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 12 2016 00:31 LegalLord wrote: Someone really should keep Trump on a Twitter-free leash.
Conway was doing so for a while I think-that three-week stretch where the polls narrowed. But I think Bannon has completely taken her place in the Trump Tower castle and Bannon wants Trump to be Trump.
On October 12 2016 00:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: Wow, Trump tweeted that Democrats are more loyal than Republicans (after a standard jab about Bernie rigging). Trying to build those bipartisan bridges early, I guess.
You don't get the idea here. By guilt of association the Dems are now connected to Trump, thus he is scaring away neutral voters from the Dems.
Like imagine an election being a tug war, with the undecided voters being the rope. This is how it would be in a normal election: T/H are Trump/Hillary, </> is the direction they are trying to move, - is the rope. <H ----- T> He just noticed he wasn't pulling, but pushing all the time. So we had: <H ----- <T It took some time, but he figured out that winning this way will be difficult. First he was told to pull by his advisors, but somehow this never worked out, he somehow still always pushed. So now they found the ultimate strategy. He simply changes sides! So what we have now is: T><H ----- I admit, this is a very unsual tug war setup. But it clearly shows the brilliance of the Trump campaign, their ability in analysing their own weakness and turning them into strength and their unconventional approaches which will revolutionize politics, which was stuck in the ever same way of thinking for decades or even centuries. A mastermind!
On October 12 2016 00:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: Wow, Trump tweeted that Democrats are more loyal than Republicans (after a standard jab about Bernie rigging). Trying to build those bipartisan bridges early, I guess.
You don't get the idea here. By guilt of association the Dems are now connected to Trump, thus he is scaring away neutral voters from the Dems.
Like imagine an election being a tug war, with the undecided voters being the rope. This is how it would be in a normal election: T/H are Trump/Hillary, </> is the direction they are trying to move, - is the rope. <H ----- T> He just noticed he wasn't pulling, but pushing all the time. So we had: <H ----- <T It took some time, but he figured out that winning this way will be difficult. First he was told to pull by his advisors, but somehow this never worked out, he somehow still always pushed. So now they found the ultimate strategy. He simply changes sides! So what we have now is: T><H ----- I admit, this is a very unsual tug war setup. But it clearly shows the brilliance of the Trump campaign, their ability in analysing their own weakness and turning them into strength and their unconventional approaches which will revolutionize politics, which was stuck in the ever same way of thinking for decades or even centuries. A mastermind!
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.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I didnt say you said you had no position. I said your position is a "nothing" position because it doesnt make any sense..
On October 11 2016 22:14 Mercy13 wrote:
On October 11 2016 14:52 L_Master wrote:
On October 11 2016 14:42 Rebs wrote:
On October 11 2016 14:38 Falling wrote:
On October 11 2016 14:10 Rebs wrote:
On October 11 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote:
On October 11 2016 11:11 L_Master wrote:
On October 11 2016 10:33 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I'm a bit confused how you can say that "the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible," but then come down unequivocally in the anti-abortion camp. The principal you stated should also apply to pregnant women wanting to "control their own fate," and allow them to decide what to do with a pregnancy.
Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a person's body, and giving birth has a not-insignificant mortality rate. I don't understand why you don't have qualms about forcing someone to go through that against their wishes.
Would you also force a person go through a medical procedure, say a kidney donation (also potentially life threatening, also causes permanent changes to a person's body) to save a child after it is born? If not, how is that different from forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
All that being said, I think a reasonable ending point is to allow abortion up until the point a fetus is viable outside of the womb, subject to reasonable exceptions.
Also for some context, here is the account of a woman who decided to get a late term abortion after it turned out that her fetus had a disorder which would cause it die soon after being born. The whole process seems like an unjust nightmare:
What happened at 31 weeks?
We went back to get a growth scan, and we saw the growth had fallen off a cliff. And this was the first time that we had been presented with this idea that there was something deeply wrong with the baby that had nothing to do with me. Until that point, all the really bad news had been with me, and my weird body. He had been thriving despite the environment.
But on this scan, he’d gone from the 37th percentile to the 8th. And he wasn’t swallowing.
...
That’s when he realized that from a medical standpoint, the situation was bad, and terminal. He didn’t realize initially what that meant in terms of our options—that the laws in New York meant we couldn’t do anything in the state... This baby was unviable, basically. That’s what they say. They say that the baby is “incompatible with life.”
...
To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.
...
There are a few doctors in the country—four of them, you interviewed one of them—who will do this. But my doctor had previously referred patients to Dr. Hern, who’s in Boulder. He’s this 78-year-old man who’s been doing this for decades, who developed a lot of the abortion procedures that we know to be the most safe. He’s had 37,000 patients and he’s never lost anyone. And he’s a zealot, but he has to be. There are websites dedicated to offering money to kill him; his practice has four layers of bulletproof glass. They’ve been shot at. He was there during the Roe v. Wade decision. He’s been through it all. And the only other peer he had at his level was Dr. Tiller, who was killed in 2009.
...
I have really good insurance right now, so I do have the hope they’ll reimburse for something. Because here’s one thing you should know. If you get the entire procedure done at the clinic at this late date, it’s $25,000. Cash... So between the insurance and the good staff salaries, the money’s gone. $25,000 sounds like a lot for a procedure, but these procedures are rare; it’s not like he’s doing a lot of these. They are not profiting. Right now, they’re in desperate need of a new roof. That’s the kind of situation Dr. Hern is working with.
