authority to direct anything?
For instance road construction and the highway system.
I spend almost half my year every year working in Mexico. They leave tons to the states, and the people still get screwed.
You also see that the richer states are the best looking places, best roads, best education, etc., and they set up systems to not allow people from other states to get in.
How would we ensure that does not happen here without a strong federal presence? Isn't that what happened in the south?
And you know I am not trying demagogue or be a jerk. I am just asking questions for information.
Actually, this would be a great coffee/beer/cigar session with a select few others of our "blog ring."
No shouting allowed and you gotta agree to be civil...
"Actually, this would be a great coffee/beer/cigar session with a select few others of our "blog ring."
ReplyDeleteNo shouting allowed and you gotta agree to be civil..."
If you ever make your way to Minneapolis, MN head to Clubhouse Jager (http://www.clubhousejaeger.com/) on a Tuesday night, Italiani's on a Sunday night or Sweeny's in St. Paul on a Monday night for such a discussion.
"Is not there some real value in a strong central authority to direct anything?"
Yes there is. Those items can be found in the Constitution (of course paying close attention to Article I Section 8).
As for the interstate highway system, the necessity for the federal government was for the sake of eminent domain as well as in part military necessity.
I have to stop here before plowing through these comments again because soap you're not getting why I even posted this thread in the first place. Here it is again -- Mal and you are eloquently stating the case for liberty but my whole point is HOW do you get to that point of enjoying your liberty if you never get to be born? It's a kind of philosophical thing -- do you enjoy your life soap? I'll bet you do but would you rather your Mom had aborted you? in that case your liberty would have been sucked down an existential black hole. This is why libertarianism will never be a majority movement, even some pro-choice folks have problems with abortion (and hardcore drugs and porn shops by schools etc.) whereas the libertarian is just blase about the whole thing.
ReplyDeletesoapie: "The more localized government is the more choice you have in the sort of government you live under."
ReplyDeleteThat's a good one. Down here in Yonkers NY most folks are against these red-light traffic cams as I've blogged about so why are they still up dude? Not only that more towns, cities and localities have them so that kind of offsets your whole freedom to move argument. I agree with Dave here because I've seen it firsthand, local and state governments can be just as corrupt as the feds. You really should be against the state(s) too soap.
With all due respect I think it's a rather stupid question to ponder because the unborn have no conceptual faculties, no cognitive ability with which to perceive liberty much less the world around them.
ReplyDeleteExistence exists. I don't really care to examine why I am here or what is the reason I am here.
I merely need to understand that I am here.
So long as I am here; that is to say I exist, I aspire to have individual freedom and liberty.
If someone isn't born they don't have liberty and they will never have liberty. And you know what? It doesn't much matter because one never develops the cognitive ability to understand it.
It'd be like asking how can you have bacon without a pig?
And of course you can't which makes it a ridiculous question to ask because the whole concept of bacon ceases to exist without a pig.
"You really should be against the state(s) too soap."
ReplyDeletePretty sure I covered that here:
"I am all about reducing and minimizing government at all levels Dave. But, the biggest obstacle is the Federal government. If we can empower government at the local and state level it will be far easier to tackle."
"Not only that more towns, cities and localities have them so that kind of offsets your whole freedom to move argument."
Does it? Does it really?
We don't have them any longer here in Minneapolis, or St. Paul, or Bloomington, or Crystal, or Eden Prairie. In fact, we don't have them in our state period!
So yeah, my argument stands. You have freedom to move from a city or state which has them to a city or state which does not.
BUT, if the Federal government runs roughshod over all of the states and thereby mandates that they will be used in every city, in every state, then where ya gonna go?
"So long as I am here; that is to say I exist, I aspire to have individual freedom and liberty."
ReplyDeleteBut you cannot have or even aspire to individual freedom and liberty if you were never allowed to exist in the first place, if someone snuffed you out in utero. Sorry to fuck with your head. Re red-light cams what if I can't pony up the money to move to St. Paul?
You're not fucking with my head in the least.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't pony up the money then that is a separate issue entirely. The issue we began with was whether or not another option existed. Indeed it does.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it's gonna cost alot less to move from Yonkers to St. Paul than it is to move from Yonkers to another country.
Getting back to abortion what I never got was this. Say I'm pro-life, fervently so (which I am) by what process of mystical magical powers would I be able to ban abortion for all Americans tomorrow? Even if in my wildest dreams it ain't gonna happen......so basically pro-life is my opinion, a kind of coffee-table view to be proferred or if you asked me my POV around beers if you prefer. It's a mental shading that's all. Being pro-life is a hobgoblin of the pro-choice mind and get this, even if abortion is someday banned in this country that can ONLY happen if there's a consensus in this country re abortion since that's how the system, the whole process is set up. Me having an opinion is what? why does it upset people so?
ReplyDeleteYour opinion doesn't upset me.
ReplyDeleteMalcontent,
ReplyDeleteDoes a Gun Owner also have the Right to "Choose" rather or not to use that Gun to Shoot someone? Pro-Choicers Talk as if there is Never any Time in which the Right to Choose is Limited, but this is not so.
Why Shouldn't a Gun Owner "have the Choice According to his or her Own Will"? Isn't the Right to Murder someone "What 'Liberty' is all about"?
Do you Agree with what ever Decision this Gun Owner Makes, even if it involves the Taking of another Life? It's his Decision to Make, Right?
Perhaps the Government should not "'Dictate' what a Women" (or Person) "should and shouldn't do" with his or her "OWN" Gun, Including Using it to Shoot Someone.
Murder may be Right for some People and Wrong for Others. That's Liberty, Right?
All I did was Reword your 10/26 - 3:00 PM Comment a Little. You tell me whether or not it still makes sense to you.
Also, I Like what Dave Miller said...
"But if we accept that philosophy, how can someone say anything is immoral?"
Soap & Malcontent,
You are both forgetting the Rights of the Baby and the Subject of Rights is a Political Issue, not a Religious One.
Yes, Mal, it IS a Political Issue because it has to do with Rights and the Rights of the Unborn should not be Pushed Aside. Discuss it or Don't Discuss it. It doesn't Matter. This Issue is not going to go away.
Dave,
Another Way of saying what Soap is trying to say is that if One City has more Crime and therefore Needs more Police then another, then the One that has less Crime should not have to "Subsidize" or help Pay for the Crime in the other City. I'm not saying that I Entirely Agree with him, yet it is good to Understand that the Expenses in One City or State may not be Equal to the Expenses in another.
Z-man,
The Statement that I Most Liked from you is...
"Re red-light cams what if I can't pony up the money to move to St. Paul?"
And then Soap said...
"If you can't pony up the money, then that is a separate issue entirely."
Actually, Soap, the Issue of a Person's ability or Lack thereof to Make Money has Everything to do with Libertarianism, Capitalism, Socialism or any Form of Government in-between. IMO, this is the Most Key Issue of all.
