In case there was any doubt, Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you see now Oscar why I say you aren't equipped? It has nothing to do with Phd's...

original.jpg


Now THAT is equipment. :rockon:
 
Bah, so much for seeing if Lady Gaga's (awesome) exploding brassiere would spark a fire and brimstone breastfeeding thrash out.

:whistle:
 
I cannot believe I read all 43 pages of this. Comedic value (and I'm really bored), I guess, but I just lost hours of my life that I won't ever get back.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

:huh:
 
I don't know. You just said you read all 43 pages - what the fuck is wrong with you? Any sane person would have given up by at least page 5.

And we've already established that we're all batshit crazy in here, so ... guess you're one of us now.

;)
 
I was trying to find the origin of the term "batshit crazy".

So I typed in "batshit crazy origins", but accidentally press images and this was the first image that popped up:























































BATSHIT+CRAZY.jpg
 
Wait, you missed one:

:bonodrum:

That’s right. :wink:

Do you see now Oscar why I say you aren't equipped? It has nothing to do with Phd's...

I was just making a comment on the fact that debates will include many people with different backgrounds and values. Taking your word for it is not good enough and I certainly don't want people to take my word for it either. When I listen to other topics I want to include anyone irregardless of what their educational background or personal opinions, just like in a democracy. It's up to you to decide what you believe which I think is pretty obvious. As detailed the questions and answers to any political debate the same could be attributed to economic debates on this site. Some people I think are "batshit crazy" when it comes to economics but the debate goes on anyways.

What does this mean? :scratch:

I'm making a compromise in my argument for abortions where there is a situation of a high risk of death, or rape or incest. I think most pro-life types would not except the rape and incest part.

You are very naive when it comes to family law legislation. It's not that child support laws are not perfect; it's that they are barely functional. I would like the people who pull out abortion statistics to also pull out the statistics regarding support arrears so that we can see what's what.

I give you some leeway for being uninformed on this topic.

Of course if financial problems are there I'm okay with orphanages and adoption as options as opposed to death. I'm aware of child support arrears and deadbeats out there. I know it's a financial burden on society to take care of these kids but so are jails. Helping families who have 8 kids is another example where families (that are together) would also have trouble paying for their day to day expenses without some form of charity.

Well what do you advocate in your own nation? Province-by-province?

And whom will we hold responsible for aiding and abetting the woman? Her doctor? Her boyfriend/husband who agreed with her? Her best friend or sister who drove her to the clinic? They are certainly parties to the crime.

Hypothetically (if there was political pressure to do so) I think it would have to be federal because the Charter of rights and freedoms could be amended to defend the rights of the unborn. In reality because of the unpopularity of my point of view the notwithstanding clause would be used. I could guess that Quebec would have something to say about it.

Yes I advocate an investigation much like a criminal investigation for those involved.

Which was why I was asking the question--to get you to clarify that last bit. Because when it comes down to it, that's really the only rational foundation for a comprehensive ethical argument against abortion rights--talking about 'responsibility for one's behavior' in the absence of such a view wouldn't hold up and wouldn't convince anyone. An unwanted pregnancy following one act of unprotected sex, and mild emphysema and type 2 diabetes following years of chain-smoking, overeating junkfood and not exercising, have in common that they're unwelcome and unpleasant, albeit 'treatable,' conditions which were nonetheless foreseeable and preventable--neither has much in common with, say, developing ALS, which is neither avoidable nor reversible to the best of our knowledge. But in the case of the emphysemic/diabetic, to say they therefore forfeited their right to make their own decisions about how to respond is readily recognizable to us as crossing a red line. It's really only the view, or the inclination towards it, that fetuses are rights-bearing individuals on a par with the rest of us, that makes some willing to support state intervention in what happens inside other individuals' bodies in this one case.

It simply doesn't wash to 'compromise' here IF you're going to insist that fetuses must be morally and legally considered persons with rights. Unless you're talking combatants in a wartime situation, which by definition entails planned mass killing, then we cannot morally permit actual subjects of law to be killed as consequence of crimes they didn't commit--period, full stop. (Even the 'threat to the mother's life' rationale could be argued to be on shaky grounds here, though I'm willing to give you a pass on that one since there's no other 'culprit' to point to, hence the fetus would appear to be the closest thing to one...for what that's worth.) To say 'A fetus is a person with the right to live--except when it was conceived in a way that I'd feel Really, Really Mean making its mother carry it to term over' makes no sense at all. Recognizing legal personhood by definition imposes certain absolutes (such as the right to live) in a system founded on equality of all before the rule of law; you can't play fast and loose with those without gravely undermining the system itself.

I think you convinced me. The pro-life stance up to the point of only allowing abortions when there's an increased risk of death would be cleaner for arguments sake. If I were to compromise I would have to lose empathy for the child in a rape situation that would nullify the rights for the unborn. If I do some more reading I may find an argument for it but it will likely have holes in logic.

