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 October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
On October 11 2016 11:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Somebody needs to train Trump in how to properly spread disinfo while maintaining your image as a non-agent because he's not very good at it
I can only imagine how his conversations about that go.
We are 30 days from the election and people are just starting to figure this shit out. Other folks have been pointing this out for months, but now that we are facing the double barrel of the pussy grabber, everyone is like "Man this Russia stuff is weird, right? Its weird."
I dunno, the "Trump has Russia ties" line has been consistently used by the Clinton camp for a while, including with the whole Manafort controversy.
Has there been any solid proof of the Russia ties?
Trump asked for ONE change in the RNC's official platform.
Just ONE change.
The ONE change Trump asked for, in the platform, was to remove the "hard" stance of protecting Ukraine.
His ties to Russia are fucking hilariously blatant.
America can't afford to protect other countries anymore.
I'm sure there is a ton of savings to be had from all the protection you're providing Ukraine.
On October 11 2016 12:51 LegalLord wrote: I could easily believe that it isn't the Russian government directly influencing him, but just that he feels he needs to fall in line with a more pro-Russian position because they complimented him well enough. He seems vain enough to fall into that kind of compliment trap.
Trump is a deep ignoramus on foreign affairs. He has an aversion to doing homework. But somehow at the debate he said "Syria is fighting ISIS, Russia is fighting ISIS, and Iran is fighting ISIS". Someone steeped in the Russian propaganda-sphere fed him that line because you won't find that line in Western Journalism. You can't turn on CNN and get that perspective. No rightwing foreign policy wonk would ever say that Iran is fighting ISIS.
And now we have the bizarre Eichenwald deal where someone is feeding Trump lines straight from the source.
The Russians don't say that either - at least not in such an un-nuanced way on news that are meant to be taken seriously rather than seen quite blatantly as government propaganda mouthpieces. It sounds more like he just logged onto RT and took some stories from there to fall in line with his perception of a pro-Russian narrative.
Here's the thing: I question the likelihood of direct Russian involvement, because it was very likely from the very start that Trump would lose. The odds are very much not in his favor from the start, and there is no way that the Russian govt would not know that and gamble on the off chance that they can make him win. But he is clearly vain enough to be a good useful idiot if they give some prodding (a compliment or two, maybe a token gesture of goodwill or something) and some ammunition (the DNC leaks are a good tool for discrediting Hillary), he will start to play for a foreign interest. From there, they can just "let Trump be Trump" and watch the consequences.
On October 11 2016 11:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Somebody needs to train Trump in how to properly spread disinfo while maintaining your image as a non-agent because he's not very good at it
I can only imagine how his conversations about that go.
We are 30 days from the election and people are just starting to figure this shit out. Other folks have been pointing this out for months, but now that we are facing the double barrel of the pussy grabber, everyone is like "Man this Russia stuff is weird, right? Its weird."
I dunno, the "Trump has Russia ties" line has been consistently used by the Clinton camp for a while, including with the whole Manafort controversy.
Has there been any solid proof of the Russia ties?
Trump asked for ONE change in the RNC's official platform.
Just ONE change.
The ONE change Trump asked for, in the platform, was to remove the "hard" stance of protecting Ukraine.
His ties to Russia are fucking hilariously blatant.
America can't afford to protect other countries anymore.
That's actually a pretty funny response, because the language in question was about providing and selling weapons to Ukraine-something Trump is normally all for pretty much anywhere else ("just make em pay us" is his mantra on defense after all). So this argument is nonsense as one might expect.
On October 11 2016 12:51 LegalLord wrote: I could easily believe that it isn't the Russian government directly influencing him, but just that he feels he needs to fall in line with a more pro-Russian position because they complimented him well enough. He seems vain enough to fall into that kind of compliment trap.
Trump is a deep ignoramus on foreign affairs. He has an aversion to doing homework. But somehow at the debate he said "Syria is fighting ISIS, Russia is fighting ISIS, and Iran is fighting ISIS". Someone steeped in the Russian propaganda-sphere fed him that line because you won't find that line in Western Journalism. You can't turn on CNN and get that perspective. No rightwing foreign policy wonk would ever say that Iran is fighting ISIS.
And now we have the bizarre Eichenwald deal where someone is feeding Trump lines straight from the source.
The Russians don't say that either - at least not in such an un-nuanced way on news that are meant to be taken seriously rather than seen quite blatantly as government propaganda mouthpieces. It sounds more like he just logged onto RT and took some stories from there to fall in line with his perception of a pro-Russian narrative.
Here's the thing: I question the likelihood of direct Russian involvement, because it was very likely from the very start that Trump would lose. The odds are very much not in his favor from the start, and there is no way that the Russian govt would not know that and gamble on the off chance that they can make him win. But he is clearly vain enough to be a good useful idiot if they give some prodding (a compliment or two, maybe a token gesture of goodwill or something) and some ammunition (the DNC leaks are a good tool for discrediting Hillary), he will start to play for a foreign interest. From there, they can just "let Trump be Trump" and watch the consequences.
