Crime and welfare were serious public policy issues that could be, and were, debated from empirical premises. Abortion and gay marriage are moral, largely religious issues, and are less amenable to public policy debate. They are, for reasons that are entirely understandable, governed more by emotion than by empirical data.Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them. But, okay, there was empirical data to inject into the argument, and abortion and gay marriage are more philosophical.
Hinderaker says the GOP must "recalibrate" how it handles the social issues and offers some suggestions.
Myself, I disagree with the GOP on these present-day social issues, but I don't like the Democrats either. I'm keeping my distance, which is, currently, alienated from both parties. I have little hope the either party will appeal to me in the near future, so I think I will calmly observe and comment on their struggles. I've avoided the routine election post-mortem articles, which are mostly banal and full of bogus hindsight clarity. But, going forward, I plan to cherry-pick and link to some things like Hinderaker's that strike me as going beyond the usual dull fare.
Posts
489 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 489 Newer› Newest»So sayeth ST, an old white male who prefers Asian women who prefer old white males, who will become their "daddies" and allow themselves to be ruled.
you're a sick puppy Inga.
So sayeth ST, an old white male who prefers Asian women who prefer old white males, who will become their "daddies" and allow themselves to be ruled.
In other words, you can't compete.
That's because you're a miserable old hag looking for a scapegoat for your problems.
Now, you're just behaving like a cunt, Inga, which is the usual.
Let's see if I can follow this.
ST says Asian chicks dig OWGs. Inga rebuts his claim by pointing out that ST's an OWG.
???
I'm still trying to figure out how an election won b/c women in their fertile years vote overwhelmingly Dem constitutes an argument against anything ST has argued about women's attitudes toward men.
Ha ha. Just kidding.
I don't really try to figure out Ingalogic.
Inga said...
So sayeth ST, an old white male.
That was callous and overly general.
Shouting Thomas said...
Well, so sayeth Inga, the drunken old white hag.
That was mean and too specific.
Not saying ALL Asian women think the way ST would like them to. Most are quite modern and self sufficient, they voted for Obama in HUGE numbers, BTW.
Not saying ALL Asian women think the way ST would like them to. Most are quite modern and self sufficient, they voted for Obama in HUGE numbers, BTW.
You're in full, jealous old cunt roar now, Inga.
Who told you that Asian women were looking to you for advice? Or that Asian women want your approval?
Believe me, I talk to them when hags like you are not around. They think you're a piece of shit.
ST, I don't need to "compete" with women who want a daddy to tell them what to do. The men I prefer like strong independent women.
And no the government is not my daddy.
Inga, does Jeff Fucking Johnson, white Democrat from Illinois and owner of this economy, win this past Presidential election?
Not that it matters, but I wanted to get your take.
And no the government is not my daddy.
Oh yes it is
The men I prefer like strong independent women.
Well, no, you're just imagining that.
You're a weak, half crazy old hag. No man with any sense cares what you prefer.
ST, you are making me laugh so hard the cat got scared and ran under the bed.
I seen a poll recently that if the secessionists self deported, Texas would have gone to Obama.
And if all the Dems self-deported, Romney would've won 50 states.
Got a point there?
Ah well, this thread blew up, was nice while it lasted.
Inga said...
Ah well, this thread blew up, was nice while it lasted.
I agree.
It started to go off the rails @ 10:49..
Rusty, the US federal government spends about $680 Billion this year on "welfare". SNAP, Head Start, etc. Unlike the DoD its spread across a dozen agencies to hide its true size. Works out to about $60k/recipient.
How effective has all this been you might ask - poverty rate today is within 2 tenths of one percent of where it was in 1964. Remember back then CBS ran a one hour special on how bad it was. Our War on Poverty makes our War on Drugs look good. But the War on Poverty is because we care...
@Chip S Ingalogic is an algebraically closed group, which by definition means it is simple.
I wanted to say that Ingalogic is a Lie group, but only another mathematician would appreciate the humor.
Inga wrote:
I should say old folks as long as they are private pay, but at $6,000+ a MONTH, their money doesn't hold out long, then they switch to Medicaid, so YOU and I are making warehousers of elderly and disabled RICH. Many conservatives focus on how blacks are stealing all your tax dollars in welfare, start thinking out of your box.
6000 a month does sound excessive to me too. But, we are talking about long term care that involves room and board and medical care LONG TERM. Do you think it should be free?
I wonder why Inga even posts here anymore? She considers all the male posters he to be scumbags.
Jr. No it most certainly should not be free. $6,000+ does include room and board and skilled nursing care, but it is excessive, considering that often they are short staffed, forcing staff to care for double the amount of patients they safely should be.
Nursing home reform has been on the back burner for far too long, because the Nursing Home Lobby is very powerful.
Inga would cry a river if someone dragged her deceased husband into this thread the way she did ST's wife. You owe him an apology Inga.
She considers all the male posters he to be scumbags.
No, the crazy old white hag has the white woman's disease... she hates white men (or at least likes to bitch all the time that she does). You'd have to check out Roissy to fully understand why.,
Although the old hag is probably sleeping with a white man.
She's drunk and half insane.
Inga would cry a river if someone dragged her deceased husband into this thread the way she did ST's wife. You owe him an apology Inga.
I'm so used to crazy old hags, and other Democrats trotting out this tactic that I'm immune.
X, it was not I that dragged Asian women into the discussion, perhaps you need to read more carefully.
X, it was not I that dragged Asian women into the discussion, perhaps you need to read more carefully.
Inga the Illiterate with advice on reading!
God help us!
ST, FYI, I drink alcohol rarely. Chocolate is my drug of choice, now go get fucked.
Laura Ingraham To GOP: 'If You Can't Beat Obama With This Record, Then Shut Down The Party'
Pretty sure LG and myself may have found partial common ground.
And please, let the Althouse con whining minutiae re: denial continue unabated ...
Got a point there?
Yes, the secessionists can leave anytime.
They should be scampering over the border to Mexico in droves anytime now, they wouldn't like Canada, too liberal, Universal Healthcare.:)
ST, FYI, I drink alcohol rarely. Chocolate is my drug of choice, now go get fucked.
Women are seldom in touch with their vices.
Thanks for the advice. Couldn't have thought of it by myself.
Inga wrote:
ST, I don't need to "compete" with women who want a daddy to tell them what to do. The men I prefer like strong independent women.
And no the government is not my daddy.
Since you are so in bed with it I think it would be closer to define govt as your lover. If you were in bed with your daddy that would just be gross.
Though if your we're to try to marry your dad, perhaps the would be the civil rights issue of tomorrow.
Inga ignores me, for she would rather quibble over chocolate and scumbaggery.
"The men I prefer like strong independent women. "
The men I prefer, don't abandon me when I'm pregnant.
Every abortion I know of was not done out of being independent or strong. Usually being independent and strong are the qualities women have when they fight for their baby, despite everyone encouraging her to abort or shaming her for being a mother at 'the wrong time'.
Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?
A large part of it may be due to the fact that they tend to want to bring family members to America as well, and so are very tuned into the immigration debate. Which, of course, the Democrats have managed to demagogue brilliantly, with the help of the MSM, of course.
Althouse - Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them.
Lets acknowledge that:
1. Being opposed to Muslim terrorism inevitably leads to "coded" talk about aspects of the Muslim faith that are at odds with 1st Amendment Absolutism and universal tolerance under the Sacred Parchment Itself!
2. Acknowledge that leftist and progressive Jews methodical sneers and chronic litigation directed against "ignorant Christianists" are also "code".
3. The whole critical race theory game is code. Students are being tought to hate or despise white males under the rubric of "white privilege". And the evil white penis-possessors rather than being key in advancing civilization and human progress are cast as guilty of all historical crimes as The Oppressors.
And students who bear the shame of being white and having a penis are hectored into shame for their identity under this black, guilty white liberal, and progressive Jews in academia led Movement.
4. Militant feminists have so much "code" to their asinine prattlngs that you need a book to translate it into what they really mean.
A very short book.
A: Men are bad, women are pure and good in all matters.
B: Except women that believe in traditional American values. Those are the stupid and the subjugated cunts. Who haven't yet learned to love their cunts and cunt power.
My 2:32 p.m. post didn’t answer the question, though, about why Asians gave Obama a greater number of votes than Hispanics did. That I think could probably be put down to very successful Asians having been thoroughly indoctrinated with leftist values in our educational system.
They’re brilliant students and have learned their lessons well!
no Inga, you got very personal and you meant to.
Hinderaker is thinking too much & too hard
No, he's just trying to move the Republican party left on abortion. Because Hinderaker likes abortion, obviously.
His entire argument is based on pro-choice argument. Opposition to abortion is "religious." Roe v. Wade is settled law. There's nothing new here at all.
Is John Hinderaker a pro-life Republican with a pragmatic point of view? My ass!
He's a pro-choice Republican telling the Republican leadership to ignore the views of half the country. What's pragmatic about that? It's political suicide.
Mamie said...
Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?
A large part of it may be due to the fact that they tend to want to bring family members to America as well, and so are very tuned into the immigration debate. Which, of course, the Democrats have managed to demagogue brilliantly, with the help of the MSM, of course.
I think this is correct. The best response is to argue for increased legal immigration with applicant paid background checks to keep out criminals and the indigent, potentially along with other restrictions. And if you come here illegally you're not eligible.
Yes, the secessionists can leave anytime.
Soon the lefties will be singing the old Republican Nixon era refrains, "America, Love It or Leave It! Comrade."
Is this the hope or the change?
Or Forward, or backward?
