In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote: Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.
The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?
Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.
We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.
I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.
Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS.
However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition.
But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law.
Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story.
Yes but the issue is that one side thinks that killing a potential life is worse then controlling women and the other side thinking that controlling women is worse then the killing of a potential life.
But the point is being pro-life involves "Controlling womens bodies", so its not just spin. Now it might not fit both definitions of 'control' (a: forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to. b: subjugating her because you want to keep her down as the lesser of the sexes), but it certainly fits definition A. You can make the case that definition B is overblown by a lot of pro-choice people and I'd agree with that generally speaking, but not all the time.
Personally I fall on the only defensible position IMO, especially as a man. If I were to knock a woman up I'd never ask her to get an abortion, I'd never beg her to keep it if she didn't want to. While I'd never have use for an abortion clinic personally I don't see why I need to force that on anyone else, I have people close to me that have aborted, and it was the right choice for them. So while personally I'd fall in the "pro-life" for me camp I'm militantly pro-choice. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. But full disclosure I never want any hell spawn anyway
President Barack Obama commemorated the 10-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina on Thursday in New Orleans with a speech that made special mention of building resilience against climate change, despite earlier criticism by the state’s conservative governor for his planned remarks.
"We are going to see more extreme weather events as a result of climate change — deeper droughts, deadlier wildfires, stronger storms," Obama said, adding that the government has been preparing for the change by investing in stronger levies, as well as restoring wetlands and other natural systems that are critical for storm protection.
Hurricane Katrina, which struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, 2005, unleashed floods that killed nearly 2,000 people, left thousands of others homeless and caused an estimated $250 billion in damage. It was the costliest and most damaging storm in U.S. history.
Prior to Obama’s speech, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate who has expressed doubt about man-made climate change, told the president in a letter to reconsider his message.
The anniversary, Jindal wrote, is a time to mourn the dead, not bring up a topic that’s part of the “divisive political agenda of liberal environmental activism.”
“A lecture on climate change would do nothing to improve upon what we are already doing,” Jindal said in the letter.
As the earth’s temperature rises, warmer weather adds energy to storms, increasing their severity. At the same time, rising sea levels make storm surges more destructive. This combination increases the likelihood of events like Hurricane Katrina for locations across the globe. In his speech on Thursday, Obama said U.S. cities ought to be prepared.
The city of New Orleans released its resilience strategy earlier this week, part of a joint effort with 100 cities to increase urban resilience to a changing climate, a press release by New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said. Among the 41 proposed actions were retrofitting infrastructure and improving storm-water management.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) says it has spent $1.4 billion since 2009 in Louisiana and Mississippi for nearly 700 mitigation projects, including elevating homes and critical infrastructure, retrofitting government and residential structures and improving drainage.
The Obama administration hopes these types of climate projects could lessen the impact of future storms. “There’s no denying what scientists tell us, which is that there’s reason to be concerned about these storms getting worse and more violent,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday.
ok ok i went back and checked to see whether the post i read on 'respect of women' is misrepresenting the context, and it really isn't. the post i read is from this whatsthesheep guy talking about bill clinton's respect of women, which reflects a common way some people would mock feminist talking points.
seems like my take on the issue is the most substantial and helps to focus the debate away from drivel. but really i only responded in the way i did because it was ghostcom. good luck with that one.
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote: Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.
The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?
Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.
We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.
I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.
Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS.
However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition.
But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law.
Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story.
Yes but the issue is that one side thinks that killing a potential life is worse then controlling women and the other side thinking that controlling women is worse then the killing of a potential life.
But the point is being pro-life involves "Controlling womens bodies", so its not just spin. Now it might not fit both definitions of 'control' (a: forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to. b: subjugating her because you want to keep her down as the lesser of the sexes), but it certainly fits definition A. You can make the case that definition B is overblown by a lot of pro-choice people and I'd agree with that generally speaking, but not all the time.
Personally I fall on the only defensible position IMO, especially as a man. If I were to knock a woman up I'd never ask her to get an abortion, I'd never beg her to keep it if she didn't want to. While I'd never have use for an abortion clinic personally I don't see why I need to force that on anyone else, I have people close to me that have aborted, and it was the right choice for them. So while personally I'd fall in the "pro-life" for me camp I'm militantly pro-choice. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. But full disclosure I never want any hell spawn anyway
This attitude feels like the exact opposite extreme.
