Values Added: Rootin' Tootin' Edition (Amanda Marcotte & Erica Grieder)

[Bloggingheads]

[chiwhisoxx]

I understand why Bloomberg wanted to clear the park out, but from a PR perspective it's kind of annoying that he martyred the movement when it was already self-immolating.

[Hume's Bastard]

Actually, Allison Kilkenny on Citizen Radio and Sam Seder on The Majority Report commented that Bloomberg and the NYPD might have given the Occupy movement a reason to continue. A small contingent moved to Duarte Square and are continuing with the Wall Street march. I think it was Harry Siegel or Lee Papa who observed too, that the GAs and leadership have been slowly ironing out the identity issues and the concerns non-Occupy types express, and that now Bloomberg might have offered the impetus, to go forward.

[Sulla the Dictator]

A little bit within the bubble. The Democratic pollster PPP is coming out with a poll tomorrow showing the Occupy movement has become very unpopular with voters. If anything, Bloomberg and associates waited far too long. I said they should have done this two weeks in.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

A little bit within the bubble. The Democratic pollster PPP is coming out with a poll tomorrow showing the Occupy movement has become very unpopular with voters. If anything, Bloomberg and associates waited far too long. I said they should have done this two weeks in.

Interesting.

I went to PPP's website to see what was up- I guess the poll tweeted about isn't up yet- and found this instead:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...ally.html#more

Still, why would the trajectory of public opinion about OWS be any different than public opinion of the Tea Party. Would agree that if OWS has become as unpopular as Tea Party, that's a pretty substantial decline for OWS.

[Sulla the Dictator]

It's up now:

The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.

Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...or-fading.html

[Globalcop]

Amanda thinks they planned this when Obama was in Hawaii to avoid having him take the mayor(s) to task for clearing out their parks? Can someone explain why we're listening to this woman?

UPDATE: Oh, I get it now. BHTV is breaking into the Kids News business.

"Bloomberg is a jerk!" "Perry is stoopid!" "Rich people are mean!"

Amanda's next gig.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Globalcop

Amanda thinks they planned this when Obama was in Hawaii to avoid having him take the mayor(s) to task for clearing out their parks? Can someone explain why we're listening to this woman?

LOL Big Brother Obama wants to keep his fingers in a lot of pies, I suppose. Maybe we should call him the "Vozhd".

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Globalcop

Amanda thinks they planned this when Obama was in Hawaii to avoid having him take the mayor(s) to task for clearing out their parks? Can someone explain why we're listening to this woman?

UPDATE: Oh, I get it now. BHTV is breaking into the Kids News business.

"Bloomberg is a jerk!" "Perry is stoopid!" "Rich people are mean!"

Amanda's next gig.

Actually...shameless plug for Marcotte:

http://opinionated.wearecitizenradio.../citizenradio/

[Sulla the Dictator]

I oppose abortion because it is a sign of decadence and corruption. Healthy cultures don't think of children as cysts to be removed for the sake of the mother's convenience. In a sane society, Medea is a morality tale, not a model.

This opposition isn't a Rube Goldberg contraption to trip up feminists.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I oppose abortion because it is a sign of decadence and corruption. Healthy cultures don't think of children as cysts to be removed for the sake of the mother's convenience.

No one thinks of "children as cysts to be removed..."

Some people take the completely rational position that a very small cluster of cells with no human features other than DNA may not be exactly the same thing as a child.

It continues to amaze me how much some conservatives care about human life in the abstract and how little in the actual.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

No one thinks of "children as cysts to be removed..."

Some people take the completely rational position that a very small cluster of cells with no human features other than DNA may not be exactly the same thing as a child.

It continues to amaze me how much some conservatives care about human life in the abstract and how little in the actual.

Well, if abortions were done by police officers on horses and with batons...

[harkin]

Originally Posted by miceelf

No one thinks of "children as cysts to be removed..."

Some people take the completely rational position that a very small cluster of cells with no human features other than DNA may not be exactly the same thing as a child.

It continues to amaze me how much some conservatives care about human life in the abstract and how little in the actual.

Hard to accept calls for rationality that are so devoid of fact.

Speaking of the "actual", a fetus at 5 weeks has a regularly beating heart. At week 8 "everything that is present in an adult human is now present".