X, you are here simply to cause trouble. I didn't know ST's deceased wife was Asian. That fact doesn't give ST the right to classify all Asian women as being dependents types who prefer white males to their own race or any other race.
His example was a poor one and I called him on it.
So go ahead, GOP, tell the pro-lifers those expectations are foolish.
This pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. Pro-lifers are willing to take down the entire conservative movement for a religious belief.
This pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. Pro-lifers are willing to take down the entire conservative movement for a religious belief.
Law of God > Law of man
I didn't know ST's deceased wife was Asian.
you know now. any regret?
That fact doesn't give ST the right to classify all Asian women as being dependents types who prefer white males
it was you who did that.
X,
Are you here for any legitimate discussion ? If not, get lost.
"Law of God > Law of man"
And you know this how? Someone told you. Or maybe God has visited you personally, and told you this?
Anyway, fine. God wants the Republican party to go the way of the Buffalo.
Dante said...
So go ahead, GOP, tell the pro-lifers those expectations are foolish.
This pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. Pro-lifers are willing to take down the entire conservative movement for a religious belief.
The obvious compromise is to hold the philosophical line at exceptions for rape, incest, and life while fighting against mental exceptions (which are too easy to manipulate). Given that the SC has ruled tighter policy unconstitutional pro life policy doesn't have much room for expansion. Support for activist but relatively low impact legislation like the Born Alive Act, sure. But what else is there? An openly anti Roe SC Justice cannot be confirmed.
Is this not acceptable to pro lifers?
White Evangelicals are 25% of the voters in presidential elections. They voted for Mitt Romney over Obama by more than 75% to 25%. They also turned out to vote for him in the same numbers as they voted for W. in 2004.
WOrking and middle class whites stayed home. Enough to cost Romney the election. If White Evangelicals stay home, there is no Republican Party.
Our media is monolithic in its pro-choice bias. So elites like Hinderaker assume that the media is right and the Republican base is stupid.
But of course it could be the media (and Hinderaker!) who is ill-informed. I'm constantly shocked by the attorneys I've met who haven't heard of Carhart. I'm just staggered by the ignorance.
If the media was doing stories on infanticides and baby-killing--and running photographs and blaming Obama for them--if the media had a "war on babies" meme, this election would have been completely different. And we know this.
So the question for us is whether we will allow the media to dictate our politics to us. As Republicans we can either roll over and accept what we are told, or we can fight back.
I think a lot of pro-lifers would vote for a third party, including pro-life Democrats.
Inga said...
Are you here for any legitimate discussion ? If not, get lost.
Some people have no self awareness.
I'm trying to figure out how you can blame social issues for Romney's loss, when he was the most squishy on the social issues of any of the major Republican candidates. None of us really believed he was genuinely pro-life. In fact, I blame his loss on the disaffection of the social conservative base. Romney didn't even get the numbers McCain did. The Republicans are going to get the narrative exactly bass-ackwards. It's not that I didn't think the fiscal cliff was the most important issue, but I didn't trust Romney on that, either. I hoped, but felt it was fool's gold. Spending more than you make is a moral issue too, by the way. The current headlines demonstrate that our govt. lacks self-control regardless of which of the Ten Commandments you are talking about: theft, false witness, covetousness, or adultery. Name it, and our govt. is full of it, which is why all this decrying of moralism is bullshit.
Dante - my point is that's how the religious right sees it. God's law is the only thing that matters to them. Arguing with them is like talking to a wall.
ST and Inga are channeling the Pogues today: link
Inga ignores me because she knows the answer to my question, and it's the answer she doesn't want to say.
pro life policy doesn't have much room for expansion. Support for activist but relatively low impact legislation like the Born Alive Act, sure. But what else is there? An openly anti Roe SC Justice cannot be confirmed.
We should fight to recognize partial-born babies as citizens of the United States. Thus killing a partially-born infant can be prosecuted as murder. There are lots of pro-choice people who are appalled at partial-birth abortion and the Carhart abortions. Fight that fight. Let Obama explain why a partially-born infant is property. Educate people.
Outlawing partial-birth abortion was a political win for us, a no-brainer. We should up the stakes, make these babies citizens, and thereby define the late-term abortion procedures (D&X and D&E) as murder.
Let's make it murder to kill babies outside the birth canal. Even if we lose the fight, simply by fighting it we set the agenda and the discussion.
Rape was a winning argument for pro-choice people, and the pro-lifers were stupid in what they said and how they responded to it.
But we have strong arguments too! Make Carhart a household word, so that Americans know what's going on. We have to educate and inform the whole mass of the people.
Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them.
Let's acknowledge that we can't even [expletive] BEGIN to discuss these [more expletives] issues because the [made famous by "Snakes On A Plane" expletives] Left injects race EVERY SINGLE [out-cussing two entire Coen Brothers movies] TIME someone tries to bring up the the [ran out of expletives, gotta invent new ones] subject.
The obvious compromise is to hold the philosophical line at exceptions for rape, incest, and life while fighting against mental exceptions (which are too easy to manipulate).
What about the pill. That has anti-attach drugs in it. The morning after pill?
The problem is these two concepts are fundamentally immiscible. That God is there when some random sperm touches an egg, and that God is not there.
The pro-life person ought to realize their viewpoint militates for no exception, realize that's ridiculous to 99% of people, and give up.
The pro-choice people should be pilloried for comments like from Barbara Boxer, our idiot senator in CA, who thinks killing kids up to the minute before it is born is OK.
Dante:
First, the move, in your comments, from GOP to "conservative movement" is interesting. You're correct that were the GOP to tell pro-lifers to take a hike, that indeed would take down the conservative movement. But in what sense is that the pro-lifers' fault?
Is it your assumption that pro-lifers owe their votes to the GOP? In what sense is that a reasonable expectation, or even a prudent approach on their part? To tell the party, don't worry, you have our votes no matter how contemptuously you treat us, is the height of foolishness.
Elections are won by coalitions. The GOP wants prolifers to be part of that coalition. If the GOP decides the prolifers aren't helpful, then my point was, the party will rue the day.
In the course of you blaming the victim, you confirm my analysis.
St. Croix, I agree with you on partial birth abortion. Once the baby is out of the womb, it' should have the same rights guaranteed us under the Consitution. One way of keeping this scenario from ever happening is a compromise, no abortions past the 1st Trimester, or shortly thereafter.
Also, a baby IN the womb after its nervous system is fully functional.
Pro-lifers are willing to take down the entire conservative movement for a religious belief.
I don't vote for baby-killers. Nor do I vote for people who define other people as property. I think it's evil.
And you want to call me judgmental, while you have a knife in your hand? While you're injecting poison in a baby's neck? While you have a 90% kill rate on babies with Down's syndrome?
Pro-lifers are nice people. And we are not on board with what you want to do.
Dante & Alex:
You are welcome to claim pro-lifers are animated merely by a religious impulse--and that is the canard circulated by the pro-aborts--but it is simply, factually, false.
Nate Hentoff is pro-life. Please name the religious belief that motivates his pro-life stance?
Saint Croix, I always thought the laws that protected women from being coerced into an abortion, were a good place to start. We need stronger laws that protect pregnant woman from domestic violence, also universities that offer flexibility to college age women and men, so the mother or father doesn't have to drop out of school.
I'm not a fan of the 24 hour waiting period, if someone wants to abort or have someone have an abortion 24 hours doesn't help.
I'm a fan of true comprehensive sex education, I didn't learn about fetal development until I was actually pregnant. Seriously, science is on the pro-life side. Healthy sex is more then contraception, it is about a healthy relationship and love.
The abstinence message means nothing, because teenagers can not see themselves married. Waiting for what? Don't talk about what they can't do, focus on what they can do.
I wish we had a culture that still allowed people to be married while in college, why make otherwise healthy relationships wait?
So elites like Hinderaker assume that the media is right and the Republican base is stupid.
Social conservatives are now being reminded by pundits and others that we are out of the "mainstream" and, therefore, will continue to lose elections. Naturally, this is the bellwether of the secular progressive moral relativists. It is unfortunate to see it gaining acceptance among conservative "pragmatists."
The latter group should remember that morality is not about mainstream thinking or winning elections except among the godless.
Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them.
I don't understand this attitude. Crime and welfare are what they are. Different demographics have different incidents. When one says "Asian-Americans have a low crime rate," is that racist or a statement of fact?
How do you justify scientifically that the two claims that life begins at birth and life ends with the cessation of neural activity are both true?
St. Croix, I agree with you on partial birth abortion.
Thank you, Inga. Anthony Kennedy is the same way. There are large numbers of pro-choice people who are appalled by infanticide outside the birth canal.
I think it's prejudice--we're failing to recognize the life of the baby inside the womb--but let's at least draw a bright line test at birth and define any abortion outside the birth canal as murder. I believe a good number of liberals will agree with this.
Dante and Alex's seeming assertion that prolifers can't and won't compromise is simply factually wrong:
1. When legislation is proposed that only outlaws some--even a few--abortions, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, or the so-called "sex selection" ban, or laws that start with a heartbeat, are these bills torpedoed by uncompromising prolifers? Are Congressmen who vote for them targeted for defeat by prolifers?
No. The facts are 100% the opposite. Pro-lifers back them, while naturally wanting more.
2. The same is true when we're not even talking about outlawing abortions, even a few, but merely insisting on tighter regulation.
The fact is--and everyone knows this--that if a bill to outlaw abortions were put before either a state or the country, and it exempts rape and incest, pro-lifers will have wanted more, but they'll vote for it.
But the person who enters into negotiations having already given concessions away before ever getting to the table (and getting something for those concessions) is very poor negotiator.
