fuck the GOP.
Printable View
fuck the GOP.
Be patient. GOP is fucking themselves.
.true
I would argue you can't be "pro-life", aka "anti-choice" and libertarian. You also can't be anti-gay civil rights and libertarian. Libertarian by definition means you oppose government involvement in your private life, as well as in many areas of public life. It means LESS government. Being anti-abortion and anti-gay rights means you want to government MORE involved in people's private lives.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Libertarians believe in the unalienable rights of the individual. The question becomes, when does a person become a person deserving of those rights. Many libertarians are grappling with that question.
If you believe, as I do, a person becomes a person at conception then you ascribed to them those unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
No, but you can be anti-preferential treatmentt for "special" classes of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Even to the extent that government works to afford protected status to other individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Even to the point where property owners should be allowed complete control of their property, including with whom they choose to associate, do business, or serve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
No, it means you want the government to protect the unalienable rights of the unborn and quit giving undue advantage to groups defined by the squeaky wheel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
When you're adding an exception to the general rule in the constitution, you're singling out who the 'special classes of people' are. So the 'special' classes of people are heterosexual couples, not the other way around.
Couldn't agree more. I'm not sure the Constitution speaks to marriage beyond the contractual obligation one person has to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I say we abandon all statutes, government privileges, and policies that depend on marital status.
Unless you believe that the state can intervene to protect the life of an individual and that life starts at conception. As for "gay rights," it depends on how those rights are defined. If it's to live as you see fit, that's one thing. If it's to impose something on another through the state, above and beyond respecting the rights of others to live as they see fit, then that's not a libertarian perspective. A libertarian believes the state should stay out of marriage altogether, for example, beyond upholding a contract between however many individuals. A libertarian will certainly oppose certain parts of a 'pro gay rights' agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Libertarianism is certainly not for the eradication of all government, and while there are many state actions that libertarians want to see eliminated, it is not as simple an ideology that all government action is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Many confuse anarchism with libertarianism in that vein.
In addition, expecting a similar approach to abortion and gay rights from a libertarian ignores the fundamental difference between the two issues. On the one hand, you have at issue whether or not a fetus is an individual. The other issue is essentially a private relationship between consenting individuals.
So if you believe life "begins at conception," how do you balance the priority of the fetus's life versus the mother's life? Because in many cases, not having access to abortion would threaten the mother's life, either physically, financially, or emotionally.
And WTF does it mean to say life begins at conception, anyway? That is the most ridiculous language I've heard, and you hear it a lot. Life begins when the sperm makes contact with the ovum? So every miscarriage could then be classified as manslaughter? Come on.
I can imagine a rational discussion about the limits of safe, legal abortion that actually gets into "where life begins"...but I don't think you can make a rational argument for life beginning before the fetus is capable of living on its own outside the woman's body...and that doesn't happen until at least 6 months.
As far as gay rights goes, no gay rights advocate has ever argued for "special rights"...in the same way black people weren't arguing for "special rights" when they wanted inclusive classrooms and to sit in the front of the bus. Marriage is a civil right, conferred by the state, and has been a civil contract for centuries. It has also changed its meaning over the course of human history - it used to mean a man purchased a woman, and often property as well, in a financial transaction. Today it is a civil contract that grants hundreds of rights to opposite gender couples in 50 states, and to any couple regardless of gender in 6 states (MA, NH, VT, IA, ME, CT)
That's a difficult question. But, I'd much rather contemplate it in the absence of the million of convenience abortions being had every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
No, life begins when the sperm penetrates the ovum, fertilizes it, and cell division occurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Every miscarriage could then be classified as a death. In some cases, miscarriages caused by violence or assault are already classified as homicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
So, you would say a baby, born prematurely, and incapable of living on its own, outside the woman's body could be killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Affirmative Action is a request for special rights. Preferential hiring is a request for special rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Threatening the mother's life "financially"? Um, ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
The meaning is stated.Quote:
And WTF does it mean to say life begins at conception, anyway?
Then when does life for an individual begin? Come on yourself.Quote:
That is the most ridiculous language I've heard, and you hear it a lot. Life begins when the sperm makes contact with the ovum? So every miscarriage could then be classified as manslaughter? Come on.
