In case there was any doubt, Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy. - Page 42 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-22-2009, 08:35 AM   #616
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
It would have to be Daddy. Women can't be trusted with these decisions.
how could i forget that?
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 10:17 AM   #617
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V View Post
In case there was any doubt, Interference is bat shit crazy.





Of course it's entirely possible for any thread here to turn into a thread about abortion-the contest would be to see which most unrelated topic could be turned into that. A six degrees, if you will.

I just checked the last page, so I can only imagine the rest...
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:06 PM   #618
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Yes, absolutely. That's exactly the same thing. Come on.

I don't say that in the "well, we're never going to make it go away, so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" sense. I say it in the "it's never going to stop, but I think it's better that the option exists for women to have a safe, legal opportunity."

What a shame I have to spell that out for you.
I understand where you are coming from. I'm simply putting a human life of a fetus or nearly born child or in some cases a partial birth at the same level. I know that those who are pro-choice don't make the same equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Your "socratic" method assumes some knowledge on both sides. Since you have none, and change your statements like regular people change underwear, your "socratic" method is really just you hoping to make a point then failing to, and then avoiding any real questions. You're like a junior level Indy.
Socratic method is just a question and answer method of course it doesn't always lead to an agreement and sometimes I agree I'm wrong (like gay marriage which I used to be against).

Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
:But you'll force me to have a baby.

Oh wait, bringing my gender into it is, what was it? Yes; "identity politics."

No, I stand corrected. It was only "identity politics" when YOUR gender was involved.
Well the child is a person too and had no culpability for existing. If the family doesn't want to raise the baby they can give the baby to adoption or adjust their family situation.

Now my response to someone else regarding identity politics was to clear up their assertion that I only think women are responsible and that men don't have any. I simply disagree with that.

Of course I'm making an equation between the unborn child and any person that is born. If you disagree then there's the divide in the debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
How much do you know about family law?

Because this child support thing we have works GREAT!!!
Does it have to work perfectly to side with life? Does anything work perfectly in the justice system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Honestly purpleoscar, about 99% of what you say sounds very familiar to me, because I spent so many years in an academic setting. Your conclusions, your general lack of empathy, and the means of argument are very academic, ivory-tower, and remind me of all those profs who hadn't left their offices and lived in the real world for about 50 years. They were brilliant men and women and wrote brilliant and inquisitive journal articles that had about zero application in the real world.

This is how your posts read to me, when you start talking about "consumptive standards of living" and so on, as if you think that because there is an economic theory that dictates that 2+2=4, then we should simply fit ourselves into that equation regardless of individual circumstances. In your world maybe there are only square pegs and square holes so that it all makes sense, but out there on the street, the things that you write in here have no value and would contribute absolutely nothing to improving the situations of the people whom you describe here like they are neat little packages with no variation.
Well my existence is proof that my family (low income) could do it so I believe that there is more flexibility than some people think there is. Of course adoption is another option that families can try. I like the idea of adoption expenses being a deduction to help families with the cost of getting another child. If there are social services that can be improved to help facilitate adoption and women's shelters (if women feel in danger) I'm all ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
You are contradicting yourself here. If the guiding principle is that we can and should deny people the right to make decisions about what happens inside their own bodies so as to force them to deal with the consequences of their actions, then anyone who's caused themselves illness or injury through irresponsible habits or behavior should be denied that right also, which goes against the 'better alive than dead' principle. If the guiding principle is 'better alive than dead,' then how precisely a woman got pregnant, including rape and incest, must be treated as irrelevant--we don't punish innocent persons (assuming that status is being implied here) with death for wrongs they had no hand in. So, which is it? Using your body irresponsibly imposes a legal obligation to let nature take its course uncountered; or, all human life from the moment of conception has the moral status of personhood, with all the legal protections (and corollary severe punishments for murderers) that entails?
Well normal pregnancies to me aren't an illness. If there's a baby involved then I'm considering that life. Of course again I'm equating the life of the unborn/partially born child to that of a birthed baby. I know that many pro-choice people don't do that.

Now when it comes to having a baby after rape/incest there was no choice involved with the woman (of course many pro-lifers would be for adoption in those cases as well to avoid your point that it's a contradiction) so I side with the woman because I think that's a decent compromise. Most innocent people aren't in a womb so I would put it as a special case. When a woman is known by the doctor to be at a higher risk of dying from giving birth I would compare that to a disease and that way a woman shouldn't be forced to die (unless she is adamant in taking the risk).



Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Incidentally, in the US at least, the infant relinquishment rate has held steady at around only 13,000 infants per year for several decades now, despite abortion rates, net birthrates and single motherhood rates having fluctuated considerably during that same time period. Even in the 1950s, when abortion was illegal and the stigma against single motherhood very strong, less than 10% of single mothers chose to give their infants up for adoption. (It's the swelling numbers of older children in the foster care system that's the problem: few prospective adoptive parents are interested in a 9-year-old with 'developmental issues' resulting from neglect or abuse in its birth family, whereas infants are almost always successfully placed for adoption within several months maximum.) So the data don't support glib invocations of adoption as some ideal 'win-win' alternative; on the contrary, they strongly suggest that most women who go through with an unwanted pregnancy, voluntarily or not, will prove quite unwilling to give someone who endured none of it the one thing left in their lives that they still feel they have some control over. Which might not be a good attitudinal foundation for responsible parenthood, but as an emotional response, it's eminently understandable.
I understand but I support orphanages. Developmental issues can exist in usual families so again I'm not looking for perfection with a life. Whether someone has a good life or not is up for debate even for those with happy upbringings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
The 'Well I'm happy I was born!' argument has never resonated with me, since if I hadn't been born, it's not as if I'd be floating around disembodiedly out there wailing about it. Nor would there be logical reason for anyone else to grieve over someone they'd never known, nor would I expect it to have perverted my mother's soul and transformed her into some abominably evil or cold or irresponsible person.
I knew this point would come up. My answer to this is that I'm alive and I can contribute to society as opposed to being dead. I'm sure we can find more painless ways to kill adults and equally when you're dead you're dead. I won't be wailing in either situation. The upbringing is the social cost and I think it's okay for taxpayers to fund that just the same as we think those with mental retardation and catastrophic illnesses need our help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
That's wonderful that you and your family were able to pull together and support each other through various financial and medical crises. But I do hope you realize that you're far from alone in this forum in having such a background. Quite a few of us, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' alike, are in no need of lectures from anyone about what family members can sometimes do to support one another through crises and hardship. Then there are also some who know quite a bit about what individuals can sometimes do for themselves when their families have utterly failed them.
I only mentioned my personal situation because of the family planning argument. It doesn't have to relate to individuals in this forum, but I'm pointing out that there is a lot of flexibility that families can muster that many born in rich countries don't appreciate. If all the people here on this forum appreciate that and practice it then good for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
As anitram already pointed out, this is naive at best and glib at worst. Particularly if the intended implication was that 'it all evens out in the end'; it doesn't and it can't.
Again to me if life is chosen there's still a chance that person can make something of their lives. If they don't, there's still no guarantee than anyone in a normal upbringing couldn't make their lives hell either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Abortion is, yes. But women don't get unwantedly pregnant merely because sexual intercourse happens, they get pregnant because both partners failed to use contraception themselves (device failures excepted). Contraception is also a man's responsibility--that I think was BAW's main point there, and mine as well. A man who observes the unfailingly high standards of sexual responsibility you so readily demand of women will always use contraception himself, every time, regardless of what his partner also claims to be using, unless the two of them have agreed that parenthood is a desirable outcome. (And quite obviously, a lot of men don't do this.) It's not just about his willingness (or ability) to pay child support.
To me this is still in the realm of choice, unless of course the man rapes the woman. People know the consequences of a sperm and egg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I don't personally consider fetal life to have the moral status of personhood, and I only take those who claim to seriously if they're consistent in refusing exceptions for rape and incest (not the fetus' fault) and insisting on comparably harsh punishments for women who have abortions (and any 'accomplices' who help them) to those of other murderers. So again, your turns of phrase here don't resonate much with me. I would quite willingly support a compromise position of unrestricted access to abortion only through the first trimester, and afterwards only for reasons of medical necessity as certified by a doctor.
Exactly. I look at fetal life differently than you as I post above. I do like your idea of unrestricted access to abortion only through the first trimester as at least a better option (though not totally satisfactory) than at any point in time. It's like Roe vs. Wade which allows state governments to legislate late term abortions. That would satisfy a lot of people inbetween on the subject. There's more ire towards partial birth abortion which at minimum I wouldn't want to be available. It would be better to let the states decide on what level abortion could be allowed. The punishment would probably be appropriate as some kind of manslaughter because the pregnant woman didn't necessarily plan to get pregnant so she could terminate it (which would be first degree).

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I often get the sense that people who support criminalizing abortion are of the opinion that if women are allowed access to it, this somehow threatens to turn them en masse into cold, brutal, reckless creatures who are incapable of caring for anyone's needs besides their own. This I think is a wholly emotion-driven, rather than reason-driven view, with no meaningful 'evidence' to recommend it. While I'm biased here by virtue of being a parent myself, I will admit I do tend to suppose that, by and large and as a generalization, people who are parents are more likely to have a well-developed capacity for putting others' needs and wants first than those who are not. I couldn't say, though, that this must therefore logically make them 'better' people, more 'good' or more valuable to society somehow, and I've certainly seen enough being part of the broader community of parents to be quite certain that you can't force this willingness to put children's needs first on people from the outside--they'll either rise to the occasion or they won't, in the long term. Understand, I'm not observing this in the context of some pro-choice 'future child's quality of life' argument; it's an observation about parental moral responsibility and where it does and doesn't come from.
My attitude towards the criminalizing is that in order for this to be a justice matter there needs to be some consequences for actions just like the termination of other people otherwise we are agreeing that a birthed baby is different in rights than one that was not in which case abortion on demand all the way would be the only conclusion.