Also, an Option is not Really an Option if it is not Obtainable, so this is Totally Relevant to the Subject of "whether or not another option exists".
Your Last Sentence in your 10/28 - 11:23 AM Comment is a Good Point, though.
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Mal on the abortion thing. I am fervently against a religious group trying to legislate their morality onto other people, and this is happening more and more lately (see: Tony Perkins, see James Dobson, see D. James Kennedy, see Dominionism), and by this I mean ANY religious group. I don't go around trying to turn my religious beliefs into laws that affect people who don't share my religious beliefs. No one has any right to legislate theirs onto me.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican party seems to spend all their time lately on the social issues (Rick Santorum would like to make all kinds of contraception illegal) like fighting gay marriage and trying to make all abortions (even in rape or incest according to Cain) illegal and claiming class warfare. I thought this Republican congress was going to make jobs their number one priority.
I have had a very bad couple of days dealing with orthopedists (proper word: orthopods... no I'm not kidding about that) about my hand and it's put me in a pissy mood. Although I stand by everything I said there regardless.
What I've Said about this being an Issue of Rights, rather then of Religion has Completely Fallen on Deaf Ears. We Might as well Call Murder a Religious Issue as well and Legalize it. Apparently the "RIGHT" to Life is a Meaningless "RIGHT", so if we have "the Right Choose" TO KILL within the Womb, then Why not Out Side of it as well?
ReplyDeleteWay to Change the Subject, Satyavati, from Rights to Religion and from Abortion to Contraception. My Religion Forbids Theft and Rape and Murder, so I'll Tell you What? Since Theft and Rape and Murder are all Matters of Religion, let's Legalize them as well.
And Yeh! It's too Bad that Cain has Taken such an Extreme Stand, yet that is no Excuse for Allowing Abortion on Demand.
Lista brings up a good point on guns. Now stop to think about it, what is the only purpose of a gun? - in theory at least it's to hurt or even kill another human being so basically you're buying a product that if you're a responsible and ethical human being you never hope to use. Oh sure you might caress it at night and polish it and make love to it but it's the only product I can think of that's legal in some sense and that you never hope to use in your whole life (I'm not talking hunting here but the nonhunting type guns). You buy a book you open up and read its pages, you buy a yo-yo and you play with it, you buy a car and you drive it but your little old gun sits in a shoebox somewhere in the closet. Guns is a great subject and I'm not all that hardcore conservative on the issue, in fact I think many right-wingers are rather creepy on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThis bugs THE HELL OUT OF ME but why oh why must pro-choicers always drag religion into the whole abortion debate?????? In fact they bring the subject up more than the lifers it seems. I would agree that laws against abortion should not be based on faith although I think a spiritual discussion on abortion is a wonderful one to have. Ex-NY Governor Mario Cuomo really is the godfather of this line of thinking, it all emanates from him and the skip on this record just annoys me...Mal I thought you knew better!
ReplyDeleteYou thought that I knew better?
ReplyDeleteI knew that I shouldn't have gotten into this discussion.
What do you mean that I should have know better, do you meant that you though I would agree with you? Maybe I do and maybe I don't, but that was not the basis of my comment.
I don't know what part of my comment you people can't seem to understand?
I Never said ONE word about MY opinion of the rights of a women, (Mother) or whoever. Or if “I” believed in abortions or not, or if I was Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. What MY belief on the subject is not the issue. What I DID say was that I didn’t think or believe (if you will), that the subject of abortion one way or the other should be in the political platform of any party.
And I said that this is something that I believe is a women’s choice, not mine. Why shouldn’t not a woman have the choice according to her own will?
The answer is never simple, some may say yes she should have the rights to decide for herself, and that’s what “Liberty” is all about. And I must say that I agree with whatever her decision may be. It’s her decision to make. I don’t think that I have the right to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body. And I stand by that.
If you are disappointed in my belief than I'm sorry,but you don't even know my belief.
And to turn this around and say
Does a Gun Owner also have the Right to "Choose" rather or not to use that Gun to Shoot someone?" is absurd.
People have guns to kill other people?
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I always went with the notion they have them to protect themselves from being killed.
In your example (or rather Lista's) it is suggested that the gun owner is the aggressor.
In mine, the gun owner is merely a defendant.
Well Z,
ReplyDeleteGuns are also Used for Hunting and it is too bad that you have Left Malcontent and Soap an Opportunity to Change the Subject. They are in Denial about the Fact that Abortion is a Form of Killing and the One being Killed is not even an Animal, but a Human Being. Abortion on Demand is not an Issue of Self Defense and it has nothing to do with War.
I am Only Mentioning that because that is what Guns are used for, but Abortion on Demand is not Self-Defense Unless the Woman's Life is in Danger and that is a Situation in which Abortion would be Totally Appropriate.
Yes, it is the Pro-Choicers who call Abortion a Religious Issue. Most Pro-Lifers will Call it an Issue of Rights, not Religion. This is because it gives them an Excuse to not Really Look at it from the Perspective of Rights in Relation to the Unborn.
What I'd Like to Know is exactly why they Think that things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, are not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal? Just Watch, for I am sure they will simply Ignore and Avoid this Question.
Malcontent,
"What I DID say was that I didn’t think or believe (if you will), that the subject of abortion one way or the other should be in the political platform of any party."
Why? Cause it's Religious. I'm Telling you that it is no more Religious then the Issue of Theft and Rape or any other form of Crime. Crimes are Crimes because they Infringe on others Rights, Mal, and Abortion Infringes on the Rights of the Unborn. Your Statement that this should not be a Political Issue has no Basis at all.
"Why shouldn’t a woman have the choice according to her own will?"
I've been Answering this Question for you, but you just don't want to Hear the Answer.
I Wonder if you have Taken the Time to Read my Comments. It really doesn't Appear so.
Abortion is about Rights, not Religion. That is the Rights of the Unborn and the Baby is NOT "Her Own Body". He or She is a Separate Individual with his or her Own Unique Genetic Make Up.
"If you are disappointed in my belief, then I'm sorry, but you don't even know my belief."
You have told us very Clearly what your Political Belief is and it is your Political Belief, not your Personal Belief, that we are Responding to.
Does a Person, Gun or no Gun, have the Right to Kill? Forget the Gun. That was not the Point I was Making. Does any Person have the Right to Rape, Steal, Abuse, etc., etc. My Bible Says No and Interestingly, so does the Secular Law, yet these could also be Called Religious Issues. Perhaps there should be no Laws at all, because they all have Religious Roots. Take your Blinders Off and you will Understand what I'm saying.
Soap,
My Emphasis was "Choice", not Aggression. Any Person who Owns a Gun Can "Choose" to be a Defendant or an Aggressor, just as a Woman can "Choose" either Death or Life for the Life inside of her. "Choice" is the Subject here, not Aggression, but you Keep Insisting on Focusing on something other then the Point being Made.
Also, just in Case you are Thinking about yet another Subject, my Comment was also not about Gun Control, but rather "Choice" and how some Choices", such as the Choice to Steal, Rape or Murder are not Allowed.
