The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[indiucky]

I know what they are and I know very well what the differences are.

Go back, feel free, take a look at the arguments at that time.

I have...I am well versed on the Prohibition....(And no not just because I watched ken Burns documentary)...My family is from rural Kentucky and my Great Grandfather made whiskey here in the river bottoms during that time...I have photos of him drinking his "corn from the jar" as it were.....We already have a "moral code" (law) that murdering innocents is not cool....

So there is no argument remotely like the debate leading up to prohibition regarding the taking of another's life.....The sticky with abortion is not whether "murder" is okay...Both sides agree that murder is wrong....The disagreement is to when life begins...I believe it begins at conception and others, good people I believe, as I count many of them as friends, believe life does not begin at conception....

The only way you could conflate the two is if Carrie Nation was running around with her hatchet cutting down sugar cane and corn fields based on the premise that someday they could be a burden on society due to their ability to be turned into alcohol.....And that's not the argument folks were using to push their agenda...It was that alcohol abuse destroys families and homes.....Adding a member to one's family is hardly the same as destroying a family...The total opposite I would imagine....

 

[Dddrees]

I have...I am well versed on the Prohibition....(And no not just because I watched ken Burns documentary)...My family is from rural Kentucky and my Great Grandfather made whiskey here in the river bottoms during that time...I have photos of him drinking his "corn from the jar" as it were.....We already have a "moral code" (law) that murdering innocents is not cool....

So there is no argument remotely like the debate leading up to prohibition regarding the taking of another's life.....The sticky with abortion is not whether "murder" is okay...Both sides agree that murder is wrong....The disagreement is to when life begins...I believe it begins at conception and others, good people I believe, as I count many of them as friends, believe life does not begin at conception....

The only way you could conflate the two is if Carrie Nation was running around with her hatchet cutting down sugar cane and corn fields based on the premise that someday they could be a burden on society due to their ability to be turned into alcohol.....And that's not the argument folks were using to push their agenda...It was that alcohol abuse destroys families and homes.....Adding a member to one's family is hardly the same as destroying a family...The total opposite I would imagine....

Your still trying to govern other people's morality. You can't reasonably expect to do so especially when others do not necessarily believe the same things you do. Not to mention experiences and the reasons they may find themself to be in that position in the first place. You just can't and your never going to eliminate it from being a choice whether it has to be by legal or illegal means.

 

[indiucky]

Perhaps it's because that argument is a strawman.

To be consistent with the actual argument, you'd have to say something like:

Inside??? Justifiable.
Outside??? Not justifiable.

Doesn't have the same rhetorical ring to it, though, does it?

Fair enough...I go in to the other response on the "murder" thing in post above...Basically that whether the term "murder" applies depends upon whether one believes human life begins at conception and I concede that others, good people, disagree with that premise and I hold no ill will towards them...

 

[Trigger Time]

The ignore feature works awesome

 

[indiucky]

Your still trying to govern other people's morality. You can't reasonably expect to do so especially when others do not necessarily believe the same things you do.

I do not and never will....The fact that murder is considered a crime is not governing "other peoples morality".....I believe human life begins at conception...Other's don't...I don't feel like by them fighting to keep abortion legal that they are "forcing their morality" on me...I don't feel like your support of abortion is you shoving your righteous morality down my throat...I assume you just don't think human life begins at conception....

 

[JettaKnight]

No it's not my complete arguement. I think however there is a stigma that some women feel when being pregnant. Especially when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy. They don't want to have to answer the questions that will invariably be a part of the normal discussion.

Frankly I don't know what the statistics of adoptions are or are not. However it seems to me that since there is a great demand for babies there still must be reasons people chose abortion over giving their child up for adoption. I imagine whatever these reasons are they won't magically go away if you make abortions illegal. In fact if you were to make abortions illegal and somehow made it such women didn't still chose to do it illegal there would be no way that enough people wishing to adopt would magically appear. Yes maybe we no longer would have to go abroad but I imagine there would be a flood such not all these unwanted would be wanted. Race, creed, and other elements would still play a part here. But I think the overall numbers would simply overwhelm us if for some reason we could ever eliminate abortions. But the fact is there is no way you would be able to eliminate it.

Plain and simple: abortion is the easy way out. If abortion is illegal, then yes, the reason will magically disappear.

And there's no tangible incentive for a reluctant mother to go for adoption over abortion, so if you want to promote adoption... well, money talks...

And race is a factor? So the color of you skin influences the survival rate of the unborn?

Culture, yes. Race, no.

 

[PaulF]

"Want" is a bad choice of words... I think this quote is, in general, very true:

"No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."

Also, I would like to see if there are poll numbers on whether most people think aborting a "viable" fetus (after the 5-6 month mark) is "ending a human life" or "removing unwanted tissue". I think by the time the fetus is viable, most people see this differently than after missing a period or two.

Good points, all, and I agree.

I guess I should have used the word "seeking" in place of "wanting"? I appreciate the feedback.

Yeah, I agree. I'd like to see those numbers, too, and I agree...I view abortion in the first trimester very differently than the third, or even the second. I really can't see a moral objection to a woman artificially inducing a miscarriage in the first few weeks of pregnancy. I really start to question the decision-making that goes into a second, or third-trimester abortion, at least where there isn't a legitimate medical risk to the mother or the pregnancy. "I don't want it in there" should carry the weight of law, in my opinion, but I struggle to understand why someone would wait so long to exercise that option.