So simply because a fetus cannot live on its own, that does not mean it is an unique individual? Does not follow. And of course you could imagine a rational discussion about the limits of abortion, but apparently you are incapable of actually participating in one.Quote:
I can imagine a rational discussion about the limits of safe, legal abortion that actually gets into "where life begins"...but I don't think you can make a rational argument for life beginning before the fetus is capable of living on its own outside the woman's body...and that doesn't happen until at least 6 months.
Special rights is not the issue.Quote:
As far as gay rights goes, no gay rights advocate has ever argued for "special rights"...in the same way black people weren't arguing for "special rights" when they wanted inclusive classrooms and to sit in the front of the bus. Marriage is a civil right, conferred by the state, and has been a civil contract for centuries. It has also changed its meaning over the course of human history - it used to mean a man purchased a woman, and often property as well, in a financial transaction. Today it is a civil contract that grants hundreds of rights to opposite gender couples in 50 states, and to any couple regardless of gender in 6 states (MA, NH, VT, IA, ME, CT)
Anyways, libertarianism, like any other political ideology, does not imply a given position on the legality of abortion. That was the subject at hand, at least originally before your last post.
Affirmative action has nothing to do with gay rights. No gay activist is arguing someone should be hired BECAUSE they are gay, only that they shouldn't be ruled out for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
How about the creation of technology capable of taking a fetus from the womb early on in a pregnancy which allows for the kind of development which takes place during pregnancy? We're probably not as far away from that as we might think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
In the meantime, we're supposed to pretend that there's nothing there until an individual pops out of their mother's vagina, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Like our president said, I think we can all agree that the number of abortions in this country should decrease. As abortion activists are fond of saying, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Of course the key to keeping abortions rare is quality sex education, something many of the so-called "pro life" activists argue against. Since it has been well documented that abstinence-only sex education is completely ineffective in preventing people from having sex, it is pretty clear more comprehensive, honest sex education is the way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I am not sure what the third question is meant to mean, other than be the kind of inflammatory scenario anti-choice people often bring up. Under what circumstances would someone want to kill a "baby" born prematurely? If it can live on it's own, it's a human life. If it must be inside the mother's body in order to survive, it's a fetus. That's my definition.
Anyways, abortion in this country has been a rather effective method of culling a large percentage of poor, non-white individuals.
Meanwhile, politicians take donations from groups which generate a significant amount of revenue from performing abortions on poor, non-white individuals to maintain the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I don't think we're far from this either, but I can imagine groups of people who would oppose this practice as well. For many, the concern for the life of the unborn is sincere... however, I think we'll find that for many others, it's really about the sex.
Well, sure. Which is absurd to a certain extent because then it would be more likely that individuals use protection. So if abortion was made illegal then it could be a boon for 'safe sex' advocates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
What organizations are you implying here? Most insurance (all?) won't cover abortions, so most abortions are done at hospitals or non-profits (e.g. Planned Parenthood) neither of which are profit-making businesses. So they don't actually generate revenue - the revenue they make pays for salaries and then goes back into the business, if there is any left over. But if you know anything about non-profits, you know that there is almost never, ever anything left over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
So nobody profits off a non-profit? How about the execs? Do they work for free?
It's just a coincidence that most Planned Parenthood clinics operate in areas with largely poor, non-white populations.
But, why do we agree the number of abortions should decrease?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Why rare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
If it weren't so easy to escape the consequences of casual sex, there wouldn't be as many abortions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Frankly, I have trouble imagining the circumstances under which someone would want to kill an unborn child. So, I equate the two. The prevalence or frequency or commonality of one circumstance over the other doesn't persuade me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Pretty arbitrary... There are premature infants that cannot survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention. Could a mother forgo the medical care and, in effect, abort the baby?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
This isn't meant to be inflammatory. It's a relevant question.
Like Brookline, MA, where their mothership office is located?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Uh, rare because no one can deny that abortion is an intense, sometimes traumatic medical procedure no woman would choose unless she felt like she had no other choice. And that is why women choose it - because they feel like they have no other choice. Raising a child you don't want, aren't ready to care for, or otherwise can't support isn't noble, it's child abuse. And while adoption is an nice idea, there are far too many children already in need of homes.
It gets really tiresome discussing this issue with men, who have no concept of what it is like to be a woman and to actually have to carry a child, give birth, much less be a mother. And I don't care how many pregnancies/births you've witnessed, I don't think men really have much business having opinions on this issues. It's a medical issue that should be between a woman and her doctor.