"Also, just in Case you are Thinking about yet another Subject, my Comment was also not about Gun Control, but rather "Choice"
ReplyDeleteChoice? Very well. You don't like abortion Lista? Great, then choose not to have to have one. Choose to let others make their own decisions and answer for them (and not by you).
Let me Back Track and Respond to this again.
ReplyDeleteZ-man,
Guns are also Used for Hunting, as well as Target Practice.
I Liked your Comment about the Skipping Record, though. That is so Very True. And when Malcontent Said "And I won't discuss it any further." this showed Evidence that Repeating the Information on this Skipping Record is all that he Knows how to do and the Last of his Comments was Quite Repetitious in relation to the One he Wrote Previously.
Malcontent,
You should not even Mention that which you are not willing to discuss. I do not Blog in Order to be Preached to. I Blog in Order to Discuss.
And here is a Contradiction.
"I Never said ONE word about MY opinion of the rights of a women, (Mother) or whoever."
And then Later...
"And I said that this is something that I believe is a women’s choice, not mine."
Soap,
Your 10/31/11 - 8:16 AM Comment was a Change of Subject because the Subject of Abortion on Demand is about Convenience, not Self-Defense.
"In your example (or rather Lista's) it is suggested that the gun owner is the aggressor."
No, my Comment was about Choice, not Aggression. You are Focusing Only one the Gun Owner that Makes Responsible "Choices". I was Focusing on the Fact of "Choice" itself and the Subject of "Choice" Suggests Both of the Options, not Just the Self-Defense and not Just the Aggression. You are the One who is Focusing on Only One of these Options of Choice.
Malcontent,
"Why shouldn’t a woman have the choice according to her own will?"
You Ask Questions, but are Unwilling to Answer Mine.
"Why are Things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal?"
Hi Soap,
ReplyDeleteWhy am I not Surprised that you are on Line as I am Writing a Comment. It is actually rather Rare when you are not.
"Choice? Very well. You don't like abortion, Lista? Great, then choose not to have one. Choose to let others make their own decisions and answer for them (and not by you)."
My Comments are also not about My Choice, but about Choice in General and how the Law does Occasionally Place Limits on them. There is absolutely No One Present that is Responding to my Actual Point and to my Question.
"Why am I not Surprised that you are on Line as I am Writing a Comment. It is actually rather Rare when you are not."
ReplyDeleteMan you live a sheltered life.
There's nothing remarkable about it. You see, I have this device called a smart phone. And when I comment on a blog post I can check that little box down below that notifies me when a comment has been made.
With this nifty little device I am always online. I can check my facebook, my email, and keep up to speed with the latest news via my twitter feed.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
It is Better when you Think Through, rather then Responding Immediately to Comments as they come in. I am not a Multi-Tasker and Never have been. Due to ADD, if I allow Continuous Interruptions, such as your Above Comment has Suggested, I would Never Get a Single Thing Done, for Once I am Interrupted, it is Hard for me to get Back on Track again.
ReplyDelete"It is Better when you Think Through, rather then Responding Immediately to Comments as they come in."
ReplyDeleteIf you know the equation by which you find the answers, it doesn't require much time to think through.
I know my moral compass. I know the basis by which I make decisions and navigate life. It doesn't require me to ponder on them or to hesitate when responding. And, you'll notice that I have an impeccable record of consistency in that regard.
Have you ever Stopped to Think, Soap, that Perhaps the Equations that Work for you in your Life, do not Work for Everyone? Your Mention about the Smart Phone Notifying you when ever there is a Comment or Message on a Blog, Facebook or your Email is a Good Example. Those who Multi-Task Well can Make that Work, but those who do not are going to Need a Different Equation.
ReplyDeleteI Check the "Follow-Up Comments will be sent to..." Box as well, but I Check my Email Only when I have the Time to Focus on what I will be Reading. I would Never Dream of Having my Phone Notify me. Nothing is that much of an Emergency.
Politics is about Everyone and the Equations Used in that Setting have to Work for Everyone, not just the Person who has a Particular Opinion.
We must Allow Information to not Only Pass Through our Accepted Equations, but also to Challenge our Equations. To Not do so is to Give in to Bias because that is what our Pre-set Equations actually are.
Let's try that again for you Lista.
ReplyDeleteIf you know the equation by which you find the answers, it doesn't require much time to think through.
Your moral/ideological/philosophical compass is not the same as mine. I never inferred that it was.
I merely suggested that if you know yours and you know it well, you will easily come to find the answers and act in accordance to them.
"I would Never Dream of Having my Phone Notify me. Nothing is that much of an Emergency."
It's not an emergency to me either. It's simply a matter of convenience which I can turn on or off and can address immediately or later on.
As for bias...
I am biased. I am biased in favor of individual liberty. I am biased against bureaucrats and central planners and authoritarians.
"Your moral/ideological/philosophical compass is not the same as mine. I never inferred that it was."
ReplyDeleteNeither did I.
"If you know the equation by which you find the answers, it doesn't require much time to think through."
Yes, but Politics is not just About You and it is not just About Me. Politics is about Everyone and so the Equations Used in Politics have to Work for Everyone, not just the One who has a Particular Opinion. Once Again, Soap, you are Off Subject because Politics is the Subject, not the Equations that Work for any One Individual.
It just so Happens that the Pro-Choice Equation does not Work Out too Well for the Baby.
When Making Decisions that Affect Other People besides myself, I have to have an Equation that also Works for others and not just for myself. This Requires more thought and to not enter into this type of a thought process is Self-Centered. Since Politics Effects Everyone, it can not be Self-Centered.
I was Doing a Project on the Computer Yesterdau Morning, but Eventually had to Discipline Myself to not Keep Checking my Email. IMO, Easy Access can Often Lead to Obsession.
"Politics is about Everyone and so the Equations Used in Politics have to Work for Everyone.."
ReplyDeleteThat will never happen. You can surely get a majority but you cannot and will not ever find a political equation that will work for everyone because "everyone", it must be remembered is every one.
I've Come to the Conclusion, Soap, that your Statement about not Needing as much Time to Think Things Through when you Know "the Equation by which you Find the Answers" is Nothing more than a Cope Out Designed to Justify your Lack of Willingness to Think Things Through.
ReplyDeleteTo Fully Think Things Through, Soap, we Need to Consider the Equations of Others and not just the Equations of Ourselves and to Consider what Works and does not Work for Others and not just for Ourselves. That is what Communication is all about.
As to your more Recent Comment, Perhaps I Misspoke. I should have said that since Politics is about Everyone, the Equations Used in Politics Need to Work for as Many People as Possible, not just for the Person who has a Particular Opinion.
Pointing Out the Impracticality of an Absolute or Extreme, though, does not Negate the Value of Striving for the Best that is Possible. This too is a Cope Out and it is One that You Use Often.