If you are true to the logic you present, you are against abortion sometime around 4 weeks after conception.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by harkin

Hard to accept calls for rationality that are so devoid of fact.

Speaking of the "actual", a fetus at 5 weeks has a regularly beating heart. At week 8 "everything that is present in an adult human is now present".

If you are true to the logic you present, you are against abortion sometime around 4 weeks after conception.

I don't believe (and nor do most people) that a "regularly beating heart" is the defining necessary and sufficient condition of humanity.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don't believe (and nor do most people) that a "regularly beating heart" is the defining necessary and sufficient condition of humanity.

Yeah, but you didn't answer his points. Sometimes I think that people who are pro-abortion deliberately try to minimize what the act entails so they don't feel bad.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Yeah, but you didn't answer his points. Sometimes I think that people who are pro-abortion deliberately try to minimize what the act entails so they don't feel bad.

What the heck are you talking about?

Stick to whatever it is you are doing. Psychoanalysis is not for you.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Some people take the completely rational position that a very small cluster of cells with no human features other than DNA may not be exactly the same thing as a child.

No matter what your position is about abortion you should at least try to be accurate.

25% of abortions are performed at 10 weeks.



15% are performed at 12 weeks.



2% of abortions are performed because of rape or incest. 6% because of health issues. 92% are performed because of the child isn't wanted.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

No matter what your position is about abortion you should at least try to be accurate.

You say this and then post a whole set of unsourced claims about percentages of abortions in a variety of conditions.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

You say this and then post a whole set of unsourced claims about percentages of abortions in a variety of conditions.

good point.

Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]

25.9% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]

25.9% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

Thanks for the link. 1987-1988. Well, thanks for the numbers, in any case.

Here's the most recent data on abortions:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

You can see that the number of abortions have gone down substantially since the 80s.

More broadly: You seem to be very selective in your concerns about how people frame things. You don't like me pointing out that pregnancy is associated with health risks, but you don't object to Sulla's claims that pro-choice people regard children as cysts. I understand you have your perspective, but really?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Thanks for the link. 1987-1988. Well, thanks for the numbers, in any case.

Here's the most recent data on abortions:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

You can see that the number of abortions have gone down substantially since the 80s.

My citation was about percentages not the number. I can't see why they would have changed but am open to a more recent survey. And it's good that the number of abortions have gone down especially given the easy access to birth control.

More broadly: You seem to be very selective in your concerns about how people frame things. You don't like me pointing out that pregnancy is associated with health risks, but you don't object to Sulla's claims that pro-choice people regard children as cysts. I understand you have your perspective, but really?

You have shown by your comments that you prefer to regard aborted fetuses as a small collection of cells with no resemblance to a human being other than DNA. I don't know if cysts contain the same collection of DNA as the person who has the cyst but from your description the fetus wouldn't be far from a cyst so why would you object to the characterization?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You have shown by your comments that you prefer to regard aborted fetuses as a small collection of cells with no resemblance to a human being other than DNA. I don't know if cysts contain the same collection of DNA as the person who has the cyst but from your description the fetus wouldn't be far from a cyst so why would you object to the characterization?

Sulla was making a general claim not specific to me.

He said that liberals regard *children* as cysts.

Had he said liberals regard fetuses as cysts, one might have argued that he was making an overgeneralization, but it would have been in the same universe as a reasonable claim.

The liberals who take my position DON"T regard children as cysts. They don't regard fetuses as children.

Clear enough?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Sulla was making a general claim not specific to me.

He said that liberals regard *children* as cysts.

Had he said liberals regard fetuses as cysts, one might have argued that he was making an overgeneralization, but it would have been in the same universe as a reasonable claim.

The liberals who take my position DON"T regard children as cysts. They don't regard fetuses as children.

Clear enough?

Got it. So you think of the fetus as a cell cluster and Sulla thinks of a fetus as a child. I think it's a matter of opinion. The opinion about this is at the very core of the argument about abortion (plus of course all of that tax stuff you throw in). I would say that each of you is entitled to your opinion about what a fetus is.

But I will continue to say that your characterization of what a fetus is (very small cluster of cells with no human features other than DNA) is inaccurate. If you want to make a good case for abortion I would suggest you rephrase this. I also think the health risk thing is weak. But I guess it goes with the cell cluster thing. And then to cover all this weakness up you bring in the tax thing. Yes, I am beginning to understand quite well.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Got it. So you think of the fetus as a cell collection and Sulla thinks of a fetus as a child.