My suspicion is that he has someone close to him who reads RT and Sputnik and thinks they are real. Or perhaps Trump has a Zerohedge reader on his staff. But it has to be someone close to him that isn't really on the staff but talks to Trump on a regular basis. I am thinking it is Jared Kushner or General Flynn. Trump rattling off straight RT propaganda during the debate of course puts very dark spin on the Manafort connection now.
EDIT:
And Trump is straight quoting fake emails from Sputnik now. Spoilered for large size. Now Trump could be eating up viral tweets of fake Podesta emails ... or he could be getting Sputnik reporting of fake Podesta emails like they are real. There is a 4 hour gap where he might have gotten either. Still repeating easily demonstrable lies.
On October 11 2016 12:51 LegalLord wrote: I could easily believe that it isn't the Russian government directly influencing him, but just that he feels he needs to fall in line with a more pro-Russian position because they complimented him well enough. He seems vain enough to fall into that kind of compliment trap.
Trump is a deep ignoramus on foreign affairs. He has an aversion to doing homework. But somehow at the debate he said "Syria is fighting ISIS, Russia is fighting ISIS, and Iran is fighting ISIS". Someone steeped in the Russian propaganda-sphere fed him that line because you won't find that line in Western Journalism. You can't turn on CNN and get that perspective. No rightwing foreign policy wonk would ever say that Iran is fighting ISIS.
And now we have the bizarre Eichenwald deal where someone is feeding Trump lines straight from the source.
The Russians don't say that either - at least not in such an un-nuanced way on news that are meant to be taken seriously rather than seen quite blatantly as government propaganda mouthpieces. It sounds more like he just logged onto RT and took some stories from there to fall in line with his perception of a pro-Russian narrative.
Here's the thing: I question the likelihood of direct Russian involvement, because it was very likely from the very start that Trump would lose. The odds are very much not in his favor from the start, and there is no way that the Russian govt would not know that and gamble on the off chance that they can make him win. But he is clearly vain enough to be a good useful idiot if they give some prodding (a compliment or two, maybe a token gesture of goodwill or something) and some ammunition (the DNC leaks are a good tool for discrediting Hillary), he will start to play for a foreign interest. From there, they can just "let Trump be Trump" and watch the consequences.
My suspicion is that he has someone close to him who reads RT and Sputnik and thinks they are real. Or perhaps Trump has a Zerohedge reader on his staff. But it has to be someone close to him that isn't really on the staff but talks to Trump on a regular basis. I am thinking it is Jared Kushner or General Flynn. Trump rattling off straight RT propaganda during the debate of course puts very dark spin on the Manafort connection now.
Flynn is anti-Russian as they come. Really, I just see it as very much in line with someone who posts this sort of thing on Twitter.
Could you see such a person taking a compliment from the president of a foreign country and feeling that he needs to give back by reading some obviously biased propaganda outlets? I sure could.
On October 11 2016 11:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Somebody needs to train Trump in how to properly spread disinfo while maintaining your image as a non-agent because he's not very good at it
I can only imagine how his conversations about that go.
We are 30 days from the election and people are just starting to figure this shit out. Other folks have been pointing this out for months, but now that we are facing the double barrel of the pussy grabber, everyone is like "Man this Russia stuff is weird, right? Its weird."
I dunno, the "Trump has Russia ties" line has been consistently used by the Clinton camp for a while, including with the whole Manafort controversy.
Has there been any solid proof of the Russia ties?
Trump asked for ONE change in the RNC's official platform.
Just ONE change.
The ONE change Trump asked for, in the platform, was to remove the "hard" stance of protecting Ukraine.
His ties to Russia are fucking hilariously blatant.
America can't afford to protect other countries anymore.
That's actually a pretty funny response, because the language in question was about providing and selling weapons to Ukraine-something Trump is normally all for pretty much anywhere else ("just make em pay us" is his mantra on defense after all). So this argument is nonsense as one might expect.
If you have to piss off b/w Russia and Ukraine, you better piss off Ukraine instead.
I don't trust Flynn on Russia. Not a bit. He got flown out and feted and offered a balanced perspective on USA and Moscow moving together against terrorists at the big RT gala. He is suspect number 1 or 2 for being the feeder within the Trump organization.**
** there is the possibility that Trump's willingness to say anything that he thinks might stick with no regard for veracity makes him especially vulnerable to the Russian bullshitstream. So he might actually suck it up on his own just because Trump is so credulous of anything that he thinks hurts HRC.
I don't trust Flynn in general. By all accounts he seems like a mentally unstable person who I want as far from the government as possible. But I really think Trump made himself into a RT-spouting buffoon, without any direct Russian involvement in the matter other than Putin saying a few kind words and perhaps being nice to him in some way or other.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
For clarification, when you say "at that conclusion", which conclusion are you referring to? My prolife stance? Or my overarching tenant that it's a persons right to have control over his fate (which I suppose for obvious reasons my I'm also very much in favor of euthanasia, from which I've gotten some amusing reactions when I say I'm pro life but also in favor of allowing people to take their own lives)
As far as the DNC decision, I'd say for obvious reasons I'm not in favor of the decision. As someone who is generally opposed to abortion, I certainly don't have any desire to see federal money go to abortions, especially with so many other high priority things we could be worrying about; whether that's infrastructure, working on the factors that lead to abortions in the first place, energy, etc.