Who's to say I don't think things through? I don't need to think things through while standing in your shoes Lista. You know why? Because I don't live in your shoes. I live in my shoes. I make decisions and and live with the consequences of those decisions.
ReplyDelete"...the Equations Used in Politics Need to Work for as Many People as Possible"
Ahh...the majority. The blessed majority.
""Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin
Your Quick Responses are Evidence that you have not Taken the Time to Think Things Through.
ReplyDelete"I don't need to think things through while standing in your shoes, Lista. You know why? Because I don't live in your shoes."
That doesn't Matter. Many of your Decisions Effect Other People, Especially Political Ones. Some of the Consequences of Selfishness do not Come until the After Life.
"Ahh...the majority. The blessed majority."
No, Actually 51% is not that High of a Number. If People would put their Selfishness Aside, the Number of People Benefited by Political Decisions would be Higher than that. Fortunately, there are those who do Vote for the Good of all People and not just for themselves. Remember, the Unborn are not Able to Vote.
That's a Very Interesting Benjamin Franklin Quote, Soap. If the Strong (That is the Wolves) would Vote more Lovingly, though, then the Lambs would not have to resort to War.
Put another Way, if the Strong would Think Their Equations Through in Relation to the Effects on Others and not just on themselves, then Perhaps War could be Avoided.
Interesting how the Discussion has Turned from Abortion to Selfishness, yet in Reality, we are really not all that much off Subject.
"That doesn't Matter. Many of your Decisions Effect Other People, Especially Political Ones."
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact I'm not a politician, name one of my political decisions that would affect you.
First of all, Soap, you are Assuming that I am just as Self-Centered as you are. My Concern about Unborn Babies has Very Little to do with me Personally. Remember the Unborn have Neither a Vote, nor a Gun.
ReplyDeleteAs to me Personally, though, if Food is not Regulated, then I may be One of the One's who Gets Sick and if there are not a few Safety Regulations in the Work Place, then this may Effect me in the event that Finding Work becomes Necessary.
Personally, though, I Think that your Question is quite Naive and Foolish because any Decision that Effects either the Economy or the basic Safety of our world Effects Everyone, especially the Poor who can not Afford to Buy Products that are Safer, but more Expensive.
If Food is not Safe, that Effects me and if Safe Food becomes more Expensive, that Effects me. If the Economy is Bad, that Effects me. If Social Security or Medicare was Reduced, that would Effect me. If the Medical and Insurance Premiums are not Kept at Bay, that would Effect me. Really, Soap, is there any way you could have Asked a More Ridiculous Question.
Let us take a moment to applaud the FDA, USDA, and the Agricultural department for keeping us safe from food born illnesses. Their record is impeccable.
ReplyDeleteIt Could be Worse. There you go Again Using a Lack of Perfection Argument to Refute all Efforts to Improve on a Situation. Nothing is 100%. The Issue is Never about Perfection, only about what is Better and what is Worse.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, I don't know if your Question was Meant to be a Way of Changing the Subject, but the FDA and USDA were not the Subject of this Post. I Answered your Question, Soap. Now let's get back to the Subject of this Post.
I've already addressed the subject of this post. Thanks
ReplyDeleteYes, and you've not Responded to all my Points and Questions just as I've Predicted.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have now Responded to you in the Comment Section of the Post that you gave a Link to above. I Figured Out how to View the Flow Chart. What it really comes down to, though, is that I am Very Reluctant to Allow you to Make the Rules because I do not Trust you to be Fair.
ReplyDeleteI guess I do Wonder if I have Been too Hard on you at Times and yet I also Know that I have been no Harder on you than you have been on me.
Here is the Question that No Body on this Blog has been Willing to Answer, just as I had Predicted...
"What I'd Like to Know is exactly why they Think that things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, are not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal? Just Watch, for I am sure they will simply Ignore and Avoid this Question."
I Guess I was Addressing Everyone and not just you, but My Prediction did indeed Turn Out to be Correct.
Oh and BTW, if I have Misunderstood you in any way, that is not the Same as "Perversion of Facts". It is just Easier for you to Imagine that a Person Perverts the Facts, than that you have not Stated Things Clearly. At Present, though, I have no Idea at all what you are Talking about.
ReplyDeleteI am also Unaware of anything that I have Said or done that has Broken any of the Rules on your Flow Chart.
ReplyDelete"Think that things such as Rape, Theft and Murder, which are all Illegal, are not Religious Issues, or if they are, then why are they Illegal?"
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I ever said they are not religious issues. One need only look to the 10 commandments to affirm they are.
It is my belief however that they are not exclusively religious issues.
Some people think that God is a requisite for morality. I do not subscribe to that belief.
Yes, I Knew that that was One Possible Answer that you might Give me. In Reality, this Question was more Meant for Satyavati and Malcontent, yet Neither or them Responded.
ReplyDeleteThe Only Part of the Question, then, that Applies to you is the Second Part...
"if they are, then why are they Illegal?"
What I'm Actually Getting at is Why are Things such as Rape, Theft and Murder Illegal and yet Abortion is not?
Abortion is not "Exclusively Religious" either, because it has to do with Rights. That is the Rights of the Baby.
As to your Flow Chart, Soap, Of Course I can Imagine Changing my Mind on the Issue because I already have, but not in the Direction that you would have Liked.
I Read some Materials on Abortion and Rape and Changed my Mind about the Idea that Abortion is the Solution to the Rape an Incest Issue. Though I would Never Push this Extreme Politically because of my Belief in Compromise, this was a Change in my Belief, so yes, it does Happen. Can you say the Same?
You can Read about my Beliefs on the Rape Issue here if you Desire, yet I do not Want to Allow this to be a Change in Subject. I was Simply Addressing the Flow Chart and Explaining how my Opinions can and do Change, so this is not to be Taken as a New Argument Presented for Discussion.
The Subject that I would like to Focus on now is the Question that I've just Asked above, for One of your Rules is "Do not Introduce New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved."
Oophs! I Forgot to Make the Link to my Abortion and Rape Post. Let's Try that again...
ReplyDelete"You can Read about my Beliefs on the Rape Issue here if you Desire."
Or just Copy Paste...
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2010/09/abortion-and-rape.html
I don't believe that rights extend to the unborn. Rights, as a concept, exist in an environment outside of the womb. Rights are defined as action. We do not have a right to food, clothing, and shelter. We have a right to take action (to have liberty, to pursue) to acquire the aforementioned. The unborn are confined to the environment within the mother. Thus, they cannot take action outside of their confined environment.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the unborn and rights, the rights actually reside with the woman carrying. To the cause or pursuit that one who is pro-life should advocate, in my view, is to encourage the woman carrying to exercise her right to life and her liberty to make her own choices.
Wow! That was Fast! Thanks so much for Addressing the Issue of Rights and not Evading it Like the Others have done.
ReplyDeleteMany People Believe, Soap, that Rights should be Given to the Unborn and this is the Real Basis of the Conflict. Religion has nothing to do with it. I say that for the Sake of those who Keep Using the Religion Card.