But this is not how manslaughter works. That involves questions of whether the offender can reasonably be assumed to have been fully capable at the time of rationally thinking through and grasping the consequences to her victim. It's not about whether she 'didn't necessarily plan' for the immediate circumstances (unwanted pregnancy) surrounding the abortion--which in any case, as a form of killing, almost never involves the sudden, spontaneous loss of rational self-control envisioned by the manslaughter defense--to have obtained.

I do understand your meaning of manslaughter. I'm not a lawyer but my example of manslaughter would be somewhat reflected in this example:

South Dakota Codified Laws

This example of course would fit the typical pro-life position with only the exception of the mother at a high risk of dying from giving birth.

:up: While I disagree with many of your arguments, I do appreciate the fact that your interactions in making them have remained fundamentally calm and respectful, and hope that I've responded in kind.

We're never going to directly effect actual political changes merely by debating topics in here anyway, so there's no reason and nothing to be gained in repeatedly verbally browbeating or taunting people over what are ultimately just abstractions, however understandable the occasional eruptions of exasperation we all have may be. Chronically reaming on people doesn't make you seem like a righteous defender of justice or reason; it just makes you seem lacking in emotional self-control.

It’s the only way to have interesting debates. I used to get more angry like a lot of people during the last election cycle but it just makes people dread posts and what insults and brow-beating might be lurking in the background.

In all seriousness, I'm happy to do a thread split here if enough people want that; it's just that I don't personally see much cause for it at this point.

I think we covered it pretty good and the thread can be closed. If anyone is not happy they can take a gander at this:

Abortion debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless people want to bash Palin somemore? :wink:
 
I was just making a comment on the fact that debates will include many people with different backgrounds and values. Taking your word for it is not good enough and I certainly don't want people to take my word for it either. When I listen to other topics I want to include anyone irregardless of what their educational background or personal opinions, just like in a democracy. It's up to you to decide what you believe which I think is pretty obvious. As detailed the questions and answers to any political debate the same could be attributed to economic debates on this site. Some people I think are "batshit crazy" when it comes to economics but the debate goes on anyways.


But in a setting like this do I really need to "listen" to those that contradict themselves, use emotionally filled language, or have their facts wrong?

We should have SOME parameters, right? You've done all three, you just aren't a well equipped person when it comes to this topic, I think you are just towing the party line.

Nevermind all your contradictions, just answer this, for example:

How do you make exceptions for rape, incest, or near death? You are for it being legal to "kill" then right? So you make them prove it in court? That sounds logical right? Tie a woman up in court... I mean she was probably a slut who deserved it right?
 
How do you make exceptions for rape, incest, or near death? You are for it being legal to "kill" then right? So you make them prove it in court? That sounds logical right? Tie a woman up in court... I mean she was probably a slut who deserved it right?

If you killed someone in self-defense, thats murder, but are you going to get in trouble for it? Most likely not, if it was justifable.




And what I don't get is why an abortion has to be such an easy thing to get? :|
 
Who says an abortion is easy to get?

Some areas don't necessarily have clinics where a doctor is available. Some women might have to travel a good distance to find a clinic, and a doctor who performs abortions might only be available a few times a month.

Some states have restrictive laws in place that make it more difficult to get an abortion.

It makes me angry that many people think that a woman just saunters into the abortion clinic down the street and says, "Hi, I think I'll have an abortion today."
 
But in a setting like this do I really need to "listen" to those that contradict themselves, use emotionally filled language, or have their facts wrong?

You don't have to listen. :shrug:

We should have SOME parameters, right? You've done all three, you just aren't a well equipped person when it comes to this topic, I think you are just towing the party line.

And none of this could be attributed to yourself? You strike me as a conformist that wants only liberal opinions because "how can conservatives be so wrong about everything?" Irvine was responding to the empathy argument that conservatives aren't empathetic to women in regards to abortion and my point was that you have to have no empathy for the unborn and their future to allow unrestricted abortion. Whether we side on highly restricted abortion or some compromise that allows restrictions for late term abortions, the idea is to reduce abortions because of the loss of life. Who says there has to be only one way? Those wikipedia links show multiple arguments people use defending pro-life or pro-choice. Do you think any poster could capture all that and find the cure all that would make everyone perfectly happy? This is why your posts are such a drag. At least Yolland makes an attempt at a discussion without looking for God to provide the Platonic perfect solution.

Nevermind all your contradictions, just answer this, for example:

How do you make exceptions for rape, incest, or near death? You are for it being legal to "kill" then right? So you make them prove it in court? That sounds logical right? Tie a woman up in court... I mean she was probably a slut who deserved it right?

I already admitted that my compromise would have trouble standing in court in my last post. The only way I can see it now is to allow abortions if the mother has a high risk of dying in carrying the baby. As a person the baby isn't allowed to kill the mother so it would make sense in that case. With rape and incest killing the child wouldn't be necessary if the baby can be born. As you can see there are lots of permutations in the debate that are still ongoing and those who write books and are "experts" can't nail down a solution that all will like:

Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So is anyone without inconsistencies or opinions that need to be fleshed out in more detail?
 
If you killed someone in self-defense, thats murder, but are you going to get in trouble for it? Most likely not, if it was justifable.