There's a stark difference between "forcing" someone to do something and being heavily involved in a decision that effects your relationship.
On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote: Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal.
The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?
Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.
We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.
I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.
Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS.
However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition.
But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law.
Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story.
Yes but the issue is that one side thinks that killing a potential life is worse then controlling women and the other side thinking that controlling women is worse then the killing of a potential life.
But the point is being pro-life involves "Controlling womens bodies", so its not just spin. Now it might not fit both definitions of 'control' (a: forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to. b: subjugating her because you want to keep her down as the lesser of the sexes), but it certainly fits definition A. You can make the case that definition B is overblown by a lot of pro-choice people and I'd agree with that generally speaking, but not all the time.
Personally I fall on the only defensible position IMO, especially as a man. If I were to knock a woman up I'd never ask her to get an abortion, I'd never beg her to keep it if she didn't want to. While I'd never have use for an abortion clinic personally I don't see why I need to force that on anyone else, I have people close to me that have aborted, and it was the right choice for them. So while personally I'd fall in the "pro-life" for me camp I'm militantly pro-choice. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. But full disclosure I never want any hell spawn anyway
This attitude feels like the exact opposite extreme.
There's a stark difference between "forcing" someone to do something and being heavily involved in a decision that effects your relationship.
At the end of the day my desires don't really matter since I'm not the one carrying the kid. What she chooses is what she chooses. So whether you want to think of it as a 49/51% decision with her getting the deciding vote or 1/99% doesn't really matter. If its a split decision its in her favor, end of discussion. I can give her my feelings for what its worth, but she can completely ignore them, as is her right. But if I do have a kid its going to be a total fucking accident anyway.
I can give my input if she wants it, she can take it or leave it. Its a matter of freedom. Just because I'd never opt to have an abortion doesn't mean the freedom to make the choice shouldn't exist. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. Don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. Don't want to smoke pot, don't smoke it. A lot of people think that just because they don't want something that means no one else should be able to. I don't like sticking my nose in other people's business when it doesn't concern me. By the same token I don't want other people sticking their nose in my shit when its none of their business. Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know.
On August 28 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote: the respect women thing is really a rhetorical/emotional appeal to women voters who feel a certain way about some issues. not much substance behind it. when women see discussions about abortion etc that sideline the impact on their lives, it's reasonable to see the prolife crowd as disrespectful. does it matter to proponents of women's rights that, a medieval chauvinistic knight 'respects' women, or a feudal emperor respects his favorite pet. no, and they are also not interested in a discussion of what constitutes respect etc.
so taking issue with this marketing slogan/slant of the issue is silly and only serves to vent some sort of disdain against the silly women and so on.
the real issue is whether women's autonomy and rights is considered and respected.
It's not the real issue, although it appears to be. Since the Greeks have placed reason above instincts in the Western mind, so do rights, a product of the Age of Reason, appear to be superior to the instincts we are given by nature for our prosperity and flourishing, but a realistic assessment of life and soul quickly reveals the error of that prejudice. Rights can never be more than a tertiary good, and when we mistake them for the primary good we skew our judgements to those paradoxical movements of life which necessitate their contradiction; for duty, responsibility and self-renunciation are no less necessary to human flourishing, to human happiness, than is autonomy. Indeed, an autonomy uninformed by the natural impulse to bind and restrict it is no autonomy at all. A man sailing in the middle of an infinite ocean has no more freedom than a man in a straitjacket.
The delusion of intellectual neatness we impose on ourselves by pretending to the supremacy of one ideal corrupts the richer understanding we can have of the world by noting the perfection we can find in its fallen nature. In short: no, the world would not be a better place if only everyone conformed more closely to our generational clichés. I would in a moment take the interested respect of the pompous troubadour over the respect of a oneofthem.
"Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner, hit the 40 percent marker in a recent Gravis Marketing poll. According to a report, this is the first time a candidate has reached above the 30 percent mark."
Donald Trump is well on his way to winning the Republican primary and the general election. The way it's going, it will be a landslide win for Trump in both elections just how it was when the Republicans smashed the Democrats to take the majority back in the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2014.