It is not True that the Baby does not Take Action, for he or she is Involved in the Action of Breathing and his or her Heart is Involved in the Action of Beating. Because this is True, it is an Action of the Pursuit of Life.
The Heart Begins to Beat at Day 21, or at Three Weeks. This is the Amount of Time it Takes for a Woman or Young Girl to Realize that she has Missed her Period. In Short, Once she becomes Aware of the Pregnancy, the Child is already Taking Action in the Pursuit of Life.
Now that that is Settled, the Next Argument is Relating to the Child Being the Woman, or Young Girl's "Own Body". This was Addressed in my Post Abortion/Pro-Choice/Do What I Want with "MY OWN BODY"
Naturally, Soap, you have Every Right to Decide that the Initial Issue has not been Resolved and to not Move on to the Next Point. That is your Right and I will not Require you to Move on before you are Ready to.
You are not understanding me completely Lista.
ReplyDeleteYes the fetus/baby takes action. But the occurences are within the confines of the womb.
Until that child passes through the birth canal and enters the world, the concepts which we apply to us in the external world do not apply fully and completely to that little one.
It's like in science when experiments are conducted within certain environments. There is no way to confirm that the findings within the controlled environment will occur outside of that controlled environment until that moment actually occurs.
Perhaps I should Tell you Now that I don't have as much Time this Morning and therefore, will have to Reply to your Next Comment Later in the Day and I see you have already Submitted it. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteMoving on....(keep in mind these comments are wholly my own)
ReplyDeleteYou, or anyone else, is free to argue whether an unborn child is "part of the woman's body" or not all you want.
However, until said child is born unto the world, it does not have complete and total independence.
"You are not understanding me completely Lista."
ReplyDeleteThanks for Acknowledging a Misunderstanding, rather than Accusing me of Distorting. I Really do Appreciate that.
"Until that child passes through the birth canal and enters the world, the concepts which we apply to us in the external world do not apply fully and completely to that little one."
Your Explanation of why this is so is Inadequate. The Baby IS Involved in an Action.
"There is no way to confirm..."
Confirm What? That the Action of the Heartbeat will Still Continue Outside of the Womb? Usually it does. Try again. You are Still not being Clear.
Though Really, I do have to Go.
*EDIT
ReplyDelete"Until that child p̶a̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶ enters the world..."
The Way it is Usually Stated, Soap, is that the Woman should be Able to "Decide what to do with her Own Body". The Words "Part of" are not Usually Mentioned. These are Two Separate Issues and the Fetus is not the Same as the Woman's Body, rather it is Connected to her Body or not is not really Relevant. I Addressed this Issue on the Post that I have just given a Link to, yet Perhaps the First of the Issues has not been Fully Resolved yet, so let's not Move on. Let's Keep Working on the First Point.
ReplyDeleteChildren do not have "Complete Independence" Until they become 18, 21 or Until they Move into their Own Homes, yet Children's Rights are Protected, so your Argument Still has a Flaw.
[Huge Sigh]
ReplyDeleteAgain you are not processing what I am saying.
"Usually it does...
Yeah and "usually" the lungs work, the kidneys work, the child has 8 fingers and 2 thumbs and 10 little toes...
I am not talking about speculation here Lista. It is not inadequate in the least. What is inadequate is your ability to reason (see item #3 on the flowchart).
It'd be like painting a room canary yellow, putting a crib, a changing table, and a rocking chair in it, filling it with cute stuffed animals and the like...
So long as the child remains within the confines of the womb, none of those things, which exist here in our world, can be applied to the child.
The child cannot see the yellow room, be rocked to sleep in the chair, smell the lotion that the parent rubs on them after a bath.
To experience those things requires that the child comes into our world.
You'll need to understand this basic concept before we can proceed.
I just wanna state for the record that I am not evading this, I am tired of being accused of 'assigning motives', of endless semantics (see recent 'independence' thing) and fighting a basic refusal to deal in fact.
ReplyDeleteI therefore am exercising my right to independent choice and choosing to not participate in what has proven in past instances to be a worthless waste of my time.
The right to remain silent?
ReplyDeleteI like it.
However, to diverge somewhat from the current focus:
ReplyDeleteWe all know that the GOP is the Pro Life Party, as we have seen lately as the candidates vy to prove that they are more pro life than their competition.
But it seems this fanatical devotion actually STOPS at birth.
These are the same group of people who would like to outlaw abortion on demand (except Herman Cain, who changes his stance hourly) and actually, see Rick Santorum, make contraceptives illegal.
Before I move on let me point out that by outlawing contraception, you not only increase the incidence of STDs and bloodborne illnesses, you also eliminate effective treatment for many hormonal disorders that affect women. Not to mention that it would be the woman, not the man, who would be criminalized and punished for abortion, and even as has recently happened, investigated in the event of a miscarriage to prove it wasn't intentional. So much for innocent until proven guilty, and so much for women's rights.
But beyond this, the party that is so intensely concerned with prenatal issues isn't particularly concerned with postnatal ones.
As evidenced by the attempts to reduce programs like WIC, head start, other education, and through attempting to repeal, block or otherwise eliminate insurance access for women and children. This disproportionately affects poor and minority groups, and also leaves those born with congenital defects out in the cold.
Of course, politicians on the right such as Michelle Bachmann insist that these kinds of things be handled by the churches. This, of course, would be predicated on the person in need being of the same (exact) religion as the religious group handing out the old clothes and baskets of canned goods, and again leaves whole groups who don't qualify according to their religious requirements out in the cold.
So all this focus on 'life' beginning 'at the moment of conception', all this concern, but it ends 'at the moment of birth'.
I don't feel that any of this is particularly up for debate or opinion, which is why I am even willing to engage. What I've presented here are facts; you may debate them as you will but you aren't going to change them.
You forgot to mention that all these GOP Pro-Lifers (save for Ron Paul) would also be more than willing to send the off to foreign lands to fight for corporate interests where they might come back either maimed or in a flag draped casket.
ReplyDelete*EDIT
ReplyDelete"..send the military men and women..."
Not to mention that (their extended tours and all) sorta flies in the face of that whole family values thing and the significance of a mother and father in a child's life.
*EDIT!
ReplyDeleteW̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶c̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ ̶A̶ ̶c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶b̶i̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶n̶t̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶t̶i̶l̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶o̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶u̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶.̶
You see how you make things so complicated Lista.
Obviously the child is it's only biological entity as it has its own individual features.
What I mean to say is that, its existence; its ability to conceptualize requires that it be able to function independently of the environment from which it orginated.
So long as the fetus/baby/child remains within the confines of the uterus/womb I am asserting that it is part of the woman's bodily functions.
It is true that babies are born prematurely and that state of viability is well before 9 months. I get that. However, 9 months is the norm and again, so long as that fetus/baby/child remains inside that mother. It isn't in my view independent in the context of which I am applying it.
"What is inadequate is your ability to reason (see item #3 on the flowchart)."