Yes, but what sulla was doing was claiming that I (well, "liberals") regard CHILDREN as cysts. We dont' agree with his definition of children; that's a very different proposition. In any case, yes, Sulla's grand claims come about because we disagree. So do mine.

I agree that this is a (not the, but a big part of) piece of the core of the argument).

I keep mentioning the tax thing becuse it seems to be a glaring inconsistency.

[thouartgob]

I haven't listened to the diavlog yet but a dust up on abortion, always a fun time

Not even touching what a Dictator has to say on the subject of abortions ( see Nicolae Ceauşescu ) but I will hone in on an argument or 2.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Got it. So you think of the fetus as a cell cluster and Sulla thinks of a fetus as a child. I think it's a matter of opinion.

Good you are pro-choice then. If it is an opinion then the person who's opinion matters most is the woman who is pregnant, certainly at the stage of development we are discussing.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I also think the health risk thing is weak

So it is weak to point out that anti-choice activists want the full weight of law to be brought down on the head of a pregnant woman (without taking into any consideration her situation ) and force her to take on a statistically significant health risk. I don't think that way. One could think of it as conscription for certain women in a war that has some risk to their life that men don't have to worry about. I am not trying to conflate pregnancy with a battle but when people want to take away someone else's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness it can lead to some declaration of sorts.

[kezboard]

I've said before that because anti-choicers spend so much time trying to convince themselves that a zygote is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby, they assume that pro-choicers spend an equal amount of time trying to convince themselves that a newborn baby is the moral equivalent of a zygote. This is why they believe that posting photos of embryos, who obviously have a shape that is more complex than that of four cells, or of saying that a fetus has a beating heart at however many months, will convince us to abandon our positions. People who are pro-choice do not actually deny the fact of fetal development, surprising as that may be to people in a political movement that regularly denies scientific fact that is inconvenient to their ideology. Pretty much everyone will agree that at one point in the process of embryonic/fetal development we have cells which, although they have human DNA, have about the moral significance of nail clippings, and at the end, we have a human being with full civil rights. The extreme opinion on one end would support denying the child rights or allowing it to be killed it after it's born. The extreme position on the other end is basically that of the personhood amendment. (I guess even more extreme would be the argument that every sperm is sacred and therefore male masturbation is genocide, but this is too silly for even the Catholic Church).

My position, which is a totally mainstream pro-choice one, is that the rights of the fetus grow as it does, but never trump those of the mother. This basic reasoning is reflected in the Roe vs. Wade decision, and I suspect is also the reasoning used by most Americans when they're formulating their opinions about abortion. The position of the pro-life movement is that there's an arbitrary point, prior to birth, where the embryo/fetus/child gains all the rights of a post-born baby, and that arbitrary point is usually called "conception", but it's a semantic argument over what that means, and was one of the snags in the argument for the personhood amendment -- does it refer to fertilization or implantation? If you go with fertilization, then it's cold-blooded murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy; if you go with implantation, then the police will be spending all their time with manslaughter investigations every time a sexually active woman gets her period. The upshot of these arguments should be that it's impossible to argue a specific point where "life begins" unless you're seriously going to identify the moment when God zaps a collection of cells with a soul, and no argument along these lines can be based on actual evidence.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by kezboard

I've said before that because anti-choicers spend so much time trying to convince themselves that a zygote is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby, they assume that pro-choicers spend an equal amount of time trying to convince themselves that a newborn baby is the moral equivalent of a zygote. This is why they believe that posting photos of embryos, who obviously have a shape that is more complex than that of four cells, or of saying that a fetus has a beating heart at however many months, will convince us to abandon our positions. People who are pro-choice do not actually deny the fact of fetal development, surprising as that may be to people in a political movement that regularly denies scientific fact that is inconvenient to their ideology. Pretty much everyone will agree that at one point in the process of embryonic/fetal development we have cells which, although they have human DNA, have about the moral significance of nail clippings, and at the end, we have a human being with full civil rights. The extreme opinion on one end would support denying the child rights or allowing it to be killed it after it's born. The extreme position on the other end is basically that of the personhood amendment. (I guess even more extreme would be the argument that every sperm is sacred and therefore male masturbation is genocide, but this is too silly for even the Catholic Church).