Would you expect the executives to live anywhere else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
If you deny there is a moral dimension of taking human life, you undercut your own credibility, especially since you yourself rely on a moral argument to justify abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
You should be happy that, as a matter of settled law, things are as you describe in the bolded. Telling all men to get lost because they cannot have abortions is gratuitous and asinine IMO.
No one can deny? There are over a million abortions a year...somebody's denying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Now, if you're saying you'd like for it to be where no one can deny that, fine. But, as it stands right now, there are plenty of people denying that.
That's not the only reason. I would argue the vast majority choose it for convenience. They have guilt-free, unprotected sex because they know, if they become pregnant, there is a low-cost, effective way, to terminate the pregnancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
It's only after the procedure that many women regret the decision and understand the medical and moral implications of what they've done.
Abortion is homicide. At least an abused child has the chance to be placed in a loving home and fulfill its potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
If you don't want a child, don't have unprotected sex. Don't bed every guy you meet. Don't fuck like there are no consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
There are plenty of women who share my view. Take it up with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Men can't help that it is women biology chose to carry the product of two people's actions. Men have as much stake in the outcome of pregnancy as do women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
This is the kind of moral black-and-white thinking that typically characterizes men's thinking, which is what Carol Gilligan argued in her book In a Different Voice. Kohlberg's theory of moral development is based on this sort of thinking, and Gilligan uses the decision of a woman to have an abortion or not have an abortion as an example of why Kohlberg's theory is so limited.
Abortion is not simply a matter of murder-not murder. No woman makes the decision to have an abortion as cavalierly as you suggest. I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.
And if you think no one has ever accidentally gotten pregnant - despite all efforts to prevent it - then you probably are a 13 year old who has never actually had sex yet. Ever heard of condoms breaking? Jesus H Christ. Get off your moral high horse and deal in the real world, please.
Replacing the black and white of morality with the black and white of gender identity is preferable how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
You present no evidence for your own sweeping generalization, but assert it by fiat. I have little doubt a solid majority women take abortion as seriously as you say. But your claim that "no woman" undertakes it cavalierly isn't supportable IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Get off your own, Supergirl. You dismissed the opinion of all men based on gender, then disingenuously suggested abortion is a value-neutral medical procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
If it really were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Gilligan's book serves as evidence of the complicated moral deliberation women go through around the question of whether to have an abortion. I encourage you to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
By contrast, I haven't heard anything other than that constitutes evidence of women making the decision to have an abortion cavalierly.
Most people agree with that sentiment, but when you create laws that protect one class of citizens over another, the laws will get abused. That's why it's special rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
As for you 13 year old example of not knowing a condom can break, there are also people in jail for things they do accidentally.
You take responsibility over your actions. Killing of innocent life is for evil people. Not those who have compassion. Women should have to have the baby. The father should also have a choice to raise the child. If neither parent wants the child, there is always a family who cannot have children who would love to adapt a baby.
I didn't deny this. You seem to think Gilligan's anecdotes and theories of gender-based cognition apply universally. Do you have evidence for this claim, or did you assert this by fiat too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Oh well, I guess that rules it out.:rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by SupergirlA
Heaven forbid someone, man or woman, should have to deal with the consequences of their actions in our society. I don't care, screw what or whoever you want, but be prepared to take some actual responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
So we deal with a complex moral issue by pressing the easy button and opting for the option which offers the least possible personal responsibility (and no, I'm not hanging this on women because we know the father is just as likely to prefer the path which offers the least responsibility).
Then, of course, there's the fact that abortion helps to keep the populations of the poor black and brown down. An added benefit for enlightened America.
Can you represent her "evidence" in your own words?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
If no, maybe you're the one who needs to go read it.