ReplyDeleteCome on, Soap. It is not as if I have "Item #3" Memorized. I had to go Back Up to the Link again, which is now Quite a Few Comments Up. I'm not always going to be Able to Know what you're Talking about by the Mention of an Item #.
I'll Let you have it this time because I did Find the Link again. You are Referring to...
"Are you Prepared to Abide by Basic Principles of Reason in Discussing the Topic."
In the Comment Section of your Post, Soap, I said "You may have Different Opinions on whether or not I am Abiding by Principles of Reason, whether or not a Position is more Realistic, whether the Evidence Offered is Significant or even Adequate, etc."
These Things are Subjective, Soap, and I will not Allow you to Insult me Based on your Opinion about my ability to Reason.
I Told you I Smelled a Rat and this is Exactly what I was Talking about.
The Right in Question is the Right to Life and the Child has Life in the Womb. All that the Child does not yet have is Irrelevant. Life is the Issue being discussed, not Cribs, Rocking Chairs and the Like.
Life, that which we are Discussing the Right to, Exists just as much inside the Womb as Out of it. My Ability to Reason is just Fine. You are just Refusing to Accept what I'm Saying. It just so Happens that you call Everything that you Disagree with or do not Understand Complicated and everything that you do Agree with Simple.
I wasn't Talking about Adulthood, either. I was Talking about "Complete Independence" (Your Words).
Satyavati,
When you Insist on "Semantics" that Support your Point of View and Refuse the "Semantics" that Support someone else’s, the Issue of "Semantics" Needs to be Addressed.
Referring back to One of Soapster's Rules, "Do not Introduce New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved"
You have Introduced Multiple Issues in the Second of your Comments Today. Though they can all be Addressed, I can Only Touch the Surface due to the Time Available for me to Debate with you. I've Decided that I do, In Fact, Like Soapster's Rules and I wish you were Willing to Follow them as well.
All I want to say for now is that Pro-Life People can not be Blamed for all of the Woes that you have Mentioned and those who are Willing to Compromise can not be Held Responsible for the Political Views of those who are not.
I Agree with you that Making Contraception Illegal is not Right. That Position is not Held by all or even Most Pro-Lifers, so it is Actually a Change in Subject. Pro-Life is what we are Talking about, not Contraception.
"It would be the woman, not the man, who would be criminalized and punished for abortion."
My Understanding is that it would be the Doctor who would be Penalized. I'm not sure where you have Received your Facts.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteWhen I Mentioned "the Second of your Comments Today", Well, I Wrote that Yesterday and Forgot to Edit it. I Guess I didn't Catch it. Sorry.
"The party that is so intensely concerned with prenatal issues isn't particularly concerned with postnatal ones."
I do not Believe that to be True.
You are Talking about all of the Extremes, Satyavati, and not Realizing that there are Those who are Willing to Compromise and Work Out more Rational Solutions.
"This, of course, would be predicated on the person in need being of the same (exact) religion as the religious group handing out the old clothes and baskets of canned goods."
That's not True. Churches do this Kind of Thing for the Purpose of Reaching Out to the Community. Sure they Hope for Converts, but Conversion is not a Prerequisite for Assistance. It Never has been. I've been Raised in the Church and have been a part of Many Programs that Help Out the Poor and even Unwed Mothers. You simply do not Know what you are Talking about.
"I don't feel that any of this is particularly up for debate or opinion."
Then this is not a Discussion. It is you Preaching at me. What you have Presented are not Facts, Satyavati. At Most, they are Scattered Examples of People who have Extreme Ideas that I do not Agree with any more then you do.
If you are not Willing to Discuss, Satyavati, and Insist on Preaching Instead, then you Really shouldn't Participate at all.
Soapster,
First Satyavati Breaks your Rules of "Not Introducing New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved" and Now you are Doing it as well. Do your Rules Apply to Everyone, or just to me? When did this Become a Mud Slinging War Against Pro-Lifers?
I should End this Discussion Right now Based on the Fact that you both have Broken the Rules on your Flow Chart.
"You see how you make things so complicated, Lista?"
I have done no such Thing. There is nothing Complicated about what I am saying. You just do not Agree with it, so to you it is Complicated.
"What I mean to say is that, its existence; its ability to conceptualize requires that it be able to function independently of the environment from which it originated."
To me, this is a Rule Chosen at Random for when someone's Rights should Begin. There is no Logical Reason to Believe that "Independence", Defined in this way, should be the Starting Point. You Agree that it should be. I do not and my Decision is just as Rational as yours.
"It is true that babies are born prematurely and that state of viability is well before 9 months. I get that. However, 9 months is the norm and again, so long as that fetus/baby/child remains inside that mother. It isn't in my view independent in the context of which I am applying it."
This Paragraph shows Evidence that the Age of Independence, Usually Called, "The Age of Viability", is In Fact, Debatable.
I don't Know. Perhaps I'll Quit This Discussion Soon Based on the Fact that Soap's Rules do not appear to Apply to anyone except me.
Ok. One Last Comment.
ReplyDeleteSoapster,
"Yeah and 'usually' the lungs work, the kidneys work, the child has 8 fingers and 2 thumbs and 10 little toes...
I am not talking about speculation here, Lista."
Neither am I. There is nothing Speculative about the Statement that Most Babies are Born with the Heart Still Beating.
"We're not talking about adulthood for christ's sake.
We are talking about a biological process. A child does not become it's own independent biological entity until it is removed from the mother and thus comes into the world."
Ok, Let's Talk about something Earlier than Adulthood. A Child, Once Born, will Still Die if Abandoned by the Mother. I don't Call the "Complete Independence", Soap.
Satyavati,
"I am tired of being accused of 'assigning motives'"
Yeh. Like you're so Innocent.
"I therefore am exercising my right to independent choice and choosing to not participate."
If you are Unwilling to Participate in Discussion, then it would be better if you did not Participate in Preaching either.
Here are the Links if anyone Wants to Read more about my Views on the Subjects that have been Mentioned.
Abortion/Fetal Development
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/04/abortionfetal-development.html
Abortion/Pro-Choice/Do What I Want with "My Own Body"
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2010/09/abortionpro-choicedo-what-i-want-with.html
Abortion and Rape
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2010/09/abortion-and-rape.html
Or The Abortion Label, which Includes all that I have Written on the Subject.
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion
"Do not Introduce New Arguments while another Argument has yet to be Resolved"
ReplyDeleteI'm not introducing an argument, because there's nothing to argue about with anything I've said.
They are not up for argument as they are available for your perusal in full color being presented by the candidates themselves.
I did have an error regarding women being investigated for miscarriages. That bill is Georgia HB1, which from what I can gather from the Georgia Legislature website, still in process. This bill contains the following:
(3) When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs
211 without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is
212 required by the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the
213 proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare
214 and file the report within 30 days;
And this:
a) Every person in charge of an institution shall keep a record of personal data
227 concerning each person admitted or confined to such institution. This record shall include
228 such information as required for the certificates of birth and death and the reports of
229 spontaneous fetal death and induced termination of pregnancy required by this chapter.