My position, which is a totally mainstream pro-choice one, is that the rights of the fetus grow as it does, but never trump those of the mother. This basic reasoning is reflected in the Roe vs. Wade decision, and I suspect is also the reasoning used by most Americans when they're formulating their opinions about abortion. The position of the pro-life movement is that there's an arbitrary point, prior to birth, where the embryo/fetus/child gains all the rights of a post-born baby, and that arbitrary point is usually called "conception", but it's a semantic argument over what that means, and was one of the snags in the argument for the personhood amendment -- does it refer to fertilization or implantation? If you go with fertilization, then it's cold-blooded murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy; if you go with implantation, then the police will be spending all their time with manslaughter investigations every time a sexually active woman gets her period. The upshot of these arguments should be that it's impossible to argue a specific point where "life begins" unless you're seriously going to identify the moment when God zaps a collection of cells with a soul, and no argument along these lines can be based on actual evidence.

Yes, thank you, kez, for writing this post. I've had no time or energy to repeat these basic ideas for the nth time.

As always, a well thought out post by kezbord.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by kezboard

I've said before that because anti-choicers spend so much time trying to convince themselves that a zygote is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby, they assume that pro-choicers spend an equal amount of time trying to convince themselves that a newborn baby is the moral equivalent of a zygote. This is why they believe that posting photos of embryos, who obviously have a shape that is more complex than that of four cells, or of saying that a fetus has a beating heart at however many months, will convince us to abandon our positions. People who are pro-choice do not actually deny the fact of fetal development, surprising as that may be to people in a political movement that regularly denies scientific fact that is inconvenient to their ideology. Pretty much everyone will agree that at one point in the process of embryonic/fetal development we have cells which, although they have human DNA, have about the moral significance of nail clippings, and at the end, we have a human being with full civil rights. The extreme opinion on one end would support denying the child rights or allowing it to be killed it after it's born. The extreme position on the other end is basically that of the personhood amendment. (I guess even more extreme would be the argument that every sperm is sacred and therefore male masturbation is genocide, but this is too silly for even the Catholic Church).

My position, which is a totally mainstream pro-choice one, is that the rights of the fetus grow as it does, but never trump those of the mother. This basic reasoning is reflected in the Roe vs. Wade decision, and I suspect is also the reasoning used by most Americans when they're formulating their opinions about abortion. The position of the pro-life movement is that there's an arbitrary point, prior to birth, where the embryo/fetus/child gains all the rights of a post-born baby, and that arbitrary point is usually called "conception", but it's a semantic argument over what that means, and was one of the snags in the argument for the personhood amendment -- does it refer to fertilization or implantation? If you go with fertilization, then it's cold-blooded murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy; if you go with implantation, then the police will be spending all their time with manslaughter investigations every time a sexually active woman gets her period. The upshot of these arguments should be that it's impossible to argue a specific point where "life begins" unless you're seriously going to identify the moment when God zaps a collection of cells with a soul, and no argument along these lines can be based on actual evidence.

Truly an excellent post.

[Abdicate]

Abortion should remain safe and legal. Our government should promote free access to family planning internationally--including access to safe abortion, in which the woman is the sole voting decisionmaker.

When I meet someone who wants to make abortion illegal, I want to hear the person defend such a law with regard to the least problematic abortions. So I want him to explain why using an IUD ought to be viewed as mass-murder.

If someone thinks abortion should be illegal on 10-wk fetuses--but already accepts that earlier abortions should be legally protected--fine, let's have the discussion.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Abdicate

Abortion should remain safe and legal. Our government should promote free access to family planning internationally--including access to safe abortion, in which the woman is the sole voting decisionmaker.

When I meet someone who wants to make abortion illegal, I want to hear the person defend such a law with regard to the least problematic abortions. So I want him to explain why using an IUD ought to be viewed as mass-murder.

If someone thinks abortion should be illegal on 10-wk fetuses--but already accepts that earlier abortions should be legally protected--fine, let's have the discussion.

Here's what I said: No matter what position you hold about abortion, you should try to be accurate. Characterizing abortion as the removal of a collection of cells is hardly that.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Here's what I said: No matter what position you hold about abortion, you should try to be accurate. Characterizing abortion as the removal of a collection of cells is hardly that.

