Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[pancakes3]

This is where we are as a country. Someone punch me in the face.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7hN_c15hA[/youtube]

just to play devil's advocate, he could be saying "i personally believe in the sanctity of life but ultimately, from a governmental regulation point of view, it should recognize that it's her choice even if it goes against my personal beliefs"

also, hands? what's your point with all the UFO clips?

[montestewart]

This is where we are as a country. Someone punch me in the face.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7hN_c15hA[/youtube]

just to play devil's advocate, he could be saying "i personally believe in the sanctity of life but ultimately, from a governmental regulation point of view, it should recognize that it's her choice even if it goes against my personal beliefs"

also, hands? what's your point with all the UFO clips?

That's a plausible interpretation, and aprefectly reasonable position, but it's so confusing and inarticulate and he seems offended that further clarification might be required. It sounds like it might be two positions committed to on the fly at various times for differing constituencies. Once the two are merged, they sound contradictory. He's a fine politician.

[pancakes3]

a better response would have been "look, stossel. you know and i both know that abortion is a back-burner issue. i can answer it if you want, but really we should be discussing my plans to fix the economy, reform the budget, and improve foreign relations. those issues impact every single american rather than the select few affected by unwanted pregnancies. if you really want to talk about birth control, then we should talk about birth control and how pharmaceuticals such as the morning after pill - which stops ovulation - not an abortion pill, and other forms of preventative measures can help rather than delve into my personal philosophies of when life begins. after all, regardless of my belief, it doesn't matter. congress is the one that passes the laws, or have you forgotten that in your not-so-subtle attempt to stir the pot, as is your journalistic trademark?"

[pineappleheadindc]

^
Nice, pancakes3/

[dobrojim]

This is where we are as a country. Someone punch me in the face.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7hN_c15hA[/youtube]

the clip is stunning, funny, scary all at once

stunning - have we ever seen a major party contender (frontrunner) ever
be this inarticulate as to make directly contradictory statements in successive
sentences?

funny - the look on the one guys face - he was clearly stunned by what he had
just heard

scary - this is the gop frontrunner?

And now we have Pat Robertson, once the king of crazy wack jobs now
casting himself as the voice of reason to the gop field. Jon Stewart
had a great take on this last night, especially the take home point
that Robertson was making...Roberston didn't say any of the ideas
being put forward were bad, crazy or otherwise ill-advised. He said
you just can't cop to having those ideas BEFORE the election.

http://tinyurl.com/3krntqf

ps the segment on just after the above was also high-larious
http://tinyurl.com/6722uck

[fishercob]

Morning Joe is the best show on TV that deals with politics. I love Joe, Mika, Willie Geist, their other contributors, guests, the music, etc. Love it.

[hands11]

a better response would have been "look, stossel. you know and i both know that abortion is a back-burner issue. i can answer it if you want, but really we should be discussing my plans to fix the economy, reform the budget, and improve foreign relations. those issues impact every single american rather than the select few affected by unwanted pregnancies. if you really want to talk about birth control, then we should talk about birth control and how pharmaceuticals such as the morning after pill - which stops ovulation - not an abortion pill, and other forms of preventative measures can help rather than delve into my personal philosophies of when life begins. after all, regardless of my belief, it doesn't matter. congress is the one that passes the laws, or have you forgotten that in your not-so-subtle attempt to stir the pot, as is your journalistic trademark?"

This is hardly a back burner issue as congress has voted on 8 abortion bills this year alone and one party is talking about a constitutional amendment to declare that life begins at conception so that would go against the most major forms of birth control. It is the pandering to this one group that has totally dysfunction the congress.

Back burner ? I don't think so. This actually needs way more light shed on it because this is probably the biggest issue effecting the promotion of the Republican Presidential candidates and it is a determining factor for any Congressional or Senate R. That and Taxes are the two main tests.

[hands11]

This is where we are as a country. Someone punch me in the face.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7hN_c15hA[/youtube]

the clip is stunning, funny, scary all at once

stunning - have we ever seen a major party contender (frontrunner) ever
be this inarticulate as to make directly contradictory statements in successive
sentences?

funny - the look on the one guys face - he was clearly stunned by what he had
just heard

scary - this is the gop frontrunner?

And now we have Pat Robertson, once the king of crazy wack jobs now
casting himself as the voice of reason to the gop field. Jon Stewart
had a great take on this last night, especially the take home point
that Robertson was making...Roberston didn't say any of the ideas
being put forward were bad, crazy or otherwise ill-advised. He said
you just can't cop to having those ideas BEFORE the election.

http://tinyurl.com/3krntqf

ps the segment on just after the above was also high-larious
http://tinyurl.com/6722uck

The truth is pretty concerning.