Thats why I said he had a nothing position. Because everyone will agree on the idea that you have the right to control your own destiny (which for a newborn is a debatable thing anyway. He never clarified on when he believes something is human but still anti abortion.
On October 11 2016 14:38 Falling wrote:
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
I didnt say you got there yet.. hence the use of the word attempt. Admittedly I was just basing this of potential and history.
Seems a lot of people have taken this mentality of late and it quite frankly sucks. It sucks because it blocks your ears from hearing any exception to a perceived rule and even if someone were to change their tune on a particular topic, it'll likely be missed because of 'history'.
While I would be inclined to agree with you, its observable enough at this point to be scientific fact at this point. You know observable phenomenon, hypothesis testing all that good stuff. + Show Spoiler +
question how genuine the curiosity was because the position itself makes no sense and Danglars is not stupid.
As I have repeatedly said already, its ok that your not sure, or if even if you believe abortion is wrong period outside of any religious reasoning. Thats your prerogative. But you cant say to a thinking person that "I am against Y because of reason X but then go on to say "not sure if X applies though" so lets talk about that. But I am still against Y.
I don't understand why you keep saying this. I've said multiple times where I believe "humanness" begins. It's like you're trying to troll me or something, Ive stated it...and you keep saying I haven't.
I am confused. Or put another way, where have I said "not sure if X applies"
Sorry. then perhaps there is just some miscommunication there. With respect to X I mean this.
On October 12 2016 00:13 L_Master wrote:
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.
Thats not a clear position on humanness, If you clarified that and I missed it. I apologize. But you havent quite clarified it even now. It seemed more like inconclusive philosophical musing.
And now we watch the final stage of the story, where Bannon tries to destroy the GOP as best he can so he can soak up all the remaining supporters in some sort of xenophobic, populist party. I can’t say I am thrilled, since they have zero respect for government, the rule of law, civil rights or democracy as a whole.
But maybe Republicans will find footing and gain a spine. But that requires them standing with the Democrats.
Its like the_donald has seized control of the campaign.
That's gonna backfire. The scroll of Pythia clearly said that a dying (liberal) (female) leader will lead us to salvation.. #lauraroslin #battlestargalactica
I must admit I took great pleasure in watching Trump lie out the ass in the Republican primaries, while seeing that the other candidates were fully incapable of calling him out on those lies because it was their party's lies that he was using against them.
They still promise to overturn Roe v Wade, which will never happen. And if it did, the civil unrest created by it being overturned would be ground breaking.
But they promise it because they know it gets votes. Leadership is hard, pandering is easy.
Ha. 12 point loss either way sucks. Thing is, I'm not sure anything can make the 12 point loss from withdrawing support any worse-but there's ample possibility for the 12 point loss from staying with him worsen.
On October 12 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote: And now we watch the final stage of the story, where Bannon tries to destroy the GOP as best he can so he can soak up all the remaining supporters in some sort of xenophobic, populist party. I can’t say I am thrilled, since they have zero respect for government, the rule of law, civil rights or democracy as a whole.
But maybe Republicans will find footing and gain a spine. But that requires them standing with the Democrats.
Sounds like the perfect situation to me. Bannon destroys the GOP. The nutters go to whatever Breitbart party he creates and the sane Republicans go back to doing their job. And the FPTP system helps to keep the nutters forever out of power.
On October 12 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote: And now we watch the final stage of the story, where Bannon tries to destroy the GOP as best he can so he can soak up all the remaining supporters in some sort of xenophobic, populist party. I can’t say I am thrilled, since they have zero respect for government, the rule of law, civil rights or democracy as a whole.
But maybe Republicans will find footing and gain a spine. But that requires them standing with the Democrats.
Sounds like the perfect situation to me. Bannon destroys the GOP. The nutters go to whatever Breitbart party he creates and the sane Republicans go back to doing their job. And the FPTP system helps to keep the nutters forever out of power.
What more could you want?
Enough votes to win anything? The GOP has been relying on uneducated rural dumbfucks for a long time. They need the bigoted christians in order to win anything. That was the entire basis for the southern strategy.
EDIT: Oh wait, you mean what else could the democrats want. lol, nothing! This is perfect.
On October 12 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote: And now we watch the final stage of the story, where Bannon tries to destroy the GOP as best he can so he can soak up all the remaining supporters in some sort of xenophobic, populist party. I can’t say I am thrilled, since they have zero respect for government, the rule of law, civil rights or democracy as a whole.
But maybe Republicans will find footing and gain a spine. But that requires them standing with the Democrats.
Sounds like the perfect situation to me. Bannon destroys the GOP. The nutters go to whatever Breitbart party he creates and the sane Republicans go back to doing their job. And the FPTP system helps to keep the nutters forever out of power.
What more could you want?
Enough votes to win anything? The GOP has been relying on uneducated rural dumbfucks for a long time. They need the bigoted christians in order to win anything. That was the entire basis for the southern strategy.
EDIT: Oh wait, you mean what else could the democrats want. lol, nothing! This is perfect.
The country would benefit from having 2 functioning parties. That requires the Republicans to find their way again and shed the nutty flock. It will take a while to rebuild if they do but its the only way with a future.
There is plenty of people to pick up who don't like the Democrats but cannot stand for the mad things the Republicans represent right now.
I am not excited about an offshoot party that is powered by pure xenophobia and conspiracy theories having any place level of popularity in the US goverment system. That is a scary thing to have on your doorstep, one charismatic leader away from power.
Of course, they will likely implode. But until then the discourse in this country will be garbage
EPT