Gilligan's book is an in depth analysis of various women's process when deciding whether to have an abortion. She uses this struggle to come up with a different understanding of moral development than had previously been used (Kohlberg's model), suggesting that either Kohlberg's model was a distinctly masculine model (since all the people in his research had been men) or some decisions are more morally complex than his theory had allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
In a very timely way, our president has spoken on this very issue at Notre Dame:
"That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Not nearly as effective as forced sterilization (especially in Native communities) and encouraging poor women of color towards Norplant and other dangerous contraceptives without full education as to their risks or other options. Abortion is prohibitively expensive to have such an effect in poor communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Both of these statements are naive to the point of ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Unwanted pregnancies are not solely the result of promiscuity and unprotected sex. They can occur due to accidents, rape, incest, and within committed or married couples, as well. It is equally inaccurate to assume that all abortions are the result of an unwanted pregnancy. There are plenty of situations in which a pregnancy is terminated due to the risk of potential injury to the child and/or mother.
Furthermore, of course there are women who have a cavalier approach to abortion, and to their bodies in general. Being pro-choice or supporting reproductive justice doesn't require sticking up for all women as unique and special flowers who are always motivated to do the right thing. We're not.
Frankly, whether a woman is cavalier about her decision to have an abortion is irrelevant. I've never known a woman who had an easy time doing it, and I hate the idea of someone having an abortion after irresponsible sex then returning to the same irresponsible lifestyle, but it doesn't matter.
It should be legal or it shouldn't. We shouldn't create laws based on our feelings on the appropriate degree of remorse someone should have about their mistakes.
Not solely -- but largely, vastly, almost exclusively...Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckingFunt
Let's be generous and say that constitutes less than 5% (take out "accidental" fucking, whatever that is, and the number is closer to 1%). If you would concede that abortions should be illegal for the other 95% to 99%, I'm on board with having a serious discussion over the remaining women and their very legitimate dilemma.Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckingFunt
But, when doing so necessarily provides cover for the VAST majority of women who, in fact, are cavalier about sex and abortion, I think it is incumbent upon the abortion advocates to help figure out a solution and quit being so cavalier about hundreds of thousands of wasted lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckingFunt
This is totally abstract. In fact it denies me the very information I was asking for, the content of the theories. You are describing them in a completely non-descript way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Can you be more specific about the content of Gilligan and Kohlberg? You told us little apart from the bare fact of their opposition.
This is not what you said above. It is also a non-sequitur IMO.Quote:
In a very timely way, our president has spoken on this very issue at Notre Dame:
"That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
You suggested that abortion is a value-neutral medical procedure, that women are presumptively forced to it (rather than abortion being presumptively elective), and that men are not entitled to their opinion of it.
Is that right?
I kind of skimmed over this...Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckingFunt
So, you're saying it makes sense to kill a child in or order to mitigate the risk of potential injury?
Lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Sometimes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
This isn't brain science or rocket surgery...the consequences of my failure are negligible.
You are describing your ongoing failure. It is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
What's even more hilarious is that you brag about it.
Maybe you should check out the real world.I've talked to women who've had 3 or 4 abortions, I guess your experinces reflect alot about the communities your familiar with. As for a more sex education, it appears that the number of abortions go up the more we educate kids about sex so somethings not adding up.As for your reading list recommendations if the book your offering paints men in such simplistic and hatefilled views I'll get to it right after I polish off Mien Kampf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by hope4dopes
Where is the data for this?
Gilligan's book is a long, complex qualitative research study. There is no way to summarize it other than in broad strokes. If you are seriously interested in a moral exploration of the decision-making process - and in particular about the decision about whether to have an abortion - than you must read it. There is nothing comparable, before or since.Quote:
Originally Posted by hope4dopes
I have known literally thousands of women in my life time, and I am not exaggerating when I say at least 25% of them have had an abortion in their life time. Not one of them made the decision cavalierly or easily. And by the way, I know lots of other women who have gotten pregnant accidentally who wound up carrying to full term.
In one recent case, a friend who desperately wanted to have a baby became pregnant with twins, but discovered that the pregnancy was ectopic. She would have died if she had not aborted. This is not an uncommon scenario - ectopic pregnancies, that is. Would you suggest that the women should die rather than have a life-saving abortion?
As for your stats on rape and incest, they are naive at best. Statistics (dating back to the landmark study in I Never Called it Rape of college campuses, which has been replicated with the same results repeatedly) show that as many as 1 in 4 women have been victim of sexual assault. Not all of those will result in unwanted pregnancy, of course, but that's a far cry from the 1 or 5% you were suggesting.
The exceptions are infinite. Neither you nor I should have the right to judge a woman for her decisions about her own body. The only ethical thing to do is keep abortion safe and legal, and work to make it as rare as possible.