[pancakes3]

a better response would have been "look, stossel. you know and i both know that abortion is a back-burner issue. i can answer it if you want, but really we should be discussing my plans to fix the economy, reform the budget, and improve foreign relations. those issues impact every single american rather than the select few affected by unwanted pregnancies. if you really want to talk about birth control, then we should talk about birth control and how pharmaceuticals such as the morning after pill - which stops ovulation - not an abortion pill, and other forms of preventative measures can help rather than delve into my personal philosophies of when life begins. after all, regardless of my belief, it doesn't matter. congress is the one that passes the laws, or have you forgotten that in your not-so-subtle attempt to stir the pot, as is your journalistic trademark?"

This is hardly a back burner issue as congress has voted on 8 abortion bills this year alone and one party is talking about a constitutional amendment to declare that life begins at conception so that would go against the most major forms of birth control. It is the pandering to this one group that has totally dysfunction the congress.

Back burner ? I don't think so. This actually needs way more light shed on it because this is probably the biggest issue effecting the promotion of the Republican Presidential candidates and it is a determining factor for any Congressional or Senate R. That and Taxes are the two main tests.

8 out of... 1500 senate bills? 3000 house bills? the recent buzz of abortion has to do with federal funding of it under the health care act, which does have some weight, i suppose but still not nearly as much as the economy or foreign affairs. do you think abortion is a pressing concern for the american people?

[fugop]

There is no federal funding for abortion under the Affordable Care Act. The issue is that the exchanges set up by the plan don't explicitly prohibit private, participating insurance providers from offering coverage for reproductive health services, including abortion. The exchanges offer some incentives to participating providers, and subsidies don't prohibit people from buying plans that cover reproductive health services.

[Zonkerbl]

OMG SO IF YOU GIVE PEOPLE A CHOICE THEY CAN CHOOSE A PLAN THAT COVERS ABORTION?!?!?!?!?!

IS IT THE APOCALYPSE???!?!??!!!

[pineappleheadindc]

OMG SO IF YOU GIVE PEOPLE A CHOICE THEY CAN CHOOSE A PLAN THAT COVERS ABORTION?!?!?!?!?!

IS IT THE APOCALYPSE???!?!??!!!

ROFL - I chuckled at your post.

But seriously, though I'm pro-choice, I understand why anti-abortion folks are so adamant about the issue. It's because they view a fetus, a zygote as a life in the same category as if they saw WizardsKev walking down Constitution Ave. That an abortion is as grave as running Kev down with your SUV. (Odd correlation, I witnessed a bicyclist get hit on D street, SW today while walking to lunch).

If you could prevent some SUV from hitting Kev and killing him, wouldn't you be trying to do so? What if you could prevent some SUV from running over, and killing, thousands of innocent people just walking around town. You'd be pretty fired up about that too.

Ergo, the anti-abortion side feels (rightly if you accept their definition of when life begins - conception) that stopping abortion is saving lives and worth getting fired up over.

The secret to ending the debate in society is to somehow - in a societal concensus - figure out when life begins.

[Nivek]

Wait -- someone aborted me on Constitution Avenue by running me down with an SUV?

I'm so confused.

[DCZards]

But seriously, though I'm pro-choice, I understand why anti-abortion folks are so adamant about the issue. It's because they view a fetus, a zygote as a life in the same category as if they saw WizardsKev walking down Constitution Ave. That an abortion is as grave as running Kev down with your SUV. (Odd correlation, I witnessed a bicyclist get hit on D street, SW today while walking to lunch).

I also fully understand why people are anti-abortion. In fact, I'm truly torn when it comes to abortion but generally come down on the side of "choice" because I believe that a woman/family should make the decision.

What bothers me about most anti-abortion folks (most of whom are conservative or right-wing) is that they seem to care more about the unborn than they do about those already born. Most of them oppose universal healthcare, have no problem sending kids to schools that are rundown and falling apart, and could care less about environmental protection. And many of them consider Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid government giveaways that should be starved to death.

I know this is an over-generalization of those who are anti-abortion. Many of them, I'm sure, care deeply about caring for the living. But there are those right-wingers who I really wonder about sometimes.

[Zonkerbl]

YAYYYYY, abortion, my favorite topic!!!

For the record, I am anti-abortion -- I would never choose it myself. But the conclusion that life begins before the third trimester is not supported by science. At that point it becomes a religious issue, and settling on one date or another would be the government effectively endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.

For some reason I really, really, really don't want someone else's religious views shoved down my throat. Maybe it's because I'm Jewish. Or Atheist. Or whatever.

If one of my friends is pregnant and considering an abortion I will do my darndest to talk her out of it, but once she makes a decision I will sacrifice my life to keep someone else from forcing their religion on her.

I also happen to know that the reason abortion was ever illegal in the first place is because women and children were considered the property of men and therefore women may not choose to damage the property of the man who owns her. So if you don't believe women are the slaves of their husbands then it logically follows that they are entitled to choose what to do with their bodies.

[pineappleheadindc]

^
My last post on the topic (for now) because - as you note - this topic can get overheated quickly.

I don't think a zygote is a life. I think abortion should be legal until the point of viability. And that viability date should be determined by a woman's personal doctor, not a date negotiated by politicians. (It would also stand to reason that medical science advances would make this date as moving target over the years).

My pretty muddled dos centavos.

[Cramer]

What the hell is up with squashing Kev on Constitution Avenue?

[popper]

I think we all know, or should know, that life begins at conception. A fetus consumes nutrients and grows. Therefore it is alive. To abort the fetus is to kill it. If I were an atheist I would have no problem killing fetuses or any other living organism that bothered or inconvenienced me. My belief tradition doesn't allow me that option.

The Chinese and Russians, mostly atheist, have no problem slaughtering people by the millions if it serves their self interest (in the womb or out, no difference to them). This is how much of the world operates and has operated throughout history.

Edward Gibbon, the greatest historian of all time in my opinion, said "history is nothing more than a register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind". The 30 + million fetuses killed in the US over the last few decades is just another example of the ignorance and depravity of mankind.

Obviously you were once a fetus. Does your life have meaning and value? Do you believe that your mother has the right to deprive you of the same opportunity for life that she herself enjoys? If so, I don't understand the logic behind the argument. Pls explain.

[pancakes3]

sperm is alive. trees are alive. viruses are alive. tumors are alive. "alive" is just too broad a category to put into the "leave it be" category. personally, i think the line should be brain activity, which kicks off around the 3rd trimester (which is rather late, i acknowledge) but to say life begins at conception is just too early in my opinion - especially if unwanted, drug addicted, or other rather depressing conditions.

[hands11]

OMG SO IF YOU GIVE PEOPLE A CHOICE THEY CAN CHOOSE A PLAN THAT COVERS ABORTION?!?!?!?!?!

IS IT THE APOCALYPSE???!?!??!!!

ROFL - I chuckled at your post.

But seriously, though I'm pro-choice, I understand why anti-abortion folks are so adamant about the issue. It's because they view a fetus, a zygote as a life in the same category as if they saw WizardsKev walking down Constitution Ave. That an abortion is as grave as running Kev down with your SUV. (Odd correlation, I witnessed a bicyclist get hit on D street, SW today while walking to lunch).

If you could prevent some SUV from hitting Kev and killing him, wouldn't you be trying to do so? What if you could prevent some SUV from running over, and killing, thousands of innocent people just walking around town. You'd be pretty fired up about that too.

Ergo, the anti-abortion side feels (rightly if you accept their definition of when life begins - conception) that stopping abortion is saving lives and worth getting fired up over.

I think most people understand what they are getting at...the point is..it is total non-sense.



The secret to ending the debate in society is to somehow - in a societal concensus - figure out when life begins.

The question isn't really about when life begins. That is just political spin to confuse the issue. The issue is when are you viable person with all the rights of a person. And when do those rights outweigh the right of the mother. Actually, I would say the father should have some say in the matter at some point. Given the mother health is not at risk.

Yes, there is something that is genetically different then either the mother or father at the point of conception. It is no longer daddy's splatter or moms once a month cycle. There is a new combo that is unique and the DNA code that will direct the development of a new person... that is, if the code is good and if lots of things happen correctly. But that is only the potential for human life. Lots can go wrong from that point until it is a viable human. That's way most expecting parents don't even mention anything to anyone until after a certain point.

But a Zygote is no more Kev then a germinating Oak seed underground is an Oak tree. If this new definition of personhood starts at conception, there will be no more babies in vitro fertilization.
Well, at least it would happen a lot less because it would have to be done one fertilization at a time. But then that begs, is that even fair. If that is a human life, that would be like sending that baby into a gun fight because chances are, it isnt going to make it.

They can feel what they want all they want, that doesn't make it so.

http://themhnews.org/2010/04/health/the ... erspective

I think most people are fine with addressing some cut off point. But at the point of conception ?

If that was true, then women have natural abortions all the time. What if that happens because she was unhealthy because she was to skinny ? Should be be arrested ? What if she was an addict when she got pregnant ? What if she was sick from environmental reasons ?

The best solution is prevention. Why can't the anti abortion people take all this money and energy and get more behind via solution for prevention ? Sure, just don't have any sex is the 100% solution, but it isnt very realistic.

Good debate. I enjoyed reading everyone's take on it.

So how the UFO videos If anything is going to flip this world upside down, it going to be that.