The path to victory has been shown to us by the Obama campaign.
You need to lie about your opponent. You need to look plausible while you lie. You need to go on entertainment venues and trash and lie about your opponent but do it with a smile and a sense of irony. These guys are pussies. You can push Letterman and Stewart and Leno around. They blow the way the wind blows.
You need to use wedge issues to split off pieces of the ruling coalition.
For example. If it is true that Asians voted in large numbers for Obama (which I do not believe but lets just say that is a given) lets attack affirmative action in an upfront bold way. Tell Asian families that they will not get into colleges because they will go to people who score much lower on tests and other objective criteria. Just the way Obama got in school. Demand his college transcripts and find Asians who applied at the same time with much higher scores who were denied entry.Make it about their greedy self interest. That is how you get their votes.
Being a reasonable sober and competent man who doesn't mention social issues doesn't work if you let them demonize you. The economy does not matter. Truth does not matter.
Demonize them right back. Raise the black flag. Attack ads. Lie. Do what they did. Don't give an inch.
Because if you do and get another mealy mouth Rhino like Romney or a fool who kisses the ass of the media like McCain you are gonna lose again.
Nixon wins Romney loses.
Dante said...
The obvious compromise is to hold the philosophical line at exceptions for rape, incest, and life while fighting against mental exceptions (which are too easy to manipulate).
What about the pill. That has anti-attach drugs in it. The morning after pill?
I don't get the sense that the pill is particularly controversial. Are there any statistics showing this? I googled but almost all results seemed to be from one leftwing outfit or another and not focused on polls. I did find that 82% of Catholics support contraception. The pill is likely to show less support, but that's a pro-life constituency so the overall figure seems like it would be less than the 18% opposition.
"pro-aborts"
No one is pro abortion, but many are pro choice.
And being Althouse's con, resident priest, makes no difference in your skewed terminology.
Interesting Willard/Ryan et al cons were willing to lie re: their true position on abortion in order to get elected.
Willard lying on his position re: all the major political issues notwithstanding. Either that or he was a confused pup!
I'm a fan of true comprehensive sex education, I didn't learn about fetal development until I was actually pregnant.
When I took a sex class in college, I saw photographs of untreated v.d. Boy did that freak me out!
I think we should be constantly reminding kids that sex leads to babies. Show them photographs of abortions. Show them 3-D photographs of unborn babies. Take a field trip to an abortion clinic, and another one to a hospital to see newborns. We should remind young people that sex leads to babies all the time. I believe this would make them more responsible, more careful, and more loving with one another.
Mr. Fox:
You are welcome to claim pro-lifers are animated merely by a religious impulse--and that is the canard circulated by the pro-aborts--but it is simply, factually, false.
There isn't any convincing you of anything. I am curious. Do you believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, and if so, for which?
I would like to get to a point where gay marriage is legal. The Catholic Church is the strongest force of opposition to gay marriage, yet most Catholics vote democrat. The republicans get stuck with the bad image that comes from the church but the democrats get the credit for the feel good social justice side of the church. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting their battles.
Personally, I hate the gay marriage issue because it pits people against eachother. Can the busybodies on both sides stop it with these studies that are set up to "prove" that one form of parenting is superior to the other. I do see the potential for a slippery slope on this issue, but I am tired of it. Just as long as nobody is shoving anything down my throat, then I can accept it. Honestly, I think allowing gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage rather than undermine it. I remain slightly hesitant though because I do see the possibility of militant gays demanding every church to embrace their definition of marriage, which I would oppose.
On abortion, I fear the slippery slope is leading us to a totalitarian one child policy and forced abortion. I don't really care much if other women choose to kill their babies, but they better stay away from my womb.
Fr Martin Fox said...
But the person who enters into negotiations having already given concessions away before ever getting to the table (and getting something for those concessions) is very poor negotiator.
The person who doesn't make the rape, incest, and life exceptions doesn't make it to the table, and thus it doensn't matter how strong a negotiator he is.
I don't get the sense that the pill is particularly controversial.
So the Pill is OK, which prevents fertilized eggs from attaching. So now it's up to the time after the sperm hits the egg. When is it OK to stop a woman from carrying a child to term, then?
If they were able to surgically remove the fetus, and freeze it for eternity, would that be OK?
How do you justify scientifically that the two claims that life begins at birth and life ends with the cessation of neural activity are both true?
The claim made by human embryologists is that "life begins at fertilization." There is no legitimate scientific claim to the contrary.
No one is pro abortion
That's not true. Justice Blackmun saw poverty as a cancer, and he saw abortion as the cure.
Justice Ginsburg doesn't like "anomalies" (her name for the handicapped) and she wants abortion to make them go away.
There are people who think abortion decreases crime, decreases welfare, decreases all sorts of bad stuff. So, yes, they are pro-abortion.
China has a one-child rule.
And there are all sorts of environmental wackos who want to use abortion as a population control.
But the person who enters into negotiations having already given concessions away before ever getting to the table (and getting something for those concessions) is very poor negotiator.
I don't see how you can compromise. Either you believe these lives are humans at conception, or you do not. If you do not, then you argue for when that is. But you can't do that, since then you give up any hope of having a position from which to argue.
If you do, you aren't going to be happy until every life is saved. That means banning the pill, among other things.
Anyway, there is obviously no hope in this discussion. You pro-lifers will continue to make this a major issue for Rs, who with a softer approach might have a better chance of getting elected. Meanwhile, you are going to select for vile people like Barbara Boxer, who believe the woman can abort up to the minute before the child comes out.
Dante said:
There isn't any convincing you of anything.
Is that meant to be insulting, or an attempted statement of fact? If the latter, I'd like to know your basis for the assertion. If the former, let me know and I'll know where I stand with you.
I am curious. Do you believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, and if so, for which?
Of course I don't "believe" in such exceptions. Why would I? How would my believing such things be defensible on my part, given who I am and what I've made clear I believe?
Now, a further note on the "life of the mother" exception, since you asked. This is an oversimplification of a fairly complicated point; oversimplified because it does get confusing.
I'm not an expert in these medical matters, obviously, so what follows is what those who are tell me is true: there are no situations where an abortion, strictly speaking, is indicated as necessary to save the life of the mother.
That may be true, or it may not; it's obviously a factual assertion, not a matter of dogma or ideology or philosophy.
In any case, the longstanding position of pro-lifers is to make that exception; and when Catholics in particular come to it, they mean something a little more subtle. They mean not an abortion, per se--which is, for Catholics, NEVER acceptable (never means never)--but those rare but real situations in which an unborn child dies as an unavoidable result of an otherwise proper and necessary health intervention. Example: a pregnant woman has cancer, and she needs either radiation or chemotherapy, or else she needs surgery. Should she pursue these--in order to save her life--and the unborn child can't be saved, that is morally acceptable.
That's not, properly speaking, an abortion; but it's what the so-called "life of the mother" exception is meant to apply to.
"The person who doesn't make the rape, incest, and life exceptions doesn't make it to the table, and thus it doensn't matter how strong a negotiator he is. "
Why incest as an exemption, if it is consensual.
No one disputes 'life of the mother', and even the Catholic Church permits Plan B if there is rape and conception has not occurred.
While there is definitely a strong argument for the rape exception since that act was against the will of the woman. But what about the women who choose life, even though raped. They're still raped, it is still a crime. Having the child, doesn't mean we excused the rape.
Because I'm pro-life and I would keep the pregnancy, doesn't give anyone permission to rape me.
That's not true. Justice Blackmun saw poverty as a cancer, and he saw abortion as the cure.
I have been told, more than once, that "Planned Parenthood is my favorite charity." This is a very leftist Jew, and he meant what he said, as an anti-poverty/pro society mechanism.
Dante wrote: Mr. Fox: "You are welcome to claim pro-lifers are animated merely by a religious impulse--and that is the canard circulated by the pro-aborts--but it is simply, factually, false."
There isn't any convincing you of anything....
It is absurd to argue that the only argument against abortion is religious. Fox is correct.
For example, Professor Althouse recently stated that she supports abortion although she believes it is murder.*
Is opposition to murder dependent upon religious conviction? Obviously not.
*I think I have paraphrased you correctly, Professor, if not, I apologize.
Fr Martin Fox said...
But the person who enters into negotiations having already given concessions away before ever getting to the table (and getting something for those concessions) is very poor negotiator.
Marshall said:
The person who doesn't make the rape, incest, and life exceptions doesn't make it to the table, and thus it doensn't matter how strong a negotiator he is.
That's factually not true.
Congress has lots of members, right now, who make no such exceptions for rape and incest. When it comes to framing legislation, they are, literally, "at the table"; and whenever the time comes to enact such legislation--once Roe no longer impedes them--the process of framing an eventual law will be a negotiation, will it not?
The same is true in state legislatures.
Or, are you under the impression that pro-life candidates who oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest never get elected? There are a lot of them who have been elected, for quite some time.
So your assertion is factually wrong.
Is that meant to be insulting, or an attempted statement of fact? If the latter, I'd like to know your basis for the assertion. If the former, let me know and I'll know where I stand with you.
It's exactly what I meant it to mean. There is no way of convincing you on this point. Your mind is made up, as evidenced by your positions. It's a statement of exasperation on my part, to see people's religious beliefs take over a group that has (some) good policy ideas. It's a statement of futility.
It's a statement of watching this country go down the drain due to the power of certain stubborn groups on the electorate.
You said it yourself. If Rs abandon the pro-life stance we will abandon Rs.
One sided thinking.
Now, that doesn't mean I do not appreciate your position. You think it's murder. Murder is a bad thing. But the problem is it's an assumption on your part, and it's because of what you have learned.
Oh, you can run around and claim there is a scientific basis for your thoughts, but that's simply going to be BS and not worth looking into.
So yeah, it sucks there are people like you willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Once again, those who assert pro-lifers' motives are religious, please explain the religious belief that animates Nat Hentoff's pro-life stance?
Well, Dante, it's funny you accuse me of being unreasoning, when you're the one opting for insults rather than conversation.
I see no reason to dialogue with people who take that path. Why should I?
When you are open to discussion, without insults, let me know.
I would like to get to a point where gay marriage is legal. The Catholic Church is the strongest force of opposition to gay marriage, yet most Catholics vote democrat. The republicans get stuck with the bad image that comes from the church but the democrats get the credit for the feel good social justice side of the church. Perhaps it is time to stop fighting their battles.
Personally, I hate the gay marriage issue because it pits people against eachother. Can the busybodies on both sides stop it with these studies that are set up to "prove" that one form of parenting is superior to the other. I do see the potential for a slippery slope on this issue, but I am tired of it. Just as long as nobody is shoving anything down my throat, then I can accept it. Honestly, I think allowing gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage rather than undermine it. I remain slightly hesitant though because I do see the possibility of militant gays demanding every church to embrace their definition of marriage, which I would oppose.
On abortion, I fear the slippery slope is leading us to a totalitarian one child policy and forced abortion. I don't really care much if other women choose to kill their babies, but they better stay away from my womb.
I am married to an "Asian,' and we have a wide circle of
"Asian" friends, all of whom it seems voted for Obama based on the issues and his foreign policy views. It was not only on the social issues that Asians have a different perspective, although that is a factor-- they tend to want government out of their personal life, but do want government to encourage research, and immigration.
I have been told, more than once, that "Planned Parenthood is my favorite charity." This is a very leftist Jew,....
Assuming this "leftist Jew" to be, as virtually all leftists are, a secularist, why would he not endorse eugenics? Margaret Sanger did.
Renee said...
Why incest as an exemption, if it is consensual.
My argument was a practical one in response to someone else's. As a philospohical matter I agree consensual incest should not merit special treatment. But I believe it earns that place politically because so few people believe consensual incest occurs.
Having the child, doesn't mean we excused the rape.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it does.
But the problem is it's an assumption on your part, and it's because of what you have learned.
I'm not Catholic, Dante. I think abortion is murder because we have laws on the books in regard to when people die. And it's the same law in all 50 states. Complete and utter cessation of all activity in the brainstem and cerebral cortex. You can try to spin this into a religious view, but it's silly.
And while I think brain death is a good rule, my main point is that the evil of Roe v. Wade was to define the baby as sub-human property, and to say her life was irrelevant as a legal matter.
I object strongly to that. To me it's the Nazi argument, the slave-owner argument. You may call this "religious" but what do you say to Nat Hentoff?
How effective has all this been you might ask - poverty rate today is within 2 tenths of one percent of where it was in 1964.
liar
Tell Asian families that they will not get into colleges because they will go to people who score much lower on tests and other objective criteria. Just the way Obama got in school.
I don't think that would be lying, Captain Zemo--but it sure ain't gonna fly in Madison WI or Chicago IL. Libs love living the lie there.
Dante wrote: You think it's murder....
Oh, you can run around and claim there is a scientific basis for your thoughts, but that's simply going to be BS and not worth looking into.
Because of the legal definitions, "homocide" is a better choice than "murder." Otherwise, you are doing what you are accusing Fr. Fox of doing.
You don't know what you are talking about and won't bother looking at facts or arguments to the contrary.
Big Bird, indeed!
Fr Martin Fox said...
That's factually not true.
Congress has lots of members, right now, who make no such exceptions for rape and incest.
Wrong side of the bed today? Fair enough, I'm thinking of Presidential elections. Do you think this country is willing to elect a President without those exceptions?
It is absurd to argue that the only argument against abortion is religious. Fox is correct.
Did I say that? I think Fox said that's what I said. I said Pro-Lifers are willing to ... for a religious belief. And many are. It's not exclusive, it does not mean all.
I should amend that to strike "religious" and merely state "belief." Fox's point is that religion isn't the only reason. I can imagine some arguments as to why it's not a good idea, but they are all based on suppositions.
ROFL!!! Want to know how and why Urkel won again? You have to look no further than the cheap, two-bit, drunken sots like Inga. Once again, she dominates and takes over the narrative and you guys are busy chasing her down trying to learn her something while she keeps on attention whoring the whole thread and derails it. This is what Urkel did and this is what Inga does. She like her lord and savior are devoid of substance yet overflowing with hyperbole and you keep letting them both get away with it.
She, like voting for revenge is best ignored. When no one talks to her, she goes off and pouts and sulks. The instant she gets any recognition, BAM, the legs spread and she's off to the races showing you all how to attention whore.
You don't know what you are talking about and won't bother looking at facts or arguments to the contrary.
I'm not going to listen to a bunch of loons that believe the world was created 6,000 years ago either. Sorry.
Prove me wrong. Define "Human Being." Be precise. Then we can talk about when something becomes a human being.
Can Inga admit she re-elected a symbol as the President of the United States?
A white Barack Obama gets the blame for four crap years and loses.
Dante said...
I'm not going to listen to a bunch of loons that believe the world was created 6,000 years ago either.
For a guy whose first argument was that pro-lifers were unreasonably refusing to compromise pulling unrelated arguments into the discussion is a strange tactic.
Dante: I said Pro-Lifers are willing to ... for a religious belief. And many are. It's not exclusive, it does not mean all.
... I can imagine some arguments as to why [abortion is] not a good idea, but they are all based on suppositions.
I missed the place where you said "some pro-lifers ...."
Are you now saying that some or all of: "life begins at conception and, therefore, abortion terminates a life" is based on supposition?
I hope not, because that is just nonsense.
So what does Meth head do after he complains about me being an attention whore? Drags me back into the thread, what a dope.LMAO!
Why don't YOU be the first to ignore me Meth, set an example. Between Meth and ST, I haven't laughed so hard for at least a week.
Can Inga admit she re-elected a symbol as the President of the United States?
We've come a long way in a short amount of time from "the polls are skewed +9".
We've come a long way in a short amount of time from "the polls are skewed +9".
I can't wait to see the D+22 polls in 2016! ; )
I missed the place where you said "some pro-lifers ...."
No you did not. You missed the point where I said "All" pro-lifers. It's not qualified.
It's like saying "Human beings walk upright." Well, not all do, but most do. Or would you quibble with that too?
Anyway, it's not relevant. I maintain the vast majority of pro-lifers in fact DO have their beliefs for religious reasons. There, how about THAT. I also believe that pro-lifers would love nothing more than to find scientific reasons to back up their views. Like many fundies would love scientific PROOF that evolution did not happen, and that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Be a good believer.
I got kicked off a talk radio show for trying to point out that people with these strong beliefs view abortion as murder. There isn't any compromising with that. So let's keep it that way.
My issue is that I disagree with you. I'm a guy, despise the idea of a thing growing inside of me, but I don't think you have the right to force your belief system on other people.
Dante wrote: Prove me wrong. Define "Human Being." Be precise. Then we can talk about when something becomes a human being.
Oh please, don't pretend that you have some basis for your position other than your misinformed opinion.
Here are four citations out of thousands. This is settled scientific fact, not consensus science. (Btw, I doubt that the authors of these scientific texts are new earth creationists, you pathetic bigot.)
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization....” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed....” [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
Inga said...
So what does Meth head do after he complains about me being an attention whore? Drags me back into the thread, what a dope.LMAO!
Why don't YOU be the first to ignore me Meth, set an example. Between Meth and ST, I haven't laughed so hard for at least a week.
Nope, just making a point, but not directly addressing you unlike now. You aren't really worth it. You've long ago embraced the dark side. You are hopelessly irrelevant in whatever you say or do. Your cackling is nothing but a sign of the kind of evil you dwell in. Enjoy it. There is really nothing more to say to you.
The other reason we ought to fight the liberal press on abortion is because a lot of women are harmed by it.
For instance, you probably have not heard of Asherman's syndrome. It's caused by D&C abortions. The Supreme Court has been insisting for 40 years that D&C is safe. And now abortion doctors won't do the D&C anymore because it scars your uterus and often makes you infertile.
D&C was a common medical procedure, throughout the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Millions of people had a D&C abortion. The risks were never discussed or acknowledged by pro-choice people. They just covered it up.
So a 16-year-old has a D&C, and then she's scarred for life, unable to have children for the rest of her life.
And, oh yes, maybe she has an increased risk for breast cancer now, too.
And this potential hazard is simply not discussed. Not by the Supreme Court, not be pro-choice advocates, not by the media. See this article for the National Cancer Institute's double standard on the possible link between abortion and breast cancer.
On the website for the public, the NCI says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. But in their published peer-reviewed studies, the NCI says there is a link! And when asked to explain the discrepancy, the NCI refuses to comment.
It's shocking how these doctors say one thing to the public ("abortion is safe, safe, safe!") but, in their peer-reviewed journals, they acknowledge the danger. It's not just shocking, it's despicable.
Fr Martin Fox said...
That's factually not true.
Congress has lots of members, right now, who make no such exceptions for rape and incest.
Marshall:
Wrong side of the bed today? Fair enough, I'm thinking of Presidential elections. Do you think this country is willing to elect a President without those exceptions?
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be discourteous, simply plain in my meaning.
To your question, I certainly believe we can elect a President without those exceptions. We have. When Reagan and the first Bush were elected, this was their position. The opposition made all they could of it, unsuccessfully.
I think it would be a big stretch to say that Bush I's defeat in 1992 was due to that. After all, Clinton made a big (rhetorical) move toward the center precisely on the abortion question.
In addition, I would offer polling data, reported in various places in recent years, showing the pro-life position is stronger today than it's been since Roe was handed down. That tells me that however hard it may be to be elected--as President--with a full prolife position, it was harder when Reagan and Bush won three straight between them.
Finally, while George W. did make those exceptions, can you offer any evidence that doing so ameliorated the ferocity of the attempts by the other side to paint him as an extremist?
As I recall, when he was re-elected, the red portion of the country was widely derided, by his opponents, as "Jesusland."
In short, I think George W. would have done as well in 2000 and 2004 with a solid position.
And I think Romney would have done better had he been a credible pro-life candidate. A huge problem with him was that a lot of folks didn't believe he was with them--but he was less-bad. Big difference in enthusiasm.
And note: the problem with Romney was turnout.
Oh please, don't pretend that you have some basis for your position other than your misinformed opinion.
Now you've convinced me. Yep! It's murder. And because it is, rape victims must have their children. Severely damaged kids must, etc.
Like I said, there is absolutely no point in having this discussion. You believe, because you believe, and it threatens your viewpoint.
"rape victims must have their children"
To note, I appreciate the fact you acknowledge the child to be the mother's as well. It just isn't the rapist's child.
Do we have any recent stats on the issue, i.e. percentage of women who were raped, got pregnant and gave birth?
Most people arguing pro-choice do not believe in the rape/incest/life exception either, pro-choice individuals believe you can have an abortion for any reason or having no reason to have an abortion. So why do pro-choice individuals argue exceptions they do not support.
It doesn't matter if she was raped, she has a right to an abortion no matter what.
The abortion question that's seriously disputed isn't the scientific question--when does human life begin--but what is the basis for saying a conceived human life has legal rights, all the way to the question of personhood.
The moment at which any human being, currently engaged in this conversation, began to be, is not some impenetrable mystery, and it's not a matter of dogma. It's a scientific and empirical question. Even if there are some anomalies or unresolved issues. Just as Darwin's theory--so I'm told by those who know the subject better--stands largely as settled, even if there are aspects that remain unresolved.
FWIW, while I can't speak for any other religion, the Catholic Faith does not define when life begins. It doesn't define the moment when a soul comes into existence.
The Church defers to scientists to give insight into the development and thus, decisive beginnings, of life, insofar as science can give answers. The Church's opposition to abortion has been total and constant, from her beginning, without relying on detailed knowledge of how life develops in the womb, and what the study of genetics tells us, etc.
And while the history of a term like this isn't my area of expertise, "personhood" has origins in law, philosophy and religion, but Christianity took it from pre-existing philosophy, not vice-versa. That, too, is not a strictly, or primarily, "religious" term. If you look for some section of the Catechism covering "personhood," you will be disappointed.
Dante wrote: Prove me wrong. Define "Human Being." Be precise. Then we can talk about when something becomes a human being.
I provided cites to and quotes from human embryology texts proving human life begins at conception.
Dante then wrote: Like I said, there is absolutely no point in having this discussion. You believe, because you believe, and it threatens your viewpoint.
The reason this discussion is pointless is that you lack the intellectual capacity to evaluate data and/or to defend your point of view.
I should have seen that from the start.
Dante said...
Prove me wrong. Define "Human Being." Be precise. Then we can talk about when something becomes a human being.
At the genetic level a human being is a species of homo sapiens sapiens that share 46 distinct chromosomes for that particular species. 23 pairs from both the mother and the father. Is that specific enough? I mean, I could drill deeper into the genetic code, but I don't have enough time to type out A,G,C,T in billions upon billions of combinations.
rape victims must have their children.
It's really a non-issue as emergency contraception (i.e. the day after pill) is widely available. And contraception is a constitutional right under Griswold, not Roe. There is no movement by anybody to overturn Griswold.
It's not an abortion, it's basic birth control. Pro-lifers should always talk about emergency contraception when asked about rape.
Dante said...
It is absurd to argue that the only argument against abortion is religious. Fox is correct.
Did I say that? I think Fox said that's what I said. I said Pro-Lifers are willing to ... for a religious belief. And many are. It's not exclusive, it does not mean all.
I should amend that to strike "religious" and merely state "belief." Fox's point is that religion isn't the only reason. I can imagine some arguments as to why it's not a good idea, but they are all based on suppositions.
The basic thrust of the argument is, do you believe that a human being that is conceived should have an opportunity to develop beyond its initial point of conception to the point of birth? It isn't even a religious argument, so why are you trying to make it one?
Renee wrote: "So why do pro-choice individuals argue exceptions they do not support."
It's a concession to politics. The notion is that it is more acceptable to agree to a position that prevents 90 per cent of the slaughter than one that through political loss allows 100 per cent to continue or be funded, or whatever.
I assume you are not arguing that pro-abort support for abortion on demand is the more moral position.
"I assume you are not arguing that pro-abort support for abortion on demand is the more moral position."
But this is the moral position of the pro-choice position, abortion on demand. That's sort of the whole idea behind being pro-choice. If you can't get an abortion, without question, then you don't have freedom. No one should question your abortion, it is a personal choice.
R v w didn't say you had to have a reason to have an abortion. It just said you can have one, and it is a woman's right. So why go into the exceptions?
The idea that you need a good reason for an abortion, goes down the line of thinking of Akin who questioned the legitimacy of rape. No woman should be questioned, especially by the law, if we're going down the pro-choice line of thinking.
Yes, I'm creeping myself out acknowledging this view point.
The basic thrust of the argument is, do you believe that a human being that is conceived should have an opportunity to develop beyond its initial point of conception to the point of birth? It isn't even a religious argument, so why are you trying to make it one?
Dante's supposition is that it isn't life--or to use garage mahal's old analogy, a fetus is just a sea horse.
I'm guessing but I suppose that supposing a fetus isn't a human life goes quite a distance in assuaging the potential guilt of a woman who otherwise feels trapped or helpless herself.
Renee wrote: But this is the moral position of the pro-choice position, abortion on demand....
I don't quite get where the "moral" part comes from. It's "moral" because it's unequivocal?
In any event, how is the killing of an unborn child "moral?" I can see where it could be "practical" or even "whimsical." But how can it be moral?
I'm guessing but I suppose that supposing a fetus isn't a human life goes quite a distance in assuaging the potential guilt of a woman who otherwise feels trapped or helpless herself.
Not to mention the fact that it is utterly, completely, scientifically unsound and a great way to sell a repulsive practice politically.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/11/RAMFNLclr-111312-stupid-IBD.jpg.cms_.jpeg
So, as I said many remarks ago...
The only actual "social issue" is abortion. Thanks for proving me right.
The purported subjugation and persecution of women and gays is nothing more than a media creation, the subject of endless soap opera movies and TV shows.
Women have, in fact, been spoiled and praised endlessly throughout my life. They have superior legal rights in marriage, family court and divorce. They live longer because they consume more medical care. The now comprise 60% of the college student population. When men comprised 60% of the college population, that was thought to be a serious crisis in need of Federal remedy. Now that men are the minority, nobody seems to care.
And gay men are the pets of the corporation, academic and government worlds. Declaring yourself gay makes you a beneficiary of the quota systems.
Hombre, I don't know. I'm pro-life.
Apparently giving the woman freedom to do so is right and just.
Lucky me, I had the right to abort my kids. Who is grateful for that? And should anyone be grateful for abortion?
I can't believe we buy into abortion is really reproductive freedom line of thought.
Is that specific enough?
Don't exfoliate your skin. Dead people are humans too.
Dante's supposition is that it isn't life
I do not believe it is human life, anymore than the live skin cells that are scratched off from an itch are human life. It's most certainly life.
See, I use the word "Believe," though I have strong reasons to believe that. But I do not know.
Others believe it is human life, at the point of conception. Once you accept that, its murder to abort. All forms of birth control pill that have anti-attach agents (which I think is all of them) are some kind of potential murder, since the fertilized egg may not attach, and get flushed down the toilet.
Sorry, I realize to some that sounds horrid. But it happens all the time, with or without the birth control pill. Women auto-abort often.
I do not agree with the Obamaos forcing religious institutions to force churches to provide contraception. But nor do I agree that "Belief" is a strong enough system to coerce others to following YOUR morality.
Methadras: I disagree with your predicate. I don't think a fertilized cell is a human being. I don't believe it is owed any rights whatsoever.
And before I forget to the person who tried to define human life as 23 chromosomal pairs, i.e., a cell of a human being, there are some people with Down's Syndrome.
They have 3 copies of chromosome 21. Therefore, is it OK to abort these non-humans?
Dante said...
Is that specific enough?
Don't exfoliate your skin. Dead people are humans too.
You asked for a specific definition of a human being. I gave you one. The face that you are moving the goal post isn't my problem, but rather a symptom of your lack of intellectual footing. Yes, dead people are human being, but they are still human beings. Want to try again or are you going to keep this silly game going?
chickelit said...
Dante's supposition is that it isn't life
I'm still unclear, because he really hasn't made a cogent argument to that fact, 1) why it isn't life, much less human life and 2) what else could it be given that living human DNA consisting of 23 living chromosomes from a mother and 23 living chromosomes from a father combine in a living ovum being penetrated by a living sperm, to create a unique 46 chromosomed living conceptualizes human being.
--or to use garage mahal's old analogy, a fetus is just a sea horse.
Well, considering his mother pulls Anheuser Busch wagons full of beer as a show piece around Christmas time commercials, with a very questionable paternal lineage (aka her handler), I can see how he would be confused on that front.
I'm guessing but I suppose that supposing a fetus isn't a human life goes quite a distance in assuaging the potential guilt of a woman who otherwise feels trapped or helpless herself.
Anyone who says that a human fetus isn't a human life is simply willfully ignorant to scientific facts, much to their vaunted desires to think they are using science to corroborate their beliefs on the subject. Since a human fetus carries 46 unique living chromosomes that could only combine from two viable human male and human female chromosomes, there can only be one outcome, a human being. Not a fish, not a horse (well, unless you are garage mahals mother), not a beetle, not anything else except homo sapiens sapiens. That's it. They can twist it any way they want, but that's the bottom line.
Dante wrote: " I don't think a fertilized cell is a human being."
You forgot the part that goes: "And I don't give a rat's ass what virtually every human embryologist on the planet has concluded for the last 100 years!"
In addition to having HIS morality, Dante also has HIS facts. While we better not try to impose OUR stuff on him, it's okay for him and his ilk to impose THEIR stuff on us.
Got it?
Late to the thread, but:
My theory is that Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers than even Hispanics are wait for it.......social issues.
They value education, excel in the sciences, and have little use for a party that cares not a whit for either.
Dante said...
Methadras: I disagree with your predicate. I don't think a fertilized cell is a human being. I don't believe it is owed any rights whatsoever.
What you think is irrelevant. The facts say that your thoughts are wrong. Unless a fertilized human egg at the point of conception leads to a fish or a humming bird, then your argument is nonsense. Whether that human being is owed any rights whatsoever is a completely different argument, but stop insulting peoples intelligence with what you think you believe as opposed to what really is.
And before I forget to the person who tried to define human life as 23 chromosomal pairs, i.e., a cell of a human being, there are some people with Down's Syndrome.
They have 3 copies of chromosome 21. Therefore, is it OK to abort these non-humans?
A human being nonetheless because the base chromosomes are human being in origin. How they combine is an outcome of their viability. The fact that they have 3 copies of C21 makes them no less human, they at minimum have 2 C21 copies, but ended up integrating 3. So if we follow your ridiculous logic, should then any chromosomal anomalies fall under your definition of not being human? I have a genetic defect called Synesthasia. It's when neural inputs from my sensory nodes crossover onto each other giving me extra-sensory overlay perception. For example, I can taste a sound. I can see a sound. I can smell a touch and so on. It's rare, but some people cross over 2 senses, some 3, some 4, I have all 5 crossed. Does that make my less of a human being? How about women with BRCA1 genetic markers? They may never develop the cancer associated with it, but they have it, so less human?
How chromosomes combine has a specific recipe and format for doing so, sometimes that recipe gets a little quirky, but the base material started out the same. 23 pairs from mother and father. Viola! Human being. I'll leave the rest for your tiny mind to digest. Want to try more or are you just stubborn enough to know that your argument is shattered at this point and may see a different point of view? Or will your 'beliefs' get in the way of that.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Late to the thread, but:
My theory is that Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers than even Hispanics are wait for it.......social issues.
They value education, excel in the sciences, and have little use for a party that cares not a whit for either.
You aren't being hyperbolic enough.
You aren't being hyperbolic enough.
Don't worry; Ritmo goes to 11. Hundreds of times in a single thread when he really goes on an Althouse bender!
You aren't being hyperbolic enough.
Don't worry; Ritmo goes to 11. Hundreds of times in a single thread when he really goes on an Althouse bender!
Hi I'm Erika.
Hi I'm Erika
(Just wanted to see what it like to post comments by those who critique hyperbole through repetition).
I'd just like to know what Republicans have done to improve the quality or quantity of science education at the national level in the last 30 years. Or even at the state level, if that should help all those independents and moderates to see beyond the "hyperbole".
old white male who prefers Asian women who prefer old white males, who will become their "daddies" and allow themselves to be ruled.
Wow. Hard to believe that Inga would write something like that. I would think she'd be horrified with herself. Or at least hope so. Terrible.
And yes, I want to know how a cell with a unique genetic identity is now a human being by virtue of that fact alone. I'd also like to know how the retired celebrity lawyer turned expert witness in the biological sciences, (Elle) "Hombre", decided to support the argument for applying human rights to non-sentient cells.
Patrick, did you read the context in which I said that or are you judging it merely on a partial quote?
What if a zygote's genetic identity was duplicated into two cells, as can happen naturally when a twin is formed or if the DNA was constructed or replicated artificially and then (re-)inserted back into a denucleated cell? Would that now be too far from "unique" to declare human?
What if the dividing zygotes cells were separated? Would each twin now not be genomically unique enough to qualify for human existence?
What about embryos that ingest their twins in utero, as the phenomenon with which these theistic amateur biologists must surely be familiar? Should ceremonies and rites be performed for the lost twin? What about the portion of genomic material that becomes incorporated into the surviving twin? SHould it be removed and given burial rites?
I'm horrified that a misogynist like ST states unequivocally that Asian women think white males are a prize of some sort, that they would prefer a white male above males of their own race as a common occurrence.
Patrick said...
old white male who prefers Asian women who prefer old white males, who will become their "daddies" and allow themselves to be ruled.
Wow. Hard to believe that Inga would write something like that. I would think she'd be horrified with herself. Or at least hope so. Terrible.
Meh, when you have to resort to base stereotypes as a function of your base prejudices as a means to cloak your deep seated racism, then despicable, morally reprehensible people like the one you quoted will say things like this in order to assuage their bitter angels.
Inga, I know you and ST go back and forth with insults, most of which tend to bring down the quality of the thread, and I know ST is no saint when it comes to responding to you. I typically keep out of that, best as I can, anyway. You'll notice I don't pile on when others bash. Your comment about his wife was shameful.
I'm horrified that a misogynist like ST states unequivocally that Asian women think white males are a prize of some sort, that they would prefer a white male above males of their own race as a common occurrence.
Why? And what if it was? I don't think that it is but I do think that Asian women from poorer backgrounds would prefer wealthier dudes. Some cultures have a greater preference for homogeneous cultural insularity than others. However, lighter skin is considered an inherent beauty standard universally across cultures, for some reason. As much as social scientists tried to establish that this was culturally learned, they unfortunately couldn't - at least not so far. With the diversity of skin color in India, lighter is associated with better. But then, they're a caste-based society that openly practices sex-selective abortion preferences.
Most women are not enlightened enough to ignore wealth as some kind of attractant. This should be a turn-off to men intelligent enough to know better, but it might be easier to forgive in a woman who grew up in a grass hut, I suppose.
The other silver lining there is that such a woman might be more likely to appreciate the virtue of hard work in and of itself, both for her own virtue and in a guy. This is a far cry from women who just feel a base attraction to wealth for its own sake.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
And yes, I want to know how a cell with a unique genetic identity is now a human being by virtue of that fact alone. I'd also like to know how the retired celebrity lawyer turned expert witness in the biological sciences, (Elle) "Hombre", decided to support the argument for applying human rights to non-sentient cells.
A living human cell unto itself is unique to that living human being. Introduce that cell into another human host and most likely it will be attacked and killed. The cell unto itself carries the DNA of that human being, but unto itself could it be called a human being or a component of that human being. You could extract the DNA from that cell and recombine it with another set of DNA extracted from another human being and combine those two unique signatures into another ovum to create another human being. The distinction here is that we are still talking about human beings.
if it carries the DNA of a human being and can be used to create another human being, it has the potential to become a human being. Life has been finding ways to make more of itself for billions of years, what exactly are you fighting here?
Ritmo, while its true that women in need might go for a guy with money, it's not just Asian women. Modern Asian women with an education are as independent as a Caucasion or AA woman.
I've often thought about the mutuality of reducing men to objects of wealth and women to objects of beauty. For some reason, I've become more forgiving of the male impulse to overly judge a woman for being too "fat". I thought that maybe he is just trying to protect his possessions from being hoarded by someone too gluttonous.
But then I thought about it further. I think rich men go for shallow, glossy photo-looking women as if to reinforce each others' shallowness and mutual objectification. The deal seems to be that each individual agrees to mutually objectify each other, but at least her thinness could be seen to represent a sense of self-restraint. He doesn't mind the idea of her wanting him for his money, but at least she physically, if not symbolically conveys the reassurances that she won't eat his every possession overnight.
Patrick! My comment was NOT about his wife. I had NO idea his deceased wife was Asian. Nor does that change the fact he is a misogynist.
Ritmo, that is a very, um.....interesting hypothesis.
Going to get me a sammich.
Life has been finding ways to make more of itself for billions of years, what exactly are you fighting here?
Um, probably the idea that a sperm cell is any less "alive" or "genetically unique" than a zygote, despite your willingness to identify those things as hallmarks of personhood.
It took me a while to translate the previous two paragraphs you stuffed in there, but I think I got the relevant point worth responding to with that last sentence of yours.
Too mad the theists got to muddy so much of the thread before that.
Well, too "bad", anyway. ;-)
O Ritmo Segundo said...
What if a zygote's genetic identity was duplicated into two cells, as can happen naturally when a twin is formed or if the DNA was constructed or replicated artificially and then (re-)inserted back into a denucleated cell? Would that now be too far from "unique" to declare human?
It's uniqueness is irrelevant. At the genetic level, they are still human beings. Are they anything else?
What if the dividing zygotes cells were separated? Would each twin now not be genomically unique enough to qualify for human existence?
Once they enter the germinal stage and conception occurs, that zygote is a human being at the genetic level. If you separate them, they are still genetically identical and yet still human.
What about embryos that ingest their twins in utero, as the phenomenon with which these theistic amateur biologists must surely be familiar?
Another one of your enfeebling attempts at insult notwithstanding, fetus in fetu is irrelevant since it's a condition is caused by sheer accident and outside of the control of either fetus'. Still human beings, however, I've read several theories that say they may really be teratomas, a type of tumor.
Should ceremonies and rites be performed for the lost twin? What about the portion of genomic material that becomes incorporated into the surviving twin? SHould it be removed and given burial rites?
You're hyperbolic fundamentalism is showing again.
Well, thinness could represent a restraint, of sorts. And ironically, invested wealth (as opposed to spent wealth) might represent restrain as well. Women and men both seem to value restraint in each other - men seem to value sexual restraint in women, women elevate restraint of all sorts in men.
The problem is that this has become completely overblown. I don't think there's any reassurance that a skinny bitch won't be a nutcase who has no glucose going to her brain and a penchant, after years of blissful courtship and a honeymoon, of yanking out a kitchen knife and going apeshit on a guy, before demanding half his earnings to compensate her for the oh so supposedly demeaning act of having been married to him. The best defense against nowadays is simply a pre-nup, thank God.
ANd then, there are, well, larger women who simply had to grow up learning how to have a real personality in the first place - one that could cope with and appreciate the hardships of life that many in a gender where being looked at is the primary goal simply don't.
So it's hard to say. You could get very philosophical about it and convince yourself that the heavy had no choice but to develop a decent personality - do you trust that this means she'd have been a good person deep down regardless?
ANd then your mind shifts back to the skinny witch. Maybe a girl who looks that good and can manage to have a decent personality despite that, is really the one worth keeping?
Biology eternally muddies the waters of determining virtue from vice.
You're hyperbolic fundamentalism is showing again.
Mine? I'm not the one claiming personhood status for cells simply on the basis of having unique DNA. If anything is hyperbolic and fundamentalist, that is.
But it gets free defenses here at The Althousian Rationalization Station, which is par for the course. Still, I don't have a problem pointing out why its bullshit.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
You're hyperbolic fundamentalism is showing again.
Mine? I'm not the one claiming personhood status for cells simply on the basis of having unique DNA. If anything is hyperbolic and fundamentalist, that is.
But it gets free defenses here at The Althousian Rationalization Station, which is par for the course. Still, I don't have a problem pointing out why its bullshit.
The problem is, is you never pointed out why it's bullshit? It's still a human being at the genetic level. It's personhood is a different argument and one I didn't engage in. That's a legal issue, not a pragmatic one.
Looks like a dilemma, Ritmo. I'm sure that with your superior reasoning skills, you will come to the correct decision for yourself, if not for menfolk in general . I was going to say mankind, but I didn't wan to come off as snarky.:)
Fr Martin Fox,
By 1992, [George H.W. Bush] had adopted a stand of allowing exceptions to abortion in the case of rape and incest, a party position adopted by Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and John McCain in 2008.
From:http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/27/did-todd-akin-make-the-gops-28-year-old
So every Republican nominee since Reagan has included the exceptions. It seems to me that Reagan had a charisma that attracted voters in spite of reservations that might be fatal to other candidates, and that the Bush 88 election was a Reagan coattail. Abortion also seems more of an issue now.
In addition, I would offer polling data, reported in various places in recent years, showing the pro-life position is stronger today than it's been since Roe was handed down
I agree with this, but I think partly this is due to moderates becoming comfortable with the exceptions. I'm not sure the next part follows, other variables have different effects.
Finally, while George W. did make those exceptions, can you offer any evidence that doing so ameliorated the ferocity of the attempts by the other side to paint him as an extremist?
The nuts always make the same attacks, but perhaps the targets are not so swayable without the sound bites.
And I think Romney would have done better had he been a credible pro-life candidate. A huge problem with him was that a lot of folks didn't believe he was with them--but he was less-bad. Big difference in enthusiasm.
This get's back to the original question, is there a compromise to be had. This seems to suggest no.
That's a legal issue, not a pragmatic one.
The ostensibly "legal" issue (problematic enough in states that want to define zygotes as people) is a pragmatic one because it helps you decide whether you can get the state to appropriate another woman's uterus for the purpose of incubating it.
Cells can be human (as an adjective). We do not use the term "human being" when referring to cells. We do not even use it when referring to entire agglomerations of functioning cells, in the form of tissues forming organs. Beating hearts are not "human beings", even if they are entirely comprised of cells (and other organic architecture) that is "human".
I'll leave the problematic grammar alone. This error that keeps being repeated is enough of a doozy.
Thanks Inga, you zygote-incubating machine. ;-)
Thanks Ritmo..... I think.
It does not matter how big we try make our tent. We will ALWAYS be demonized as the party of ('No', 'The Rich', 'Wimmin Haters', Racists, etc.).
So, for me, nothing changes. I yam what I yam.
Here's Ritmo playing off of Dante, who is obviously his intellectual superior: I want to know how a cell with a unique genetic identity is now a human being by virtue of that fact alone. I'd also like to know how the retired celebrity lawyer turned expert witness in the biological sciences, (Elle) "Hombre", decided to support the argument for applying human rights to non-sentient cells.
Ritmo Sock Puppet aka Pompous Montanus, finishing dinner early at the dorm, weighs in by adding previously undiscussed nonsense to the thread (confusing talking points provided him by Kos with the actual discussion at hand).
His comment, as Dante's, boils down to: "And I don't give a rat's ass what virtually every human embryologist on the planet has concluded for the last 100 years, here's what I think!"
We haven't gotten to the "rights" part yet, douchenozzle, since Dante, like you, apparently, can't catch up to the "life begins at" point.
Both parties are corrupt and useless. The real problem is the politicians. They are loyal to their useless parties instead of the people who elected them. It is time to demand a destruction of the two reckless feckless parties. It is about us. Isn't it?
Dante just hasn't yet come to realize that you're a blowhard asshole who isn't worth bothering with. And no, you don't know what embryologists think. Like a monkey typing feverishly, you make a lot of noise and don't have a clue as to what nonsense you write.
You still don't even know the meaning of the term "sock puppet", despite the fact that your senile old ass was told this over and over again by kids who were otherwise sympathetic to your fuddy duddy beliefs.
You just know it's a trendy word (or was one). So in order to dispel the stench of Old Man that permeates your every post, you throw it out there as if to say "I'm cool!"
No, you're still just a ridiculous old twat, with beliefs just as indefensible, and sources who still don't agree with your misapprehension of them.
Dumbass.
We haven't gotten to the "rights" part yet, douchenozzle, since Dante, like you, apparently, can't catch up to the "life begins at" point.
Oh, the best part. Old doucheholster "Hombre" doesn't seem to remember the part where the embryologist said something about a "continuous process". Hence, life for a zygote doesn't "begin" when the precursor cells (egg and sperm for doucheholsters like Hombre) were never inanimate.
Idiots a few centuries back used to believe that life regularly took form from inanimate, similarly shaped objects. They were proven wrong, too.
Now go back to reading the Urban Dictionary and trying to become hip.
Anyway, it's funny to think that this stuff is even being discussed with the partisans. I guess they saw where their take on the issue got them and figured that they desperately had to find a way to reverse course. Dialogue with empiricists and not just their direct-line-in-the-brain-to-God therefore became paramount.
"Wow, it's true! When women's bodies are threatened by men, we can shut that all down. By voting."
Yeah, the Elayne Boosler coda was good. But the graphic at the top with all seven doucheholsters' quotes and the words "DEFEATED" stamped across their face is just the kind of opening announcement this topic needs.
Marshall wrote:
By 1992, [George H.W. Bush] had adopted a stand of allowing exceptions to abortion in the case of rape and incest, a party position adopted by Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and John McCain in 2008.
From:http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/27/did-todd-akin-make-the-gops-28-year-old
So every Republican nominee since Reagan has included the exceptions. It seems to me that Reagan had a charisma that attracted voters in spite of reservations that might be fatal to other candidates, and that the Bush 88 election was a Reagan coattail. Abortion also seems more of an issue now.
Well, if you read carefully what you linked, and what it linked, you'll see I was correct in what I said: in 1980, 1984, and 1988, Reagan and Bush ran successfully on a 100% prolife position.
I admit, I had forgotten that Bush the elder squished on abortion by 1992. Note: he won in 1988 with a 100% prolife position, and lost with a "softer" position. Considering that he squished on taxes and other Reaganite positions during his term, it's not a hard argument to make that his base abandoned him. Recall Buchanan ran against him in the primaries, from the right of course, and caused him a lot of grief.
And here's the Ritmo showing himself for the intellectual subpar he is: And no, you don't know what embryologists think.... No, you're still just a ridiculous old twat, with beliefs just as indefensible, and sources who still don't agree with your misapprehension of them.
And, of course, I don't know what embryologists say - other than the fact that I quoted and cited four of them in an earlier comment.
I know you dorm rats know everything, but we lawyers do have some aptitude for reading and understanding the written word.
You, on the other hand are an acknowledged expert only on the unthinking, unverifiable drivel that falls from the flaccid lips of lefties on most subjects, in this instance the beginning of human life.
As to the question of when and which human rights attach to a human fetus - that should be a matter of communal choice shouldn't it. It's just that you lefties prefer that the choice be made by secular progressive judges than by constitutional consensus of the people.
And, of course, I don't know what embryologists say - other than the fact that I quoted and cited four of them in an earlier comment.
Well that's the difference between repeating what someone said and understanding what they "think". Pay attention to that part, Homey. Thinking will come up quite a bit in the lesson you will refuse to learn. And I'm sure that you will refuse to understand it each time.
As to the question of when and which human rights attach to a human fetus - that should be a matter of communal choice shouldn't it. It's just that you lefties prefer that the choice be made by secular progressive judges than by constitutional consensus of the people.
Although question marks typically follow questions, it doesn't surprise me that someone as dictatorial as yourself would confuse a question with a declaration. But fret not, Dear Old Fuckface, the question of "attaching" rights isn't so problematic as you'd suppose, much as you'd like to use it as a way to bash freedom and the right to be secure in one's person.
And that is because liberals understand something that conservatives don't: The concept of sentience - A hallmark of morality, who should display it, and to which creatures it should be displayed. The ability for an organism to feel and perceive the world around it might be a damn fine point at which certain rights could attach.
But of course, as a conservative, the importance of thinking, feeling and sensing one's way about the world, as well as perceiving pleasure, pain and consciousness, eludes you. So it is only natural that you would miss these characteristics as those which should be possessed by a fetus before assigning it such things as "rights".
Your colleagues, much as they remain fixated on this issue, may yet get that. In the meantime, feel free to talk about the supposedly self-evident superiority of an ideology that was too unconscious, unthinking, imperceptive to figure out why seven Republican rape philosophers were drubbed at the polls last week.
And you remain, as ever, a dumbass. A dumbass that has ambitious pretensions for thoughtfulness, but a dumbass nonetheless.
Perhaps it is why you sympathize with the most vulnerable of the brainless among your species.
Marshall:
I would also point out that since the 90s, pro-lifers have been making progress in organizing and legislation, and it continues to the present--almost all, of course, at the state and local level. So it's not necessary to rely on polling data to say the pro-life position is gaining over time; we're gaining on policy, which is what counts the most.
There are 160-some cosponsors in Congress for the Life at Conception Act, which would declare unborn children persons under the 14th Amendment. That bill still has a long way to being passed, but that fact is a very useful index of the number of committed, no-compromise prolifers elected to both houses of Congress. Nothing comparable was true in the 80s and 90s.
I think you and others make a mistake (if I understand you correctly), in stressing how much a positive difference in political fortunes, the "rape and incest" exceptions make, for three reasons:
(a) you assume the prolife base is not significantly diminished by this compromise in principles (note that: it's a compromise in principles, not a compromise in final policy);
(b) you assume the strident pro-legal-abortion forces are in any way mollified, or even blunted rhetorically; and
(c) that this is necessary to move some significant number of moderates from an otherwise pro-legal-abortion candidate to a pro-life candidate.
Sorry, I think all those assumptions are wrong. Since you stress the last, I'll deal with that further.
A so-called "moderate" on this question is simply someone who is moved to vote for some other reason but this. By emphasizing they are "moderates," what you're saying is, the abortion issue is not a hot-button issue for them, either way. Well, what is their issue? What gets them out to vote? People don't just wander into the voting booth; they make the effort to vote because something motivates them. What?
The biggest number of folks who vote, year after year, vote their party. That's why gerrymandering works.
After that, folks who turn out, and make up a winning coalition, tend to be motivated by issues--if they feel threatened, in particular, and if they have someone they really believe in, and there is a contrast. This is especially true for victorious Republican coalitions: made up of the gun issue, pro-life issue, Right to Work, and the tax issue.
A Republican, in a competitive district or state probably has 35%-40% of the 50%+1 he needs, just from party ID; the rest comes from mobilizing those issue-based voters.
And you don't do that by being mealy-mouth and untrustworthy on the issue they care about. A certain number of folks who are ginned up by a particular issue will not be enthusiastic, if they don't believe you on that issue.
So what about those "moderates" you refer to?
No, they may not be all the way with Reagan, or Bush (first term) or whoever is up next time on abortion, but they are on other issues.
No winning coalition requires everyone to agree on the issues that motivate other coalition partners; only that they have a sufficient reason to vote for guy. Reagan's two victories prove it: no one would claim that the nearly 59% of the vote he got in 1984 means all 59% of those voting shared his 100% pro-life stance. It doesn't matter; for those who didn't share his view, Reagan gave them other reasons to show up.
On the other hand, when you have a Bush running in 1992, having sold out on issue after issue, guess what? A bunch of those folks who showed up for him in 1988, no longer had a reason to. They didn't. He lost.
Same thing happened, for very similar reasons, to the Republicans in Congress under Bush II; as they stopped having credibility on the issues that drove their takeover in 1994, they lost ground, and lost control.
You are becoming increasingly annoying, Fr Fox. In the face of losing as badly as you did with the Republican Rape Philosophy contingent, why not just rethink this whole magic moment for the genomic/materialist soul thing, or at least give up on the Rovian political fixations?
Theists must find a way to translate their values into secular terms if they care to persuade a religiously FREE democracy of how they could be important. So far, there is no secular way of equating genomic identity with sentience, so I suggest you remind yourself of that before yammering on about how to push a political case for depriving women of the right to be secure in their persons.
Grazie.
O Ritmo:
I've succeeded in annoying you?
That's an un-looked-for bonus.
I rally forth, renewed in good cheer and confidence!
What's really funny is how liberals and progressives give "advice on winning" to the very folks they are determined to defeat, and expect it to be taken on face value.
Really, progressives, if you think being pro-life is so deadly to the GOP, why do get so shrill in insisting Republicans drop it? Why wouldn't you encourage them to stick with it--or else just be silent--if you sincerely think it's such a loser?
Careful. Feeling annoyed is not much better than feeling molested.
Same thing applies to all the "helpful advice" progressives are offering these days, from taxes to immigration to Obamacare.
It only makes sense for you to be so shrill and insistent, if in fact adopting your advice gives you both the policy you want, and a less effective opposition.
Ritmo:
Careful. Feeling annoyed is not much better than feeling molested.
Sorry I can't help you there. You'll have to make your own social life.
Invading someone's person is never something to be "unshrill" about, Dear. Haven't you learned a thing from your less upstanding colleagues in that regard?
In any event, the tactical significance of when to speak and when to be silent pre-election has already played out. And in case you haven't heard, here is where it led.
For the politically interested, that's called "losing". Huge.
Sorry I can't help you there. You'll have to make your own social life.
Wow. That's a pretty funny response.
Bit of advice: You might want to take your own institutional shortcomings a bit more seriously before opining on using its teachings as a way of justifying the invasion and control of your fellow citizens' persons.
Ritmo:
You know, you really are vile, aren't you?
How happy for you, I don't share your utilitarian, compassion-less attitude toward my fellow human beings. I think your life has infinite worth, even so.
Unlike you, I can't live content to have my fellow human beings ground up and sent into the sewers for lack of utility, and for the sake of convenience.
You better hope you have folks who think the way I do, when you're old and feeble--or your fellow utilitarian progressives will send you off on their timetable--as your sentience slips below what's useful for society.
You know, you really are vile, aren't you?
Convince me that you care for the countless numbers of lives ruined by a certain institutional incompetence and then I might be convinced that your concern for zygotes has a moral foundation that goes beyond mere intellectual "utility".
And don't get so touchy. You were the one to make an actual joke out of molestation. I did not do that.
Vile Ritmo:
You're the one who brought up "molestation," period. Why?
Because you're vile, that's why.
And you are content to see babies ground up like dog food.
So much for your compassion.
Your overheated rhetoric is as vile as your inability to draw a reasonable, human comparison to anything of actual human concern.
But at least you found a word that works for you. What's the matter? Did you run out of trigger demographics to demonize? I suppose certain target buzzwords will now do the trick.
I notice you chose not to answer a simple question. I'll ask again.
Why bring up "molestation"? Surely you have an answer?
It's not abortion, it's socialism. The red states are the most dependent on uncle sugar for everything that props up their unsustainable 1950's lifestyle in Bugtussle: farm subsidies, federal Velveeta, free range land, gov't water projects, gov't firefighters, gov't schools, rural power, interstate highways, etc, etc.
The republicans represent socialism for white morons who believe the world is 6,000-years old.
The blue states are the economic and intellectual engine of the world. Just look where the uber-free market venture capital is spent. The only problem is that the red-state knuckle-draggers are out-breeding the smart people.
Idiocracy
Do you object to my use of that word? Anyone's use of the word? Mine in particular? Are you somehow barred from hearing it or something?
I notice you chose evasion again.
Why are you unwilling to answer a simple question?
You brought up "molestation." Why?
It's a perfectly good word, as is "saurkraut" or "penicillin"; but the question is, why bring up "molestation"?
Why is this a question you refuse to answer directly?
Are you trying to think of an acceptable answer?
Do you say things without knowing why you say them?
It's a simple question: why not answer it?
Why did you bring up "molestation"?
I dunno. Why bring up "abortion"? Some kind of materialistic fixation with the "genetics" of soul insertion?
I'm not going to let you claim victimhood, here.
I think that institutions that have problems and fixations should focus on addressing those before they attempt to ruin people's lives in other ways. That's just me. You're free to politic, but again, your credibility as a politician comes from the basis you're using to devise your political stances, assuming their your own.
In any event though, like I said: I won't compete. If you want to claim that you're somehow victimized by scandals that allow one to question institutional authority, then the door has always been open for you to discuss a SECULAR reason for your ideas concerning abortion. So it's up to you to provide the basis for how you want to discuss that.
Post a Comment