On August 28 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote: the respect women thing is really a rhetorical/emotional appeal to women voters who feel a certain way about some issues. not much substance behind it. when women see discussions about abortion etc that sideline the impact on their lives, it's reasonable to see the prolife crowd as disrespectful. does it matter to proponents of women's rights that, a medieval chauvinistic knight 'respects' women, or a feudal emperor respects his favorite pet. no, and they are also not interested in a discussion of what constitutes respect etc.
so taking issue with this marketing slogan/slant of the issue is silly and only serves to vent some sort of disdain against the silly women and so on.
the real issue is whether women's autonomy and rights is considered and respected.
It's not the real issue, although it appears to be. Since the Greeks have placed reason above instincts in the Western mind, so do rights, a product of the Age of Reason, appear to be superior to the instincts we are given by nature for our prosperity and flourishing, but a realistic assessment of life and soul quickly reveals the error of that prejudice. Rights can never be more than a tertiary good, and when we mistake them for the primary good we skew our judgements to those paradoxical movements of life which necessitate their contradiction; for duty, responsibility and self-renunciation are no less necessary to human flourishing, to human happiness, than is autonomy. Indeed, an autonomy uninformed by the natural impulse to bind and restrict it is no autonomy at all. A man sailing in the middle of an infinite ocean has no more freedom than a man in a straitjacket.
The delusion of intellectual neatness we impose on ourselves by pretending to the supremacy of one ideal corrupts the richer understanding we can have of the world by noting the perfection we can find in its fallen nature. In short: no, the world would not be a better place if only everyone conformed more closely to our generational clichés. I would in a moment take the interested respect of the pompous troubadour over the respect of a oneofthem.
it's not intellectual so much as it is caring for how others live. in this case women.
On August 28 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote: the respect women thing is really a rhetorical/emotional appeal to women voters who feel a certain way about some issues. not much substance behind it. when women see discussions about abortion etc that sideline the impact on their lives, it's reasonable to see the prolife crowd as disrespectful. does it matter to proponents of women's rights that, a medieval chauvinistic knight 'respects' women, or a feudal emperor respects his favorite pet. no, and they are also not interested in a discussion of what constitutes respect etc.
so taking issue with this marketing slogan/slant of the issue is silly and only serves to vent some sort of disdain against the silly women and so on.
the real issue is whether women's autonomy and rights is considered and respected.
It's not the real issue, although it appears to be. Since the Greeks have placed reason above instincts in the Western mind, so do rights, a product of the Age of Reason, appear to be superior to the instincts we are given by nature for our prosperity and flourishing, but a realistic assessment of life and soul quickly reveals the error of that prejudice. Rights can never be more than a tertiary good, and when we mistake them for the primary good we skew our judgements to those paradoxical movements of life which necessitate their contradiction; for duty, responsibility and self-renunciation are no less necessary to human flourishing, to human happiness, than is autonomy. Indeed, an autonomy uninformed by the natural impulse to bind and restrict it is no autonomy at all. A man sailing in the middle of an infinite ocean has no more freedom than a man in a straitjacket.
The delusion of intellectual neatness we impose on ourselves by pretending to the supremacy of one ideal corrupts the richer understanding we can have of the world by noting the perfection we can find in its fallen nature. In short: no, the world would not be a better place if only everyone conformed more closely to our generational clichés. I would in a moment take the interested respect of the pompous troubadour over the respect of a oneofthem.
Serious question. Can you unpack this for me? It is so dense and, feels like another language.
On August 28 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote: the respect women thing is really a rhetorical/emotional appeal to women voters who feel a certain way about some issues. not much substance behind it. when women see discussions about abortion etc that sideline the impact on their lives, it's reasonable to see the prolife crowd as disrespectful. does it matter to proponents of women's rights that, a medieval chauvinistic knight 'respects' women, or a feudal emperor respects his favorite pet. no, and they are also not interested in a discussion of what constitutes respect etc.
so taking issue with this marketing slogan/slant of the issue is silly and only serves to vent some sort of disdain against the silly women and so on.
the real issue is whether women's autonomy and rights is considered and respected.