On October 11 2016 14:09 plasmidghost wrote: Anyone familiar with the site ZeroHedge? I've heard mixed reviews of the place, with some saying it's Infowars for wannabe economists, and was wondering if it's a legitimate site for information
It is purestrain Trumpist/Putinist stuff. I have read it for years as a counterpoint to reading Krugman. Krugman describes reality, Zerohedge alt-reality. Krugman makes accurate assessment of reality. Zerohedge peddles in pro-Putin anti-American prattle about how the next crash is coming and everyone on Wall Street and the Democrats are in on it.
On October 11 2016 14:15 plasmidghost wrote: This has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in this election cycle, I mean I don't like Hillary either but this has to be the biggest stretch for criticism out there
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big nothing in terms of solidifying his position.
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it
You have a very low bar for circle jerks, I must say.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
For clarification, when you say "at that conclusion", which conclusion are you referring to? My prolife stance? Or my overarching tenant that it's a persons right to have control over his fate (which I suppose for obvious reasons my I'm also very much in favor of euthanasia, from which I've gotten some amusing reactions when I say I'm pro life but also in favor of allowing people to take their own lives)
As far as the DNC decision, I'd say for obvious reasons I'm not in favor of the decision. As someone who is generally opposed to abortion, I certainly don't have any desire to see federal money go to abortions, especially with so many other high priority things we could be worrying about; whether that's infrastructure, working on the factors that lead to abortions in the first place, energy, etc.
More what swayed you to the philosophical argument as you outlined. It's in the kinda Libertarian mode of certain fundamental rights that the state or others have no sway on. In today's debates, you run into biological absolutists of both position #1 and position #2 fetal viability (though medical science keeps winding that date back, so it's generally put unassisted viability). So is this undergraduate philosophy or social group debates or what.
On October 11 2016 14:09 plasmidghost wrote: Anyone familiar with the site ZeroHedge? I've heard mixed reviews of the place, with some saying it's Infowars for wannabe economists, and was wondering if it's a legitimate site for information
I'd recommend against it. I have seen the occasional good article from there but it's generally a weird "new world order" site.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big nothing in terms of solidifying his position.
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it
You have a very low bar for circle jerks, I must say.
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
For clarification, when you say "at that conclusion", which conclusion are you referring to? My prolife stance? Or my overarching tenant that it's a persons right to have control over his fate (which I suppose for obvious reasons my I'm also very much in favor of euthanasia, from which I've gotten some amusing reactions when I say I'm pro life but also in favor of allowing people to take their own lives)
As far as the DNC decision, I'd say for obvious reasons I'm not in favor of the decision. As someone who is generally opposed to abortion, I certainly don't have any desire to see federal money go to abortions, especially with so many other high priority things we could be worrying about; whether that's infrastructure, working on the factors that lead to abortions in the first place, energy, etc.
More what swayed you to the philosophical argument as you outlined. It's in the kinda Libertarian mode of certain fundamental rights that the state or others have no sway on. In today's debates, you run into biological absolutists of both position #1 and position #2 fetal viability (though medical science keeps winding that date back, so it's generally put unassisted viability). So is this undergraduate philosophy or social group debates or what.
I didnt say you got there yet.. hence the use of the word attempt. Admittedly I was just basing this of potential and history.
On October 11 2016 11:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Somebody needs to train Trump in how to properly spread disinfo while maintaining your image as a non-agent because he's not very good at it
I can only imagine how his conversations about that go.
We are 30 days from the election and people are just starting to figure this shit out. Other folks have been pointing this out for months, but now that we are facing the double barrel of the pussy grabber, everyone is like "Man this Russia stuff is weird, right? Its weird."
I dunno, the "Trump has Russia ties" line has been consistently used by the Clinton camp for a while, including with the whole Manafort controversy.
Has there been any solid proof of the Russia ties?
Trump asked for ONE change in the RNC's official platform.
Just ONE change.
The ONE change Trump asked for, in the platform, was to remove the "hard" stance of protecting Ukraine.
His ties to Russia are fucking hilariously blatant.
America can't afford to protect other countries anymore.
That's actually a pretty funny response, because the language in question was about providing and selling weapons to Ukraine-something Trump is normally all for pretty much anywhere else ("just make em pay us" is his mantra on defense after all). So this argument is nonsense as one might expect.
If you have to piss off b/w Russia and Ukraine, you better piss off Ukraine instead.
Pissing off Russia doesn't do the world any good.
I mean if you approach foreign policy from the perspective of "anything we do that makes Russia unhappy we shouldn't do" I guess that's true? But I don't see how anyone can equate "good for Russia = good for world" so casually. Especially when they're taking such an economic beating on oil-that's probably pissed them off more than anything, maybe we should fix that.
On a lighter note, 30K crowd for Clinton in Ohio (18K in stadium, 13.5K outside it).
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Putin-at-RT-10th-2-300x185.jpg)