Characterizing it as the murder of a child is at least as inaccurate, and I think moreseo. no one disputes that we are talking about a collection of cells. The dispute is whether the collection of cells is also a human being (or, for squishier anti-abortionists, "life).

[Abdicate]

Here's what you said:

No matter what position you hold about abortion, you should try to be accurate. Characterizing abortion as the removal of a collection of cells is hardly that.

You err, sir: Abortion is the removal of a collection of cells. (It may or may not be something else, too--though it certainly is the removal of a collection of cells.)

...300,000 abortions were performed in Kenya each year, the vast majority of the illegal, resulting in 20,000 hospitalizations and 2,600 deaths.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Abdicate

Abortion should remain safe and legal. Our government should promote free access to family planning internationally--including access to safe abortion, in which the woman is the sole voting decisionmaker.

LOL Ridiculous. Evolution has divided the reproductive role between two parties for the sake of survivability of the species, not as a sop to the mau-mauing of feminists. A child isn't some trinket of a woman's simply because she is gestating it, the child is the product of a biological union. Her pregnancy is her duty as an organism. We forget that reproduction is the primary purpose of life.

When I meet someone who wants to make abortion illegal, I want to hear the person defend such a law with regard to the least problematic abortions. So I want him to explain why using an IUD ought to be viewed as mass-murder.

This makes no sense and it isn't remotely difficult to answer even if you assume your meaning. An IUD is fine, a very strange question.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

A child isn't some trinket of a woman's simply because she is gestating it,

Surely you will also understand that because of the physiological changes in the pregnant woman the only person that we can safely say understands what is at stake is the pregnant woman. Why not allow her to be the arbiter of what happens to her and her zygote/fetus and/or whatever zygotes and fetuses she chooses to have in the future. Your interest or the interest of Ralph Reed or Rick Perry is far less of a concern.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Her pregnancy is her duty as an organism. We forget that reproduction is the primary purpose of life.

Biology as destiny eh. Such reductionist logic would allow you to justify having your way with a well endowed 13 year old girl. Is that the kind of leg you would like to be standing on, especially when your argument is that a woman should have no choice as to what happens to her body when pregnant.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

This makes no sense and it isn't remotely difficult to answer even if you assume your meaning. An IUD is fine, a very strange question.

I am assuming he/she is referring to the Mississippi life begins at conception law where IUD's and other forms of that type of birth control would be banned.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Surely you will also understand that because of the physiological changes in the pregnant woman the only person that we can safely say understands what is at stake is the pregnant woman. Why not allow her to be the arbiter of what happens to her and her zygote/fetus and/or whatever zygotes and fetuses she chooses to have in the future.

Because this isn't Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld, where we all emerged into a strange world and are learning how to operate in it. In what possible sense is the woman gestating the infant the only person who understands what is at stake? This is a matter for the culture, not her. It is a matter for a society which trains the abortionist, forges the blades, and cannibalizes the infant for various medical purposes.

Your interest or the interest of Ralph Reed or Rick Perry is far less of a concern.

Abortion is the only place where liberals remember that all law is coercive. Liberals would legislate what you can eat, where you can smoke, what you can earn, how you can work, what you can think, what you can say.....but when we reach abortion? It's Galt's Gulch. Don't tread on me, soulless minion of the Patriarchy!

Biology as destiny eh. Such reductionist logic would allow you to justify
having your way with a well endowed 13 year old girl.

Strange assumption, since it would do no such thing. There are reasons why moral codes have developed between organisms after their conception.

Is that the kind of leg you would like to be standing on

Absolutely.

especially when your argument is that a woman should have no choice as to what happens to her body when pregnant.

Her pregnancy was a choice. That is how we arrived here. Your claim seems to suggest that lacking an ability to erase the consequence of that choice means there are no choices, at all. Again, strange assumption.

I am assuming he/she is referring to the Mississippi life begins at conception law where IUD's and other forms of that type of birth control would be banned.

I have no problem with birth control.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Because this isn't Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld, where we all emerged into a strange world and are learning how to operate in it. In what possible sense is the woman gestating the infant the only person who understands what is at stake?

You are casting women who chose abortion as trivial minded people with no common sense or shred of morality. I beg to differ and I mention that A.) Women are affected psychologically by physiological changes in their body during pregnancy and so are way more likely to have weighed the pro/cons of continuing their pregnancy and aren't doing merely to keep the weight off. B.) A pregnant woman is the most affected by abortion rights ( or wrongs depending on your point of view ) while those on the periphery with agenda that don't seem to have anything to do with a woman's life should have little say in it.

