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 21 2016 03:19 a_flayer wrote: Has the US drone program been mentioned at all in this race? Or has that issue been resolved already by Obama in the public's eye?
There isn't much to argue there. Trump wants to enact a reign of terror across the Middle East, targeting civilians, leaving the Geneva Convention and killing anyone who stands in his way. Hillary didn't bother explaining how much brutality she wants, she just positioned herself as more moderate than that and let people fill in their own blanks. Saves her from criticism by spelling out exactly where the line is.
On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote: large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item.
heeeeey welcome back, friend
@zlefin
yes i want more details
you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like?
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers' symbolic universe.
To play devil's advocate especially on your last point about "sin against life itself," some conservative states already punish miscarriages for murder. So its not like some groups are against the idea that all fetus deaths are punishable.
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
And again on twitter:
You don't even have to hack her emails when she gives away top secret information for free.
On October 21 2016 03:19 a_flayer wrote: Has the US drone program been mentioned at all in this race? Or has that issue been resolved already by Obama in the public's eye?
There isn't much to argue there. Trump wants to enact a reign of terror across the Middle East, targeting civilians, leaving the Geneva Convention and killing anyone who stands in his way. Hillary didn't bother explaining how much brutality she wants, she just positioned herself as more moderate than that and let people fill in their own blanks. Saves her from criticism by spelling out exactly where the line is.
Its a hot potato that both GOP and DEMS are in agreement with.
If you're against Drones, then you'll be labelled as wanting to kill american lives. If you're for drones, then you'll be labelled a warmonger.
Neither side is palatable and the only ones who have a clear side they take on it are isolationists who don't see a use for any military and wants us to be defenseless gunless targets for invasion.
For the most part, if you are okay with having a military (no matter the scale of that military) then you have little argument against using drones to minimize casualties. Its only if your arguing for getting rid of the entire military that you start to have an argument against drones.
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote: large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item.
heeeeey welcome back, friend
@zlefin
yes i want more details
you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like?
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe.
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine.
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote: large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item.
heeeeey welcome back, friend
@zlefin
yes i want more details
you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like?
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe.
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine.
if you have a different compromise to suggest than suggest one; but I don't think your representation is the entirety of the pro-life belief, i'd say there are quite a few who would consider every life saved a bonus, and would be willing to try to save more. and I didn't say I refused to talk abotu the issue, but that I don't want to discuss the philosophy/ethics with you. the politics and options for a political solution is fine though.
On October 21 2016 00:36 Danglars wrote: Now, serving the unfortunate by reaching into the pockets of our neighbors to meet their needs is open to debate. Both sides will say the other is deliberately misinterpreting the scriptures. And that's probably a religious debate not worth having.
What impact do you see the fall of baby boomers having on 2020? Do you see hope for fighting abortion and gay marriage from here on?
Wait, misinterpreting the scriptures is intimately related to baby boomers, abortion, and gay marriage? What Bible are you talking about?
Well teecchhnicalllyyyy if we are going by new testament, all that premarital sex they are having is going to send them to hell anyway. So what do they care at this point.
Like, you know the point of Christian theology is that pretty much any sin separates us from God... but in spite of that separation, God is able to forgive and love. On our own, all of us would be going to hell, but the grace of God prevents this and saves us apart from our own merit. The point of the Sermon on the Mount etc. is to lay out an ideal morality partly to tell us how to behave, but moreso to tell us how badly we are all fucking up each day, and how much we need to reach outside of our own power to get better.
That larger point being made, there's actually almost nothing in the NT that opposes premarital sex. The sex stuff is mostly about adultery, prostitution, and rape. People debate the meaning of a few words in lists that might suggest it, though lists are generally considered less accurate textual evidence. In other words, it might not be in there at all, but if it is, it's part of the "etc."
On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote: large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item.
heeeeey welcome back, friend
@zlefin
yes i want more details
you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like?
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe.
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine.
I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx)
There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one.
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
If its open source info tell me the nuclear response times of the US or Pakistan.
Please note she didn't reference nuclear response times. She mentioned the fact that once the president gives the order 4 minutes later the nukes are out in the air headed to their destination. Thats an extremely short amount of time to change your mind and as such not something to play with.
Also I know that the warning for Britain once a missile is incoming is 4 minutes, thats a well known fact. Its also the reason there are songs about destruction all referencing 4 minutes.
On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote: large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item.
heeeeey welcome back, friend
@zlefin
yes i want more details
you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like?
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe.
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine.
I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx)
There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one.
In my totally not scientific experience, millennials tends to have more favorable view of early term abortion and less favorable view of late term abortion than than previous generation. That's just from my experience though.
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
If its open source info tell me the nuclear response times of the US or Pakistan.
Knowing that the US can have ICBM's in the air in under 4 minutes is probably a bit of information the US is happy to have public because it shows how fast we can respond. I could leave my desk for a piss and by the time I get back there could be nukes in the air.
“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton
EPT