230 The record shall be made at the time of admission from information provided by the person
being admitted or confined but, when it cannot be so obtained, the information shall be
232 obtained from relatives or other persons acquainted with the facts. The name and address
233 of the person providing the information shall be a part of the record."
And that would be a HIPPA violating investigation into why a woman had a miscarriage. If investigators aren't happy with the answer, it's called murder. She's prosecuted.
So, I apologize, but the bill is in progress as far as I can see. So the attempt is being made to make this law.
You are Talking about all of the Extremes, Satyavati, and not Realizing that there are Those who are Willing to Compromise and Work Out more Rational Solutions.
What you have Presented are not Facts, Satyavati. At Most, they are Scattered Examples of People who have Extreme Ideas that I do not Agree with any more then you do.
These are the people who are vying for the Republican presidential nomination. And it is FACT that these candidates have made these statements. I'm not sure how you can call these things 'scattered examples' when these candidates have spent an enormous amount of time in very public debate presenting these viewpoints. The FACT is that these persons are virtually universally positing these viewpoints as potential Republican presidential nominees, who would presumably support the majority view of their party.
The attempts to reduce programs such as WIC, women's health services, Head Start and general education are also well documented and fall into the category of FACT.
So to sum up, Lista, I'm not presenting an 'argument'. You may agree or disagree with these FACTS, but that's not my issue nor my concern. What I'm presenting here are FACTS; I have acknowledged my confusion regarding HB1-which doesn't negate the FACT that it mandates investigation of a woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage without a physician present and that said investigation could potentially result in the woman being charged with murder.
FACTS aren't up for debate, Lista. FACTS simply are. What I've presented here are FACTS. Regardless of your belief or agreement with them they continue to exist as they are. Thus no argument from me in this discussion. Simply a presentation of what is.
If we may backtrack here hey Mal I really don't care that you're pro-choice or Whatever just that you dragged religion into it as many people do. I think one can be pro-life without offering any religious arguments whatsoever but again whatever floats your boat. I really don't expect you to agree with me or for me to agree with you just maybe God is a little tired of being dragged into this all the time (mostly by the pro-choicers it seems).
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
ReplyDeletePerhaps I missed something but I thought I'd interpreted that Mal was himself pro-life.
He just had no desire to impose that view on anyone else.
Soap I'm still getting up to speed here but something you said awhile back:
ReplyDelete"People have guns to kill other people?"
Theoretically yes as that is the purpose, the teleology of the gun itself. Name any other product you buy and never plan on using. You buy Tylenol, you don't hope to use it that much but the time will come when you will. OK go to Sears and buy a new TV set that you will park in your living room and never watch for the next ten years. So bearing in mind the real purpose behind the product called a gun what I am submitting is that many gun owners will have a propensity to use that gun sooner or later say when they see a young black guy at 2 in the morning getting ready to break into their car......
If we may backtrack here hey Mal I really don't care that you're pro-choice or Whatever just that you dragged religion into it as many people do. I think one can be pro-life without offering any religious arguments
ReplyDeleteMaybe so, but it's the religious right that's pushing so hard and working so hard to get abortion outlawed. It's the FRC, it's James Dobson, it's Tony Perkins, it's the Christian Coalition, hell it's even the Catholic Bishops (despite a vast majority of Catholics admitting they ignore the Church's teaching on contraception).
It's the candidates at religious gatherings, these big meetings sponsored by giant religiously based lobbying groups, who are promoting pro-life legislation in the same breath as they affirm that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.
This is one issue where it's virtually impossible to pick apart politics and religion. And maybe it appears to you that the Left is the group bringing it up in discussion because the Right doesn't want to look like they're trying to impose a theocracy, an American Sharia if you will.
And if that sounds inflammatory to you, let's stop and think: if you read (seriously read) through the platforms and policies that these religious groups would like to see made law, they have more in common (from a moral behavior standpoint) with Sharia law than they do with anything else. I doubt, well let's say fervently hope, that the majority of the American public is too bright and too rational to ever let this kind of shit get through the system, but it's still worth noting that they're trying like hell to chip away at the seperation of Church and State and to enact legislation that is based on their own religious beliefs, which then would be forced upon everyone else under threat of criminal charges.
But Muslims are cool.
ReplyDeleteSome of them are yeah.
ReplyDeleteI like the Muslim guy at work who introduced me to kinkeliba tea, that guy is cool.
ReplyDeleteWho said they weren't?
ReplyDeleteThere are fanatics in every religious group, including my own.
There are groups of Catholics who insist the current pope and all the popes since Vatican II are the antichrist.
There are those Fred Phelps lunatics in Kansas or wherever they are.
There are Christian Nationalist groups, they're the ones who stockpile weapons and go after anyone who has a last name that sounds foreign to them.
There are LDS groups that go in for polygamy (personally that squicks me out).
Okay, so far I haven't mentioned any religious groups that go around blowing other people up, right?
How about the Catholic/Protestant Irish thing that's been going on for generations? It's so bad that they even have a special Parade Commission (the Irish are big on parades, which is one of the reasons NY is so hugely big on parades) that determines where one group may or may not march based on whose 'territory' it is and whether the presence of the paraders might be considered inflammatory and incite violence. They go around bombing each other all the time, in a mix of religion and politics. That's how they roll.
Point being there are religious extremists, schismatic groups and lunatics that wrap themselves in religious excuses everywhere. And these groups don't usually bear much relation to either the teachings they profess to hold dear or the ordinary, rational believer.
Seriously, there's not much difference between the religious right's train of dearly-hoped-for legislative thought and that of repressive fanatical Muslim groups.
After Submitting my Last Comment, I Decided to Reread the Above Comments from Yesterday again, cause I Keep Getting Additional Thoughts that are Worth Adding.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati,
"I'm not introducing an argument, because there's nothing to argue about with anything I've said."
Sorry, My Mistake; What you are Actually doing is Preaching, rather then Discussing.
"FACTS aren't up for debate, Lista. FACTS simply are."
Here is something that you said in a Previous Comment that is NOT a FACT, as I Explained in my 11/04/11 - 6:12 AM Comment.
"This, of course, would be predicated on the person in need being of the same (exact) religion as the religious group handing out the old clothes and baskets of canned goods."
"FACTS" ARE Up for Debate, Satyavati, if they are Reported Incorrectly.
Your Arguments are Implied, rather then Stated, for you have Definite OPINIONS about what all of your Reported "FACTS" Mean.
Z-Man,
Guns are also Used for Hunting and Target Practice.
Satyavati,
"because the Right doesn't want to look like they're trying to impose a theocracy, an American Sharia if you will."
Maybe that is because most of them Aren't. This is not Inflammatory, Satyavati. It's just an Incorrect Exaggeration and a Focus on an Extreme.