Anyways thanks for the posts guys. We fleshed out the argument really well even if some of you didn't want to waste time on me.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:30 PM   #619
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V View Post
In case there was any doubt, Interference is bat shit crazy.
Oh, there was never any doubt of that.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:33 PM   #620
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,665
Local Time: 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Most innocent people aren't in a womb so I would put it as a special case.
What does this mean?
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:50 PM   #621
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Does it have to work perfectly to side with life? Does anything work perfectly in the justice system?
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.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:53 PM   #622
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It would be better to let the states decide on what level abortion could be allowed. The punishment would probably be appropriate as some kind of manslaughter because the pregnant woman didn't necessarily plan to get pregnant so she could terminate it (which would be first degree).
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.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 02:19 PM   #623
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Do you see now Oscar why I say you aren't equipped? It has nothing to do with Phd's...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-22-2009, 03:47 PM   #624
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
But we more or less agree that David Letterman was wrong in insulting Palin-right everyone?
to bring it back to topic... no. absolutely not.

100% disagree with that, because making jokes and "insulting" poor unfortunate politicians and celebrities is the man's job.

and just for fair measure, i thought the joke was funny.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 04:32 PM   #625
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 08:29 PM
purpleoscar,
I was going to reply, asking pointed questions and all, but then I went and had lunch and realized your understanding of the way things work in real life is limited.

So I really am done with you.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 06:10 PM   #626
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well normal pregnancies to me aren't an illness. If there's a baby involved then I'm considering that life. Of course again I'm equating the life of the unborn/partially born child to that of a birthed baby.
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.
Quote:
Now when it comes to having a baby after rape/incest there was no choice involved with the woman (of course many pro-lifers would be for adoption in those cases as well to avoid your point that it's a contradiction) so I side with the woman because I think that's a decent compromise. Most innocent people aren't in a womb so I would put it as a special case. When a woman is known by the doctor to be at a higher risk of dying from giving birth I would compare that to a disease and that way a woman shouldn't be forced to die (unless she is adamant in taking the risk).
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.
Quote:
To me this is still in the realm of choice
Of course it is. The point was simply that any biological father is fully, physically equally responsible to any biological mother for a conception occurring; therefore a man's obligation to use contraception himself is just as great: he doesn't only become 'responsible' or 'irresponsible' at the stage where he succeeds or fails to cough up child support funds. That point isn't necessarily directly pertinent to whether abortion should be legal or not--rather, it applies to your initial implication (however unintentional) that only women are responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies, therefore all that women availing themselves of abortion shows is that they were sexually irresponsible. A man who's in principle willing to pay child support for his unwanted child conceived through unprotected sex is still an irresponsible man; it's just that he enjoys a guarantee that he won't have to go through the degrading (and physically and professionally compromising, and socially isolating) experience of being forced by the state--the supposed guarantor of one of his most basic rights, the ownership of his own body and its labors--to physically carry and bear a child against his will. Single mothers who keep their (born) children, of course, will have to make considerable investments of time and money in them just as surely as their fathers will, so that isn't 'the man's equivalent' of taking responsibility for their existence--rather an entirely different phase in which optimistically both parents are legally held responsible for the child's welfare.

And please note that 'unplanned' and 'unwanted' are two very different things; my younger son was 'unplanned'--a contraceptive device failure, in fact--but this was never anything other than a happy surprise, since we were contemplating trying for another child anyhow.
Quote:
The punishment would probably be appropriate as some kind of manslaughter because the pregnant woman didn't necessarily plan to get pregnant so she could terminate it (which would be first degree).
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.
Quote:
My attitude towards the criminalizing is that in order for this to be a justice matter there needs to be some consequences for actions just like the termination of other people otherwise we are agreeing that a birthed baby is different in rights than one that was not in which case abortion on demand all the way would be the only conclusion.
Disagreements among pro-choice people as to whether trimester limits are acceptable aren't disagreements over whether women can be forced by the state to carry and bear children against their will--which is, after all, the underlying point in dispute here. They're just disagreements over whether the right not to be thus forced must be extended through the entire pregnancy, as opposed to accepting it as reasonable to deem one trimester an adequate window of time for a pregnant woman to make then act upon that decision. I take the latter view, both because it represents a compromise that some people disinclined to support abortion rights will find satisfactory, and because I consider it better for society in general to balance recognition of individual persons' bodily autonomy against recognition of the state's interest in procuring future citizens (which, at a minimum, entails treating pregnancy as a kind of transition stage to parenthood, and therefore subject to certain legal responsibilities broadly similar to those already imposed on parents--within reasonable limits, as embodied by said 'balancing').
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 06:12 PM   #627
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Anyways thanks for the posts guys. We fleshed out the argument really well even if some of you didn't want to waste time on me.
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V View Post
In case there was any doubt, Interference is bat shit crazy.
Hey, I already said that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
In case there was any doubt, guys, clearly we're ALL batshit crazy!



..............

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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 07:38 PM   #628
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
And, sorry, but I don't watch Bill O'Reilly for any reason at all. Any reason at all.
Noted.

__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 08:25 PM   #629
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Why would I want to?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-22-2009, 08:32 PM   #630
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:29 PM
You didn't watch him when Bono was on?
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
sarah palin

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com