It's not the real issue, although it appears to be. Since the Greeks have placed reason above instincts in the Western mind, so do rights, a product of the Age of Reason, appear to be superior to the instincts we are given by nature for our prosperity and flourishing, but a realistic assessment of life and soul quickly reveals the error of that prejudice. Rights can never be more than a tertiary good, and when we mistake them for the primary good we skew our judgements to those paradoxical movements of life which necessitate their contradiction; for duty, responsibility and self-renunciation are no less necessary to human flourishing, to human happiness, than is autonomy. Indeed, an autonomy uninformed by the natural impulse to bind and restrict it is no autonomy at all. A man sailing in the middle of an infinite ocean has no more freedom than a man in a straitjacket.
The delusion of intellectual neatness we impose on ourselves by pretending to the supremacy of one ideal corrupts the richer understanding we can have of the world by noting the perfection we can find in its fallen nature. In short: no, the world would not be a better place if only everyone conformed more closely to our generational clichés. I would in a moment take the interested respect of the pompous troubadour over the respect of a oneofthem.
it's not intellectual so much as it is caring for how others live. in this case women.
very basic and human concerns.
It's much more intellectual, and much less "caring" than you confess it to be in the context of the present discussion, because unless everyone in the world has just suddenly discovered empathy towards women, the subject of this discussion is not, properly speaking, how to "care" more.
Serious question. Can you unpack this for me? It is so dense and, feels like another language.
I try not to write too much, and sometimes what seems obvious to me is lost in translation. All I can say is a lot of the mental foundation for that line of thinking can be found in Simone Weil's classic diatribe against the notion of rights in her essay La personne et la sacré. (Human Personality), which can be found here:
P.S. Anyone who reads between the lines will see clearly that I am not offering merely a critical opinion of some adjacent concept. I write because I cannot but see the "sovereignty-of-self as fundamental right" argument as a half-truth at best.
this is getitng silly. you realize using the language of rights by convenience or popularity etc does not mean the issue is exclusively analyzable in terms of sovereign rights. pure sophistry
I want to know what polls Donald trump is looking at. although he could be talking about just the republican primary. I'd guess he's not leading in that either. and he certainly doesn't have tremendous support.
as for the philosphy debate feel free to have whatever moral debates you want but just know that your moral philosophy is not an objective fact.
Washington (CNN)Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Thursday that his plans to improve the economy for black Americans is why he is leading in the polls with black voters, though at least one recent poll disputes Trump's claim.
"I lead with almost every group, including with the African-American groups," Trump told reporters at an event in Greenville, South Carolina. "I have tremendous support."
Quinnipiac University released a national poll Thursday showing that while Trump is leading the Republican Party nationally, he is polling poorly with black Americans in the general election.
The poll found:
When asked "Would you say that Donald Trump cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?" 92% of black people said no. 52% of black people said Trump does not have strong leadership qualities. 73% of black people said Trump is not strong or trustworthy. 79% of black people said they have an unfavorable view of Trump. When asked "If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?" 3% percent said they'd vote for Trump.
On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote: [quote] The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights?
Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder.
We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society.
I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless.
Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS.
However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition.
But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law.
Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story.
Yes but the issue is that one side thinks that killing a potential life is worse then controlling women and the other side thinking that controlling women is worse then the killing of a potential life.
But the point is being pro-life involves "Controlling womens bodies", so its not just spin. Now it might not fit both definitions of 'control' (a: forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to. b: subjugating her because you want to keep her down as the lesser of the sexes), but it certainly fits definition A. You can make the case that definition B is overblown by a lot of pro-choice people and I'd agree with that generally speaking, but not all the time.
Personally I fall on the only defensible position IMO, especially as a man. If I were to knock a woman up I'd never ask her to get an abortion, I'd never beg her to keep it if she didn't want to. While I'd never have use for an abortion clinic personally I don't see why I need to force that on anyone else, I have people close to me that have aborted, and it was the right choice for them. So while personally I'd fall in the "pro-life" for me camp I'm militantly pro-choice. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. But full disclosure I never want any hell spawn anyway
This attitude feels like the exact opposite extreme.
There's a stark difference between "forcing" someone to do something and being heavily involved in a decision that effects your relationship.