Only maybe be a slight overreach of course the man if he gives a shit, does give a shit then he has a stake to one extent or another, friends and kin can be helpful/hurtful etc, still the woman is way more affected body and soul, so to speak. Does Ralph Reed care about this person ? He can say he does, he can have his opinion but does she want to put her life in his hands ??

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

This is a matter for the culture, not her. It is a matter for a society

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Abortion is the only place where liberals remember that all law is coercive.

And abortion is where conservatives believe in plenty of Collectivism.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Liberals would legislate what you can eat

Eat what you want. Show me a law that jails people for eating junk food.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

where you can smoke

and where you can shit and piss as well. Personally I don't have as much of a problem with smoking but that's me.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

what you can earn

You can earn what you want but you do have to pay the cops amongst other trappings of civilization. By all means go off the grid because I don't think that is illegal.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

how you can work

Sorry to stop an entrepenuer from becoming an assasin.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

what you can think

If my "only" was over reach ???

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

what you can say.

1st amendment remedies are fine for me.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Strange assumption, since it would do no such thing. There are reasons why moral codes have developed between organisms after their conception.

Well you chose to argue that I woman should be at the mercy of a law based on biological determinism or should be at the mercy of the urge to procreate. I was just following the logic you put forward. If the biological urge the procreate is the standard you put forward, what is the problem. I would also point out that forcing a woman to come to term with a rapist's child or her fathers would be considered a moral code that I have no interest in. Plenty on the pro-life/anti-choice side think that is just peachy.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Her pregnancy was a choice. That is how we arrived here. Your claim seems to suggest that lacking an ability to erase the consequence of that choice means there are no choices, at all. Again, strange assumption.

Hey I'm pro-choice, I can't be lectured on choice

Well if birth control fails ( meaning they made the required minimum preventable measures ) then can they say what does or does not happen to their body ? Can we question a woman to see if she didn't want to be ejaculated into and then allow her to choose ?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

You are casting women who chose abortion as trivial minded people with no common sense or shred of morality.

Question: Are there women who chose abortion as trivial minded people with no common sense or shred of morality? When I was about 18 years old, I met such a woman. She was a friend of a girl who I was dating at the time, and during an evening of festivity, told me that she had had multiple abortions. She said it with irritation, not with regret; her boyfriend didn't like the feel of condoms, and she didn't have the time to go get proper birth control.

People of the age are too often frivolous. Too often, they lack common sense. Too often, they not only lack morality, they work to shred it.

I beg to differ and I mention that A.) Women are affected psychologically by physiological changes in their body during pregnancy and so are way more likely to have weighed the pro/cons of continuing their pregnancy and aren't doing merely to keep the weight off.

This seems to argue against reasoned choice. Obviously the choice to abort a child isn't usually for such a ridiculous reason (Though I'm sure you will admit, it is too often). But the choice to engage in the coitus which led to the pregnancy usually is.

B.) A pregnant woman is the most affected by abortion rights ( or wrongs depending on your point of view ) while those on the periphery with agenda that don't seem to have anything to do with a woman's life should have little say in it.

I do not agree with this. You're simply suggesting that the woman has a special set of rights as some sort of modern mater familias. In a society where we frown upon spanking or "harsh words" to children, it seems an odd arrangement to suggest that there is a point in the gestation where a woman is entitled to excise it because of special privilege. You are arbitrarily setting a line of choice when one is already clear. Sex is where the choice was made, the child we're talking about extirpating is the inevitable conclusion of that choice.

By your argument, why should there be any limit on when you can terminate this child? The terrible burden of life exists past the first trimester, after all. And people undergoing psychological and physiological changes have been known to...change...their minds.

Only maybe be a slight overreach of course the man if he gives a shit, does give a shit then he has a stake to one extent or another, friends and kin can be helpful/hurtful etc, still the woman is way more affected body and soul, so to speak.

The woman knew that her body was designed to be impregnated after successful conception of a child, no? If so, the choice was made. That seems like a pretty fair arrangement to me. It is less arbitrary than what you are describing, no?

And abortion is where conservatives believe in plenty of Collectivism.

In a sense. It is where we believe that an individual has a pretty elementary duty to not kill the next generation of our grand compact.