 

[JettaKnight]

Dddrees, here's where your stigma and easy access to abortions have put us:

 

[indiucky]

The ignore feature works awesome

It's my birthday and PaulF is a friend and is delivering me a great birthday present...He and I live for these debates....I was kind of hoping he would go with "Religion is a lie" to stir me from my slumber but he went tried and true to my favorite....

I can't ignore anyone...PaulF and I disagree on much but he is a good debater and keeps me on my toes and honest in my arguments...You can't ask for a better friend than that...

IMHO brother...

 

[2A_Tom]

Perhaps it's because that argument is a strawman.

To be consistent with the actual argument, you'd have to say something like:

Inside??? Justifiable.
Outside??? Not justifiable.

Murder

Self defense = Justifyable
Self interest = Not justified

 

[Trigger Time]

It's my birthday and PaulF is a friend and is delivering me a great birthday present...He and I live for these debates....I was kind of hoping he would go with "Religion is a lie" to stir me from my slumber but he went tried and true to my favorite....

I can't ignore anyone...PaulF and I disagree on much but he is a good debater and keeps me on my toes and honest in my arguments...You can't ask for a better friend than that...

IMHO brother...

I like PaulF. I also don't agree with everything he says but I'm sure he isn't a troll. I only ignore trolls and people who screw me or others in the classifieds. Oh and people who act like they are better or smarter than others do they think their opinion matters more. That's it.
My ignore list got erased due to an error. It was magnificent but now I'm enjoying the rebuild. Differing opinions doesn't get people on the list. It actually takes a lot for me to ignore someone.

Oh and happy birthday

 

[Trigger Time]

A lot of people think that if Scotus has a conservative majority abortion will be undone. I disagree. I believe abortion will remain legal and should even though I don't personally agree with abortion except in rare circumstances. But I do support choice.
I don't see how the constitution protects an unborn child because our laws are not based on what the bible says (alive at cobception) but are based off of life starting at birth. Or atleast a person's rights starting at birth.
So,as long as the court always upholds the constitution and not personal beliefs then abortion will and should remain legal.

 

[PaulF]

It's my birthday and PaulF is a friend and is delivering me a great birthday present...He and I live for these debates....I was kind of hoping he would go with "Religion is a lie" to stir me from my slumber but he went tried and true to my favorite....

I can't ignore anyone...PaulF and I disagree on much but he is a good debater and keeps me on my toes and honest in my arguments...You can't ask for a better friend than that...

IMHO brother...

oh, Indi...I had a good one, too.

An "article" popped up on one of my atheist forums, and then reddit. Headline claimed some priest said he'd rather face prison than turn in his fellow child-molesting priests. I was all ready to cross-post it here and go on a lengthy diatribe against the evils of the modern institutional church...

...but then I took a closer look.

The "quotes" from the Australian priest weren't quotes at all, they were mashed-up "quotlets" pieced together to manipulate his words into an entirely different meaning. The "article" was so much narrative-driving bluster churned out by the leftist propaganda mill.

here's the link: (follow at your own peril)

Well, needless to say, the wind was taken from my sails at that point...nothing left to do but pout and kick gravel in the driveway, really.

 

[ATM]

A lot of people think that if Scotus has a conservative majority abortion will be undone. I disagree. I believe abortion will remain legal and should even though I don't personally agree with abortion except in rare circumstances. But I do support choice.
I don't see how the constitution protects an unborn child because our laws are not based on what the bible says (alive at cobception) but are based off of life starting at birth. Or atleast a person's rights starting at birth.
So,as long as the court always upholds the constitution and not personal beliefs then abortion will and should remain legal.

What does the constitution have to do with this? Cite please.

 

[Trigger Time]

What does the constitution have to do with this? Cite please.

Um everything. Not sure the question

 

[ATM]

Um everything. Not sure the question

The constitution didn't define "the people" in any sense beyond the vague political scope of the term that I'm aware of.

No idea how it could be considered instructive.

Elsewhere in law, it gets even worse, as corporations are in some senses defined as people.

 

[Trigger Time]

The constitution didn't define "the people" in any sense beyond the vague political scope of the term that I'm aware of.

No idea how it could be considered instructive.

Elsewhere in law, it gets even worse, as corporations are in some senses defined as people.

The constitution uses the term "Born" more than once.
Also the declaration of independence uses the word "born.
I think it's clear that born it the legal definition as to when ones rights begin.

It's clear "the people" refers to the citizens of the United States and those legally residing there. Born citizens, or born people. Not UN born

 

[ghitch75]

'Well-oiled' activist ops targeting GOP reps at their homes, hijacking town halls | Fox News

 

[ATM]

The constitution uses the term "Born" more than once.
Also the declaration of independence uses the word "born.
I think it's clear that born it the legal definition as to when ones rights begin.

It's clear "the people" refers to the citizens of the United States and those legally residing there. Born citizens, or born people. Not UN born

Your assumptions of definition and application are reaching beyond the purview of the sources to which you have referred.

I believe that direct cites would show this limitation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I was all ready to cross-post it here and go on a lengthy diatribe against the evils of the modern institutional church.

Oh I'm sure Jesus is with you and wouldn't hesitate to flip over tables, pews, and rock stages of many of today's progressive churches, not to mention using the whip again to drive out the heretics and decievers leading His church astray.