At the end of the day my desires don't really matter since I'm not the one carrying the kid. What she chooses is what she chooses. So whether you want to think of it as a 49/51% decision with her getting the deciding vote or 1/99% doesn't really matter. If its a split decision its in her favor, end of discussion. I can give her my feelings for what its worth, but she can completely ignore them, as is her right. But if I do have a kid its going to be a total fucking accident anyway.
I can give my input if she wants it, she can take it or leave it. Its a matter of freedom. Just because I'd never opt to have an abortion doesn't mean the freedom to make the choice shouldn't exist. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. Don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. Don't want to smoke pot, don't smoke it. A lot of people think that just because they don't want something that means no one else should be able to. I don't like sticking my nose in other people's business when it doesn't concern me. By the same token I don't want other people sticking their nose in my shit when its none of their business. Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know.
...other people's business...?
I mean, if you're in a committed relationship with a woman and she gets pregnant, then it is your business. At the end of the day the decision is going to be hers, but the whole point of being in a relationship is the mutual understanding that things such as this are going to be shared in one form or another.
There are couples that will break up because one doesn't want a child and one does. There are also women that would probably consider you callous if your response to "I'm pregnant" is "that's nice dear, do what you want with it".
Can't imagine many relationships where a man could come home and say "I had a vasectomy" out of the blue either.
I have a question. Why aren't we seeing white people riot after a black guy killed two white reporters? What would have happened if a white guy shot two black reporters? Just interested in how Americans feel about this
There's lots of murders in the US, and quite a few interracial murders. Most simply don't become a major issue. Riots/protests aren't that common. The level of emphasis on black issues right now is much higher than average. Also, I think there's a lot less to protest on in straightforward cases like this one. Most protest cases involve either questionable action by police, or situations where guilt is unclear.
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse.
IIRC the right to life is the first right (this is sarcasm by the way because I'm tired of seeing this retread non-sense). You can't have rights in death. Life is the antecedent to all others. Philosophy and the legal system recognize this fact, but 'pro-choice' people are oblivious.
On August 28 2015 17:46 SoSexy wrote: I have a question. Why aren't we seeing white people riot after a black guy killed two white reporters? What would have happened if a white guy shot two black reporters? Just interested in how Americans feel about this
It depends on the region where the murders happen and who is murdered. The riots you recently saw in Ferguson were not just because of the shooting, but because of over a decade of racial issues within that area. It was so bad that they pulled the judge and the one that replaced him recalled all arrest warrants before he was appointed.
So shootings spark off riots, but their cause is normally deep rooted in the relationship between the local government and the community.
On August 28 2015 17:46 SoSexy wrote: I have a question. Why aren't we seeing white people riot after a black guy killed two white reporters? What would have happened if a white guy shot two black reporters? Just interested in how Americans feel about this
There needs to be a continuous, nationwide conversation regarding institutionalized racism, and changes need to be made; when that doesn't happen, riots can occur. There needs to be a continuous, nationwide conversation regarding poverty and inequity, and changes need to be made; when that doesn't happen, riots can occur. There needs to be a continuous, nationwide conversation regarding gun safety/ education/ control, and changes need to be made; when that doesn't happen, riots can occur.
On August 28 2015 15:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I want to know what polls Donald trump is looking at. although he could be talking about just the republican primary. I'd guess he's not leading in that either. and he certainly doesn't have tremendous support.
as for the philosphy debate feel free to have whatever moral debates you want but just know that your moral philosophy is not an objective fact.
Washington (CNN)Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Thursday that his plans to improve the economy for black Americans is why he is leading in the polls with black voters, though at least one recent poll disputes Trump's claim.
"I lead with almost every group, including with the African-American groups," Trump told reporters at an event in Greenville, South Carolina. "I have tremendous support."
Quinnipiac University released a national poll Thursday showing that while Trump is leading the Republican Party nationally, he is polling poorly with black Americans in the general election.
The poll found:
When asked "Would you say that Donald Trump cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?" 92% of black people said no. 52% of black people said Trump does not have strong leadership qualities. 73% of black people said Trump is not strong or trustworthy. 79% of black people said they have an unfavorable view of Trump. When asked "If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?" 3% percent said they'd vote for Trump.
Technically, Trump could be polling very low with blacks but still be polling better than others are polling with blacks. (Other candidates might just be polling even lower!)
That being said, Trump is probably just full of shit and/ or selecting one non-representative half-assed poll.
EPT