Eat what you want. Show me a law that jails people for eating junk food.

Conservatives don't want to jail women who get abortions. The law in some places assesses fines against certain types of food; failure to pay fines carries further legal penalty.

and where you can shit and piss as well.

Excretions carry viral and disease contaminants far worse than smoking.

You can earn what you want but you do have to pay the cops amongst other trappings of civilization. By all means go off the grid because I don't think that is illegal.

"Paying the cops" should account for about .01% of all state and federal spending. How about the other 99.99%? What's next?

"You can earn what you want but you do have to pay for the Cowboy Poetry Festival amongst the other trappings of a civilization. If you're not willing to do that, go off the grid."

Sorry to stop an entrepenuer from becoming an assasin.

Thank you for the apology. For other people however, the vast increase in licensing at the state and federal level (For the sake of "the children", ironically coming from the left) limits the ease at which people enter various forms of work.

1st amendment remedies are fine for me.

Fine for thee but not for me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code

Well you chose to argue that I woman should be at the mercy of a law based on biological determinism or should be at the mercy of the urge to procreate.

The woman is at the mercy of causality, not "law". You are suggesting that the law allow a different remedy than the natural biological course. I am saying I oppose such supranatural intervention by the skulking abortionist.

I would also point out that forcing a woman to come to term with a rapist's child or her fathers would be considered a moral code that I have no interest in. Plenty on the pro-life/anti-choice side think that is just peachy.

Women should be allowed to abort the children of rapists, and probably should be forced to abort the products of incest. See? I'm more than willing to compromise. Perhaps you should agree that women should be prohibited from getting cosmetic abortions, or multiple abortions in the spirit of comity.

Well if birth control fails ( meaning they made the required minimum preventable measures ) then can they say what does or does not happen to their body ?

No, because two forms of birth control used simultaneously are almost failure-proof. Considering the statistics, and what we know about people who engage in unprotected sex in non-abortion related surveys of sexual activity, I do not believe the woman in most cases. There remains some small amount of stigma for abortion among pro-choice people, even.

Can we question a woman to see if she didn't want to be ejaculated into and then allow her to choose ?

Unless she is charging rape, she should assume that this is the natural consequence of a sexual act. It is, after all, the very point of one party.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Question: Are there women who chose abortion as trivial minded people with no common sense or shred of morality? When I was about 18 years old, I met such a woman
...

no need to debate outliers to try to prove a point. Some people do dumb things.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

This seems to argue against reasoned choice. Obviously the choice to abort a child isn't usually for such a ridiculous reason (Though I'm sure you will admit, it is too often). But the choice to engage in the coitus which led to the pregnancy usually is.

Awfully sweet of you to make such a concession

My point with A.) was not as well executed as I'd like. Women can have all kinds of changes that may affect their thinking (a certain bias to continue pregnancy, I consider it a practical limit on abortions even without laws to regulate it) but I put my trust in their thinking. I understand you could look at is as evidence for biological determinism, but I'll put it out there and let you have your way with it if you like ( figuratively speaking of course ). Even if such a thing didn't exist I would still be pro-choice because to me women are humans that happen to be women as opposed to your inverted formulation.


The rest of your points about the topic boil down to biological destiny fused with catholic dogma ( not the religious aspects of course )

When it comes to any questions about whether a non-raped women can have an abortion

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I do not believe the woman in most cases.

unless this:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Perhaps you should agree that women should be prohibited from getting cosmetic abortions, or multiple abortions in the spirit of comity.

Wasn't just a joke.

What it comes down to is I believe what makes us humans transcends our sexual dichotomies. We are male/female as animals, that influences us as humans because humans are animals but the vast majority of our evolutionary heritage, that separates us from other primates, has little to do with our gender or race for that matter.

[kezboard]

When I was about 18 years old, I met such a woman. She was a friend of a girl who I was dating at the time, and during an evening of festivity, told me that she had had multiple abortions. She said it with irritation, not with regret; her boyfriend didn't like the feel of condoms, and she didn't have the time to go get proper birth control.

Honestly, Sulla, if you came off in real life at 18 the same way you do right now over the internet, I might find it amusing to tell you that I'd had multiple abortions for kicks as well, just so I could watch you accuse me of shredding morality and virtue and contributing to the decline of This Honorable Republic.