Should I also say AOM. Yeh, I Know. You're Tired of that one, yet you do Need to be Aware that you Do it and your Assumptions of Motive are not Correct in most Cases.
"I doubt, well let's say fervently hope, that the majority of the American public is too bright and too rational to ever let this kind of shit get through the system.".
They are and the Reason Why is because those who are Pushing the Extremes that you Fear are Actually a Smaller Minority than you Realize.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteI have Written Lots of Comments Expressing my View Point on the Comment Thread. There is no Law Against Writing Comments that are more of a Critique. My Point, though, is that your Exaggeration and Mud Slinging does not Negate any Point that I have Made in Previous Comments.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteMy Point is that there are Extremes on Both Sides and that your Facts Only Focus on the Side that you are Opposed to.
My Point is that what you are Implying by your Facts, which is that it is the Right that is all Messed up and not the Left, is not Correct.
There is Mud to Be Slung at the Left as well. I just don't Like to Participate in Mud Slinging Wars.
My Point is that there are many that are Willing to Work Towards Rational Compromise and that Focusing on Extremes all the Time, Hinders their Efforts.
So, Lista, are you saying that the entire group of Republican candidates are extremists? It's their words, not mine...
ReplyDelete...wait a minute...
...maybe during the debates, the people in charge of the broadcast put a 30 second delay on everything, and took everything the candidates ACTUALLY said, deleted it, and replaced it with the kinds of things I and millions of other people heard.
That's a possibility, right? Everything they said was removed and replaced.
Voice synthesizers are really high-tech these days.
No Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteNow you are just being Silly. There are Only Two Candidates that have most of the Public Support and that is Cain and Romney. The Rest are Supported by Smaller Minorities and are not Likely to be Elected.
Romney is the One who is more Moderate. I Admit that some of the Candidates have Ideas that I might even Consider Extreme. I've always been Skeptical of the Flat Tax Idea, so I'm Probably not going to Vote for Cain, even though Initially he Impressed me.
Here are somethings that I Feel are worth Repeating...
"At the Moment, there is an Out Cry because of the Extremism of things such as Obama Care and the Like. Extremism Breeds Extremism. That’s just the Way Politics Work." This is the Reason why there are so many Candidates that are Pushing Extremes.
"Those who are Willing to Compromise can not be Held Responsible for the Political Views of those who are not."
"You are Talking about all of the Extremes, Satyavati, and not Realizing that there are those who are Willing to Compromise and Work Out more Rational Solutions."
"Extremists on Both Sides Defend their Own Positions by Pointing Out the Extremes of their Opponents and the Rational People in the Middle who what to Find a Reasonable Compromise Get Drowned Out in all of the Screaming and Slinging of Mud."
and
"It Appears that Extremism is all you can see and that you are Incapable of seeing anything Else."
Remember, though, I've been Responding to all that you said in your Comments, not just to the Part about the Candidates.
"So, Lista, are you saying that the entire group of Republican candidates are extremists? It's their words, not mine..."
ReplyDeleteNo, Satyavati, you are the One who is Lumping them together and Accusing them as a Group.
There are only two candidates that have most the support (Romney and Cain)?
ReplyDeleteYou are an idiot if you believe that nonsense.
The overwhelming majority of the polls from which I suspect you are basing this on are next to worthless.
For one they are primarily conducted by contacting potential voters with landlines. Two, having conducted a flurry of phone banking myself, it is quite a different thing to have someone respond to a poll over the phone than it is to get those people to turn out to either vote in the primary or participate in their caucus, BPOU, or state party system.
Candidates aren't nominated through a phone survey.
The straw polls are a far better barometer of gauging where the momentum is; much more so than the zogby/gallop etc phone polls. People have to actually get off their ass and sometimes pay to vote in the straw polls.
ReplyDeleteyour Facts Only Focus on the Side that you are Opposed to
ReplyDeletewhat do you want me to do, Lista? These are the words the CANDIDATES said. I can't put words in their mouths... I mean, seriously, what are you wanting me to do? I can't help what the people say themselves.
And yeah, facts are not debatable. You breathe oxygen. Not debatable. The earth orbits the sun. Not debatable. Water is wet. Not debatable.
Rick Santorum said he would like to make contraception illegal. He said it. It's a fact he said it. That's not debatable. You can agree or disagree with what he said, but he DID SAY IT and you cannot debate that HE DID SAY IT.
So it is FACT that these people have made these statements. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees or disagrees with what they said, they cannot say it didn't get said, cause the FACT is it did.
Rick Santorum loves life so much that he wants more of our precious children to fight wars against evil Mooslims in Iran. He should send his own kids and go to the front lines himself.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati,
ReplyDeleteYou have not always been Clear on Exactly which Candidates Said what. It is Better to Criticize Individuals rather then Entire Groups and Allow each Person to Take Responsibility for their Own Words. For Example, the Entire Republican Party is not Responsible for the Opinion of Rick Santorum on Contraception.
The Importance of that Fact and it's Relevance to the Entire Republican Party IS Debatable, Satyavati.
"So it is FACT that these people..."
When you say "these People", Satyavati, rather then just Rick Santorum, this is when your Statement Ceases to be Fact.
Ok, Maybe there are some Facts that are not Debatable, yet you are Arrogant to Make that Claim about all of your Facts. I have Pointed Out One that is not and I'm not going to Keep Repeating myself in Relation to that one.
I was Hoping to Get a Discussion going on my Own Blog about this Very Thing and I've already gotten a Few Comments on the Matter. If you Like, you can Take this Matter Up with me there.
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2011/11/problems-with-debating-even-with-rules.html
Meanwhile, I think I'll have you all Know that Rick Santorum is not who I'm Voting for.
Wouldn't matter anyone. Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Romney, Perry...they are all variations on the same theme. More war, more deficits, more plunder.
ReplyDeleteSoapster,
ReplyDelete"The straw polls are a far better barometer of gauging where the momentum is; much more so than the zogby/gallop etc phone polls. People have to actually get off their ass and sometimes pay to vote in the straw polls."
Straw Polls are no less Biased then Phone Polls, Soap. In Phone Polls, you are Polling Only Those who have Landlines and Happen to be Home at the Hours in which you Call. That is a Biased Sample.
If Paying to Vote is a Requirement, then the Biased Sample will be Excluding those who Lack the Funds and this will be a Biased Polling of those with Higher Incomes.
Even if the Biased Sample is of those who are Politically Active, this is Still a Bias, because there are Lazy, Non-Politically Active People who do Show Up at the Polls and Vote.
The lazy asses who merely show up to vote don't change electoral outcomes.
ReplyDeleteActually, I Think that they do, Soap. For these are the Ones who are more Wishy Washy and can be Swayed by those with Stronger Opinions. This is Why Part of the Strategy of Trying to Win Elections is the Persuading of the "Lazy" who are in their Political Party to Get Out there and Vote. The Non-Lazy will Show Up on their Own Initiative with or without such Persuasion.
ReplyDelete