And what I don't get is why an abortion has to be such an easy thing to get? :|

Who says getting an abortion is easy?


You're missing my point. If you think abortion is murder than why make exceptions? Doesn't that seem contradictory to you?

And if you make exceptions then you have to be for legalized abortion.
 
And none of this could be attributed to yourself? You strike me as a conformist that wants only liberal opinions because "how can conservatives be so wrong about everything?"
What? :lol: Conformist? :lol:

No, I appreciate well thoughtout opposition, I just don't think you have one on this paticular subject, and the way that so many have been able to so easily dismantle your "logic" should show you something.
Irvine was responding to the empathy argument that conservatives aren't empathetic to women in regards to abortion and my point was that you have to have no empathy for the unborn and their future to allow unrestricted abortion. Whether we side on highly restricted abortion or some compromise that allows restrictions for late term abortions, the idea is to reduce abortions because of the loss of life. Who says there has to be only one way? Those wikipedia links show multiple arguments people use defending pro-life or pro-choice. Do you think any poster could capture all that and find the cure all that would make everyone perfectly happy? This is why your posts are such a drag. At least Yolland makes an attempt at a discussion without looking for God to provide the Platonic perfect solution.
I agree reduction in abortion is good. But the rest of this is just example of why you are regarded as being very frustrating to discuss anything with...
You twist and turn and make huge leaps of logic to the point where the original intent is completely lost on you.


I already admitted that my compromise would have trouble standing in court in my last post. The only way I can see it now is to allow abortions if the mother has a high risk of dying in carrying the baby. As a person the baby isn't allowed to kill the mother so it would make sense in that case. With rape and incest killing the child wouldn't be necessary if the baby can be born. As you can see there are lots of permutations in the debate that are still ongoing and those who write books and are "experts" can't nail down a solution that all will like:
So you just now have changed your stance on rape and incest just because contradictions have been pointed out to you? See, this is why I don't think you are well equipped. How long have you been anti-choice? And within one day your stance changes because an obvious contradiction was pointed out to you? It just sounds like you're arguing for argument's sake.

So is anyone without inconsistencies or opinions that need to be fleshed out in more detail?
Inconsistencies are fine, we have no absolutes, so inconsistencies are a given, but glaring contradictions are a whole entirely different thing.
 
I think a couple of you must've missed this post:
I think you convinced me. The pro-life stance up to the point of only allowing abortions when there's an increased risk of death would be cleaner for arguments sake. If I were to compromise I would have to lose empathy for the child in a rape situation that would nullify the rights for the unborn. If I do some more reading I may find an argument for it but it will likely have holes in logic.


You're like a cucumber. Just when I think I'm done, bam, another reminder.
?

So you just now have changed your stance on rape and incest just because contradictions have been pointed out to you? See, this is why I don't think you are well equipped. How long have you been anti-choice? And within one day your stance changes because an obvious contradiction was pointed out to you?
Honestly, so what? :shrug: Maybe oscar is someone who enjoys using debate as a tool to help him develop and refine arguments in real-time that he hasn't necessarily spent hours of introversion on yet, or maybe this was just one of those moments where a possible gap in your logic that you've long overlooked suddenly becomes crystal-clear to you. Who cares? What does it hurt?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, so what? :shrug: Maybe oscar is someone who enjoys using debate as a tool to help him develop and refine arguments in real-time that he hasn't necessarily spent hours of introversion on yet, or maybe this was just one of those moments where a possible gap in your logic that you've long overlooked suddenly becomes crystal-clear to you. Who cares? What does it hurt?

Honestly if it was any other debate I think it would have been fine, but when it's an already emotionally charged topic like abortion and the poster peppers his posts with language such as "kill people for convenience sake" and "because the woman thought sex was fun" then I thought it was out of line to use such a topic as a game. :shrug:
 
Abortion on demand advocates may find it interesting to consider a case where a black woman has a child by a white man - or vice versa - and the woman decides to abort the child, as, on mature consideration, they decided they didn't want to bring up a mixed race kid. Perhaps the woman discusses the matter with her parents, friends, whatever, and is told that she will not be accepted in her community if she raises a child of a different skin colour. So, a racist reason for abortion. A hypothetical case, granted, but it is not difficult to imagine such a scenario. Racists should surely be strong advocates of abortion, at least in this scenario. But, good liberal folk have the right view on both abortion and race, so obviously there's a disconnect here somewhere.

Rgds,

FG (exposing liberal hypocrisy on the web since 2007)
 
I just said it in your Nixon thread, and I'll say it here.

I don't believe it's right to abort because of the race scenario. However, being for reproductive rights, I'm not for anyone making a judgement call as to under what circumstances a woman can get an abortion.

I don't think any of the "good liberal folk" are going to suggest that she should just have that damned baby because it's racist to abort. Is that what you're suggesting sarcastically, or did I misinterpret?

And as far as hypocrites go, they get abortions as well. The book I mentioned a few pages back talked of an instance where one of the regular protestors who were outside the author's clinic day after day came in for her own abortion. And then went right back to protesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom