Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#52 Sep 23 2015 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,313 posts
Samira wrote:
I'm not so much pro-choice as anti-pregnancy, said no one ever.

Well, maybe a few parents of 2 or more kids.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#53 Sep 23 2015 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Pro-life doesn't mean advocating for making babies.

Really? If you're pro-life, you're okay with the right to choose what happens to your body? You just shouldn't advocate too hard for the "right to have an abortion"?

Because I'm pretty sure pro-life advocates are 100% for bringing the baby to term but if you're arguing otherwise...

And try to keep up: The abortion debate is about what happens after you get pregnant. It's not about guns and it's not about encouraging conception prior to the fact. The fact that your position is silly doesn't mean you should go trying to change the topic.
Samira wrote:
I'm not so much pro-choice as anti-pregnancy, said no one ever.

You haven't been hanging out in Gbaji's closet with all his conservative boogeymen.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 7:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Sep 23 2015 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
A pro-choice person is talking about the right of the woman to make choices with her own body (which in context includes abortion). A pro-abortion person is therefore talking about the right of the woman to have an abortion.

This is even more bizarre. Are there people out there advocating for a woman's right to choose an abortion but who are against a woman's right to, I don't know, seek contraceptives? So pro-choice people talk about the right to "make choices" including abortion and your "pro-abortion" people talk about the right to have an abortion but.... not other choices? Smiley: confused
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Sep 23 2015 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,540 posts
I assume gbaji is referencing the recent "#ShoutYourAbortion" thing. See here.

Direct quotes like "I had an abortion at Planned Parenthood last year and it was a great experience" are unbelievable in the literal sense that I can't believe somebody actually said it. I thought the one thing that both pro-life and pro-choice advocated agreed on was that abortions were terrible events that should occur as infrequently as possible ("Safe, Legal and Rare"). Guess not!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#56 Sep 23 2015 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Great experience" doesn't mean "It was the time of my life and everyone should do it".

"I had a root canal done and the dentist made it a great experience" isn't advocating tooth decay, it's saying that the dentist (or PP) did an exceptional job of tending to my needs. On the other hand, I can appreciate the desire of some women to talk about their "terrible" choice without shame.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 7:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Sep 23 2015 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,540 posts
Kind of like how it's now apparently just ducky to talk about being a pedophile in public, I guess.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#58 Sep 23 2015 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Are you equating abortion to pedophilia? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Sep 23 2015 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
It's likely been said here before but: If you support the death penalty, you don't get to call yourself "pro-life". You're anti-abortion at best and anti-choice at worst.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#60 Sep 23 2015 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,540 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Are you equating abortion to pedophilia? Smiley: dubious

Of course not. Just drawing a parallel between two things that are generally considered to be socially taboo, or at least used to be.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#61 Sep 23 2015 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Are you equating abortion to pedophilia? Smiley: dubious

Of course not. Just drawing a parallel between two things that are generally considered to be socially taboo, or at least used to be.
Like Ugly's Satan-inspired foot fetish? Or was that Soracloud?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#62 Sep 23 2015 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Are you equating abortion to pedophilia? Smiley: dubious
Of course not. Just drawing a parallel between two things that are generally considered to be socially taboo, or at least used to be.

Sure. I could come up with a long list of pretty obvious stuff that used to be socially taboo but is now accepted. Not sure what that proves.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Sep 23 2015 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,540 posts
I'm not trying to prove anything, just voicing my general distaste.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#64 Sep 23 2015 at 8:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Pro-life doesn't mean advocating for making babies.

Really? If you're pro-life, you're okay with the right to choose what happens to your body? You just shouldn't advocate too hard for the "right to have an abortion"?


Huh. I just explained this. Pro-life means that you support the right of the unborn to live. Specifically, a pro-life person believes that the right of the unborn to live outweighs the right of the woman to choose a health action which would terminate that life (ie: an elective abortion). The only exception (for most anyway) is when the woman's own life is in danger (since that's also "pro-life"). It's not really that difficult of a position to grasp.

Quote:
Because I'm pretty sure pro-life advocates are 100% for bringing the baby to term but if you're arguing otherwise...


And? How does this relate to your claim that pro-abortion means someone who likes abortions and thinks everyone should get one? That would relate to pro-life meaning someone who likes making babies and thinks everyone should have one. But that's not what's going on.

Quote:
And try to keep up: The abortion debate is about what happens after you get pregnant. It's not about guns and it's not about encouraging conception prior to the fact. The fact that your position is silly doesn't mean you should go trying to change the topic.


Except that your attempted definition of "pro-abortion" isn't about what a woman does after being pregnant, but about what other people think should happen. So being "pro-abortion" means that someone else wants to talk any/all pregnant women into having abortions. It's an absurd and completely unworkable definition, but it's the one you tried to come up with. It's silly. Just as "pro-life" meaning someone who wants other people to have babies is silly. I was showing how absurd your definition was by countering with an equally absurd definition for the opposing position.

Pro-abortion means believing in a "right to abort", as opposed to pro-choice which merely means a woman's right to control her own body may outweigh the right of the fetus to live. Pro-choice is countered by pro-life because the pro-live position believes that the right to life always outweighs the woman's choice (except for where her life is at risk, which isn't really about choice at that point). Pro-abortion is in its own weird world, where you decide that abortion is an actual right. I use the label specifically to apply to people who engaged in somewhat ridiculous lengths to dehumanize a developing fetus in order to protect the "right to abort".

If you want to argue about the label, that's your choice (haha!). Um... But that's what I'm talking about. And that position is very different from the classic pro-choice position that is enshrined in the Roe v Wade decision. Whatever you want to call it, that "side" has moved well beyond what that decision ruled.

But if you're so upset about the label, what label would you use? I happen to think it's important to make a distinction between those who believe that the issue is one of conflicting rights between the woman over her body and a developing fetus' right to life and those who believe in an absolute right to abort, which apparently seems to completely invalidate any rights of the fetus, to the point of many people argue that a fetus isn't really even human, so there's no moral issue to even debate. Call it what you will, those are radically different positions. And unfortunately, the desire to conceal the former within the latter, forces people to have to choose between the two apparent "sides", when I believe there are actually three position in play. Again, one of them just doesn't stand up well to public scrutiny so it hides behind the veneer of the seemingly benign "pro-choice" banner.


I wouldn't even bring it up, except for the very noticeable shift in arguments claiming to be pro-choice that I've seen just in my lifetime. I don't ever recall anyone trying to argue that a fetus was no different than a collection of random cells, like fingernails, or cancer, or virus, which can just be removed without any issue at all. And I believe that this shift has occurred because it's easier to rationalize that "choice" by making that argument. But I think that's self deception. And not remotely what the original court decision was about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Sep 23 2015 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
Please explain how giving the government control over every uterus in the country is a good idea.

I can't wait to hear your justification for that.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#66 Sep 23 2015 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A pro-choice person is talking about the right of the woman to make choices with her own body (which in context includes abortion). A pro-abortion person is therefore talking about the right of the woman to have an abortion.

This is even more bizarre. Are there people out there advocating for a woman's right to choose an abortion but who are against a woman's right to, I don't know, seek contraceptives? So pro-choice people talk about the right to "make choices" including abortion and your "pro-abortion" people talk about the right to have an abortion but.... not other choices? Smiley: confused


The pro-choice position on abortion is derived directly from the legal concept that women (all people for that matter) have a right to make decisions involving their own bodies. That's the legal basis for the position. I'm not sure why there's confusion about this. What did you think? We just randomly decide "this is legal, this isn't legal"?

But the "right" in question isn't about the right to abort. Remember that the counter argument (which was the basis of the Texas law in question in Roe v Wade) is that the second a woman is pregnant, she loses the right to do anything with her body that might endanger the life of the developing embryo/fetus (technically loses it to the state, which may legislate on the issue). Which would certainly include the choice to abort the pregnancy (as the state of Texas had done in the case in question). The pro-choice argument is that, no, the woman's rights to control her body remain intact even when pregnant, and thus she should legally be allowed to "choose" to have an abortion. But the legality of that choice, just as it is for any other choice you make regarding control of your body, has to be balanced against other conflicting rights (like the right of the fetus to live, which is clearly also enshrined in the Roe v Wade decision). You don't have a right to choose to abort past that balance point anymore than you have a right to chose to swing your fist past the balance point of someone else's right not to get hit in the face.


What I label the "pro-abortion" position is one where abortion itself becomes a right. The analogy that I gave earlier is apt: You have a right to defend yourself against harm. That right may include lethal force against another under specific legal conditions. People might fight for that right to defend themselves and call it the "pro-defence" position, arguing that a right to self defense is itself infringed if it cannot ever include lethal force. But it would be another thing entirely to decide that using lethal force against someone else is itself a right. We'd have to call that something else, wouldn't we? Pro-lethal_force perhaps?

That's what I'm talking about. I've just seen a lot more people taking up what I consider a "pro-abortion" position rather than a classic "pro-choice" one. Again, call it whatever you want, but it is a significant shift in the issue itself. Heck. It's hard to get people today to even acknowledge that the Roe v Wade position allows for any restriction of abortion at all. Which is what happens when you start thinking of abortion as a right. Hence my comment on it.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 7:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Sep 23 2015 at 8:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Please explain how giving the government control over every uterus in the country is a good idea.


Please explain how government control over every fist in the country is a good idea.

Quote:
I can't wait to hear your justification for that.


Your rights stop when they hit the boundaries of someone else's? This is the justification for pretty much every single law on the books. What I find bizarre is that you actually think this is a hard justification to generate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Sep 23 2015 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's not really "confusion", it's just a false distinction. I understand the political motivation behind using the term "pro-abortion" though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Sep 23 2015 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
I'll just wait while you look up a little history and see if any past governments

A) outlawed abortion and then
b) enforced mandatory birthing.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#70 Sep 23 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Demea wrote:
I assume gbaji is referencing the recent "#ShoutYourAbortion" thing. See here.

Direct quotes like "I had an abortion at Planned Parenthood last year and it was a great experience" are unbelievable in the literal sense that I can't believe somebody actually said it. I thought the one thing that both pro-life and pro-choice advocated agreed on was that abortions were terrible events that should occur as infrequently as possible ("Safe, Legal and Rare"). Guess not!


Actually, I wasn't referencing that (wasn't even aware of it), but I've noticed the general shift in the dialog on this issue over the past couple decades, so it doesn't surprise me. You are correct that in the past, both pro-choice and pro-life people agreed that abortions were terrible "last resort" choices. But recently? I've seen a trend towards what I label as "pro-abortion". Which is why I brought it up.

I don't think it's so much about people saying that abortions are great and everyone should have one (what Joph is talking about), but a kind of trend towards downplaying the negatives of abortion and arguing for all the positives. This sort of language seems designed precisely to make abortion an easier decision for women to make. I can't speak to the motivations of it, and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's really so much about advocacy (although I'm not precluding the possibility for some people to view it that way), but that most people really do think they're just "fighting for a right", and don't stop to think about the ramifications of what they are doing. Fighting for an absolute right means that you don't have an end point for that right. But all rights have end points. As I mentioned just above, your rights end where they hit the boundaries of someone else's rights.

What bothers me the most is the relatively recent rise of the "fetus is just like a cancer" argument. I'm not sure where this is coming from, but it seems designed to make people believe that there is no right on the part of the fetus. Which completely flies in the face of the Roe v Wade decision itself. But more importantly, when people adopt this idea, it actually does eliminate the "boundary" of the "right to abort". If there is no counter right involved, then the right to abort has no boundary (except birth, but that's outside the scope of what we'd term an "abortion"). Again, this is a relatively recent trend in the issue (maybe first started seeing this about 10-12 years ago maybe?), so I kinda wonder at the source of the idea, and the motivations behind it. It's an argument which is clearly wrong, but is presented in a way such that those who already identify themselves as pro-choice (or more broadly don't want to be identified as anti-women), will tend to accept as part and parcel of those already accepted and hard held "rights". But once you adopt that concept, you now almost have to accept unrestricted elective abortion, or go back on what you believe your position rests on.

Dunno. It just seems like the whole thing is designed to play on people's ideas of rights, manipulate them, and then turn them into something else entirely. I label that as "pro-abortion", but that's just a label. The trend is certainly real though. And it's a bit alarming because it's effectively made any discussion of the issue of abortion into one of being absolutely on one side or the other. Which bothers me because my pro-choice position is somewhat in the middle. But how many times on this forum have I been bashed or called a hypocrite because I'm pro-choice, but still support things like laws that actually say "no late term abortions for mental health reasons". I mean, that's so far past the limits set in Roe v Wade that it's ridiculous, yet taking that quite reasonable moderate position gets you labeled as a horrible violator of women's rights.

It's hard not to see the current position being more or less "support anything that allows abortion to happen, no matter what, or you're evil". So yeah, I call that being "pro-abortion". Because that's certainly what it looks like is going on. It's just funny because I frequently stop and ask people making these arguments where they think the limits for elective abortion should be, and it's almost like they haven't really thought the issue through. They just know they have to "fight for my side. RAR!". Um.... What are you fighting for? Women "won" the issue over abortion 40 year ago. What you're fighting for now, is what? Protecting people who are skirting the law and performing later and later term abortions? How is that a good thing? And, again, where does that end? If you can't think your position all the way through, maybe you should rethink it again?

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 8:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Sep 23 2015 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll just wait while you look up a little history and see if any past governments

A) outlawed abortion and then
b) enforced mandatory birthing.


Are you arguing that they have, or they haven't? I'm struggling to grasp what you're getting at here. How is one connected to the other? I'll repeat that I brought up the "pro-life is wanting people to have babies" as a counter to Joph's claim that pro-abortion can only mean people wanting other people to get abortions. It was not meant to be a serious claim. That misunderstanding is the only thing I can thin of that makes your post sensible. But if you meant something else, then by all means elaborate. Cause right now, I don't know how to start to respond to it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Sep 23 2015 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
Mandatory state-directed impregnation and birth.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#73 Sep 23 2015 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Mandatory state-directed impregnation and birth.


And? What about it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 24 2015 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll just wait while you look up a little history and see if any past governments

A) outlawed abortion and then
b) enforced Mandatory state-directed impregnation and birth.


Holding your hand grows tiresome.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#75 Sep 24 2015 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,054 posts
gbaji wrote:
Your rights stop when they hit the boundaries of someone else's?
Except if you call it religious. Smiley: schooled
gbaji wrote:
I'm struggling to grasp what you're getting at here.
Business as usual.

Edited, Sep 24th 2015 10:51am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Sep 24 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
Well, one option is moving to a model where an entity other than a parental unit is responsible for the creation of the next generation. Crickets? Aww c'mon.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#77 Sep 24 2015 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,219 posts
Why would we leave it up to crickets to create the next generation?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#78 Sep 24 2015 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Pro-life means that you support the right of the unborn to live
Forgive me if you have already answered this, but would you extend "pro-life" to after the child is born (i.e., till death) as opposed to just in the womb?

I'm not a fan of abortion, but probably for different reasons than most "pro-life" people.
#79 Sep 24 2015 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,481 posts
Of course not. Every sperm is sacred. But the poor disadvantaged children are nothing but a drain on the world's biggest economy. Vote Republican and one day you too may be born into wealth!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#80 Sep 25 2015 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
***
1,012 posts
Quote:
Where the **** is Jon Stewart?


He's dead, he's locked in my basement.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#81 Sep 25 2015 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
So Jeb ( we can't say Bush; we are working on cleaning it, but the last name still has bad connotations ) went Mitt way and said that he is not running to give away free stuff to black people. I do give him credit for trying to sway NAACP.

In his defense, the phrasing was better than Mitt's. What are the odds of Bush dropping before Trump?



Edited, Sep 25th 2015 8:23am by angrymnk

Edited, Sep 25th 2015 8:23am by angrymnk

Edited, Sep 25th 2015 8:24am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#82 Sep 25 2015 at 7:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
First off, it's Jeb!. Spell Jeb! right or not at all.

Jeb! is still the establishment favorite with a shit ton of money behind him. He's not going anywhere.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Sep 25 2015 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,054 posts
Debalic wrote:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
Jophiel wrote:
First off, it's Jeb!. Spell Jeb! right or not at all.
I thought it was spelled ¡Jeb!.

Edited, Sep 25th 2015 10:15am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Sep 25 2015 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
Not specifically about the campaign, but Boehner is stepping down at the end of October. What will we do without our friendly Grinch?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#85 Sep 25 2015 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wow, Boehner must have realized he was never going to pass a PP defund and wasn't going to survive the coup when he failed.

Edit: Looks like he's giving up his House seat, too. That's something.

Edited, Sep 25th 2015 9:27am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Sep 25 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,054 posts
I guess Monday we'll find out how this wasn't in any way part of the months of attempts to oust him from his seat.

Trumps numbers are plateauing, which is at least a decent sign.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Sep 25 2015 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Wow, Boehner must have realized he was never going to pass a PP defund and wasn't going to survive the coup when he failed.

Edit: Looks like he's giving up his House seat, too. That's something.

Edited, Sep 25th 2015 9:27am by Jophiel


So betting time; Mistress, *** lover, or animal ******?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#88 Sep 25 2015 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,481 posts
Tom Hanks called up to berate him: There's no crying in politics!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#89 Sep 25 2015 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
***
1,012 posts
Quote:
So betting time; Mistress, *** lover, or animal ******?


I'm going to say mistress, I don't want you guys stealing the limelight away from our pig fucking prime minister.

Ante is one free Zam premium magazine.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#90 Sep 25 2015 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,054 posts
Gay mistress duck.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Sep 25 2015 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
So betting time; Mistress, *** lover, or animal ******?

Tired of dealing with the fringe elements of his party. Who are becoming increasingly less of a "fringe" and more of the fabric.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Sep 25 2015 at 9:35 AM Rating: Good
***
1,012 posts
That's more the kind of thing I'd expect from Harper, up in Canarda.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#93 Sep 25 2015 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
So betting time; Mistress, *** lover, or animal ******?

Tired of dealing with the fringe elements of his party. Who are becoming increasingly less of a "fringe" and more of the fabric.



This is my take on it; and part of me wants to feel bad for the guy, but a much meaner part of me thinks he's just reaping the whirlwind.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#94 Sep 25 2015 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,313 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
That's more the kind of thing I'd expect from Harper, up in Canarda.
That ******* is the fringe.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#95 Sep 25 2015 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,540 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Gay mistress duck.
I think that's an Eagles of Death Metal song.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#96 Sep 25 2015 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll just wait while you look up a little history and see if any past governments

A) outlawed abortion and then
b) enforced Mandatory state-directed impregnation and birth.


Holding your hand grows tiresome.


I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make with this. I could randomly guess and try to answer what I think you might be saying, but it might be a lot easier if you'd just clarify things a bit. Can you do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Sep 25 2015 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Holding your hand grows tiresome.
I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make with this.

I think Bijou is breaking up with you Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Sep 25 2015 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Pro-life means that you support the right of the unborn to live
Forgive me if you have already answered this, but would you extend "pro-life" to after the child is born (i.e., till death) as opposed to just in the womb?


In the context of the abortion issue, no. I mean, if we want to expand the scope of things, we could argue that pro-life means wanting to garden a lot (plants are alive, right?), or refusing to swat a fly, or being a staunch vegan, or any of a number of different things we could say is "pro-life". Heck. I believe there must be alien life elsewhere in the universe beyond our planet, does that mean I'm "pro-life"? Context is a useful tool.

Having said that, it's worth noting that pro-life doesn't mean no one can be killed. A pro-life person will allow abortion if required to safe the life of the mother, for example. The issue is with elective abortion absent any legal requirements other than "I want to". Which is important because we also legally make a distinction between elective killing "because I want to" (ie: murder), and killing by the state as a punishment for crimes after a legally defined judicial process. The pro-life person simply believes that the developing embryo/fetus is a human life and deserving of all the same legal protections that all other human life receives under our legal system. I suppose if that embryo is convicted of a crime under which the sentence is death in our legal system, then that would be legal. Point being that there is no inconsistency to holding a pro-life stance on abortion, while supporting the death penalty for those convicted of sufficiently heinous crimes. The fetus' only "crime" is being an inconvenience to the pregnant woman. That's not remotely a standard we'd apply the death penalty for (outside of some strange dystopian world, that is).

Quote:
I'm not a fan of abortion, but probably for different reasons than most "pro-life" people.


Yeah. Hence my point about the labels. In the context of the abortion issue, each label has a specific meaning. What I find interesting is that over time, while "pro-life" has consistently been about the belief that human life begins at conception (however that's specifically defined) and must be weighed as a full human life for all legal questions (such as elective abortion), the label "pro-choice" originally was about claiming that women had some choice with regard to pregnancy termination decisions as opposed to "no choice" as defined by the pro-life position. But the idea that abortion itself was a right was not part of the pro-choice position 40 years ago. It was about the woman's right to control her own body outweighing any nascent rights an embryo/fetus may have during the early stages of pregnancy. Both sides agreed that it was an issue of conflicting rights, but disagreed over where one right outweighed the other. Increasingly, I've seen people calling themselves pro-choice, but arguing for abortion as a right itself. Which, as I've explained above, is very problematic. It leads people to defend legal loopholes in the name of "protecting women's rights", that allow for violations of what most of us believe with regard to abortion.

I just find it interesting that the same people who are shocked to discover doctors secretly performing very late term elective abortions will still insist that any sort of legislative reporting or investigation of clinics where abortions are performed is a horrific violation of the rights of women. Um... But those are the only tools that will prevent the very abuses we all (presumably) agree shouldn't be happening. So it's almost like a split brain thing. No one believes that a woman should be allowed to just decide to terminate her pregnancy in the 8th month, but some people are so caught up in the "us vs them" mentality of the abortion issue that they will steadfastly oppose any methods to prevent that from happening. I just find that bizarre. Even after the whole Dr. Gosnell thing came out, the "pro-choice" (air quotes in this case) groups still circle the wagons on the issue, and steadfastly insisted that no new legislation or regulation or inspection was needed, and blasted anyone who suggested doing such things as opposing women's rights. So yeah, it's hard to say that they're doing anything other than supporting abortion itself, no matter how horrific the form it takes.




Edited, Sep 25th 2015 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Sep 26 2015 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In the context of the abortion issue, no. I mean, if we want to expand the scope of things, we could argue that pro-life means wanting to garden a lot (plants are alive, right?), or refusing to swat a fly, or being a staunch vegan, or any of a number of different things we could say is "pro-life". Heck. I believe there must be alien life elsewhere in the universe beyond our planet, does that mean I'm "pro-life"? Context is a useful tool.
Context is a useful tool. In this case, my question was specifically in reference to humans. Since we don't treat humans the same as plants or animals, there is no slippery slope argument that you can provide to legitimately counter my notion.


Gbaji wrote:
Having said that, it's worth noting that pro-life doesn't mean no one can be killed. A pro-life person will allow abortion if required to safe the life of the mother, for example. The issue is with elective abortion absent any legal requirements other than "I want to". Which is important because we also legally make a distinction between elective killing "because I want to" (ie: murder), and killing by the state as a punishment for crimes after a legally defined judicial process. The pro-life person simply believes that the developing embryo/fetus is a human life and deserving of all the same legal protections that all other human life receives under our legal system. I suppose if that embryo is convicted of a crime under which the sentence is death in our legal system, then that would be legal. Point being that there is no inconsistency to holding a pro-life stance on abortion, while supporting the death penalty for those convicted of sufficiently heinous crimes. The fetus' only "crime" is being an inconvenience to the pregnant woman. That's not remotely a standard we'd apply the death penalty for (outside of some strange dystopian world, that is).
*I'm not* advocating that being "pro-life" beyond the womb means no death for anyone. The scenario in question is that once the mother has the child, all attention and vigor to ensure that child has a good life decimates.


Gbaji wrote:

Yeah. Hence my point about the labels. In the context of the abortion issue, each label has a specific meaning. What I find interesting is that over time, while "pro-life" has consistently been about the belief that human life begins at conception (however that's specifically defined) and must be weighed as a full human life for all legal questions (such as elective abortion), the label "pro-choice" originally was about claiming that women had some choice with regard to pregnancy termination decisions as opposed to "no choice" as defined by the pro-life position. But the idea that abortion itself was a right was not part of the pro-choice position 40 years ago. It was about the woman's right to control her own body outweighing any nascent rights an embryo/fetus may have during the early stages of pregnancy. Both sides agreed that it was an issue of conflicting rights, but disagreed over where one right outweighed the other. Increasingly, I've seen people calling themselves pro-choice, but arguing for abortion as a right itself. Which, as I've explained above, is very problematic. It leads people to defend legal loopholes in the name of "protecting women's rights", that allow for violations of what most of us believe with regard to abortion.
Once abortion has become legal, continuing to fight to limit abortion transitions the fight against the choice of the woman. To make it incredibly difficult for women in Texas to have abortions, but not in California because you are unable to reverse the ruling, is attacking a woman's choice. Granted, attempting to reverse the ruling would equally be seen as an attack on choice, but that's the divisive political world that we live in.


Gbaji wrote:
I just find it interesting that the same people who are shocked to discover doctors secretly performing very late term elective abortions will still insist that any sort of legislative reporting or investigation of clinics where abortions are performed is a horrific violation of the rights of women. Um... But those are the only tools that will prevent the very abuses we all (presumably) agree shouldn't be happening. So it's almost like a split brain thing. No one believes that a woman should be allowed to just decide to terminate her pregnancy in the 8th month, but some people are so caught up in the "us vs them" mentality of the abortion issue that they will steadfastly oppose any methods to prevent that from happening. I just find that bizarre. Even after the whole Dr. Gosnell thing came out, the "pro-choice" (air quotes in this case) groups still circle the wagons on the issue, and steadfastly insisted that no new legislation or regulation or inspection was needed, and blasted anyone who suggested doing such things as opposing women's rights. So yeah, it's hard to say that they're doing anything other than supporting abortion itself, no matter how horrific the form it takes.
Pro-life people are equally stuck in the "us vs them" mentality that they are willing to shutdown the government over distorted videos. To reiterate, I'm not a fan of abortion, but if it's legal, then why close the government over using cell tissue to further science in a positive way when the alternative is simply disposing them?





Edited, Sep 27th 2015 1:01am by Almalieque
#100 Sep 27 2015 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sounds as though Boehner is planning to run votes on a clean CR, reauthorization of the Ex-Im bank and a highway funding bill, all stuff that had been held up by a faction of the GOP, on Democratic votes. Some mumbling that he might take up the immigration bill that's been languishing for two years but I sort of doubt it. Still, prove me wrong, Boehner.

Also, Alma and Gbaji need to move their coming debate on "pro life" to the PP thread or something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Sep 27 2015 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
I am bemused by Tea Partiers moaning about how that tricky quisling Boehner is conspiring to make the government continue to function after his departure. I guess whoever said the only form of government they'll accept is a purely punitive one was right.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Kavekkk, Kuwoobie, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (43)