Political Roundtable Part XXIII

[dckingsfan]

Dirt - this is an emotional argument not a logical arguement. He "feels" that anyone that doesn't want to ban abortions is a baby killer. There is no way to reason with that.

If someone believes you are a murder, they aren't going to listen to what you have to say.

It's an emotional argument and not a logical one, agreed. I feel there is a bit more to it, though, in the sense that the emotion isn't centered just on the one issue, but also centered around a certain sense of superiority which is reinforced by making the issue effectively into a yes/no question when life simply doesn't work that way. Having such a superior high ground, it becomes inconceivable that anyone who isn't on that same high ground could possibly be reliable in a position of authority. That's a dangerous game on any issue. With abortion, it has effectively derailed most of the discussion around any other potential issues in politics and is to the point where people will flat out parrot things that are clearly not true, even knowing the hypocrisy of their own words though they will never admit it, as they still have that high ground. It turns what is an opportunity to help everyone into a zero sum game, which is why it is so dangerous, and also why it's so commonly found to be such a useful political tool.

It is - and why the tolerate a lying, tax cheat as their POTUS - no questions asked.

It is why the founders wanted a separation of church and state. We lucked out that they thought that through.

[stilldropin20]

SD, no one cares man. You're banging out 10 paragraphs of nonsense that goes straight into the void. Nobody reads it

[stilldropin20]

cnn finally admitting trump is a good politician and not a bumbling fool. only took em 3 years to get it!

Read on Twitter

[Jamaaliver]

SD, no one cares man. You're banging out 10 paragraphs of nonsense that goes straight into the void. Nobody reads it

GTN is kinda right, though. So much of what STD says is inaccurate or downright false...it's not even worth engaging.

I tried, multiple times over the past few months.

To no avail.

The long rants in particular are not even worth trying to decipher....

[daoneandonly]

Dirt - this is an emotional argument not a logical arguement. He "feels" that anyone that doesn't want to ban abortions is a baby killer. There is no way to reason with that.

If someone believes you are a murder, they aren't going to listen to what you have to say.

It's an emotional argument and not a logical one, agreed. I feel there is a bit more to it, though, in the sense that the emotion isn't centered just on the one issue, but also centered around a certain sense of superiority which is reinforced by making the issue effectively into a yes/no question when life simply doesn't work that way. Having such a superior high ground, it becomes inconceivable that anyone who isn't on that same high ground could possibly be reliable in a position of authority. That's a dangerous game on any issue. With abortion, it has effectively derailed most of the discussion around any other potential issues in politics and is to the point where people will flat out parrot things that are clearly not true, even knowing the hypocrisy of their own words though they will never admit it, as they still have that high ground. It turns what is an opportunity to help everyone into a zero sum game, which is why it is so dangerous, and also why it's so commonly found to be such a useful political tool.

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

[daoneandonly]

Dirt - this is an emotional argument not a logical arguement. He "feels" that anyone that doesn't want to ban abortions is a baby killer. There is no way to reason with that.

If someone believes you are a murder, they aren't going to listen to what you have to say.

It's an emotional argument and not a logical one, agreed. I feel there is a bit more to it, though, in the sense that the emotion isn't centered just on the one issue, but also centered around a certain sense of superiority which is reinforced by making the issue effectively into a yes/no question when life simply doesn't work that way. Having such a superior high ground, it becomes inconceivable that anyone who isn't on that same high ground could possibly be reliable in a position of authority. That's a dangerous game on any issue. With abortion, it has effectively derailed most of the discussion around any other potential issues in politics and is to the point where people will flat out parrot things that are clearly not true, even knowing the hypocrisy of their own words though they will never admit it, as they still have that high ground. It turns what is an opportunity to help everyone into a zero sum game, which is why it is so dangerous, and also why it's so commonly found to be such a useful political tool.

It is - and why the tolerate a lying, tax cheat as their POTUS - no questions asked.

It is why the founders wanted a separation of church and state. We lucked out that they thought that through.

Again, abortion is not a Christian or religious issue, it's a human decency one, I know plenty of Christians who are pro chocie, and others who don't identify with any religion who are pro life

[nate33]

The argument that being pro choice does not inherently mean you support abortion is ridiculous and down right insulting. If you're pro choice, you support a woman's (and her male counterpart's) choice to terminate her child, to end the pregnancy, hence, you support the act. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Being pro-choice but then saying you don't support abortion or you would "leave it up to the woman" is like being in favor of legalizing murder even though you personally don't support killing people. It's a ridiculous stance.

You either endorse living in a society that permits snuffing out a fetus, or you don't. As I've said before, I think there are reasonable arguments for being pro-choice that have to do with individual liberty and sovereignty over one's body; but if you are pro-choice, don't pretend you are not compromising on the other very real moral principle of defending innocent life. You are voting to legalize the execution of a fetus. Be a man and admit that that's what you are doing.

I personally would permit first trimester abortion in the case of rape, incest, and perhaps some other legitimate hardship cases. I fully admit that that stance will result in the killing of some innocent life. I'm not proud of it, but I do think the importance of sovereignty over one's body is an equally compelling moral cause. If a hard line pro-lifer accused me of supporting the killing of babies by taking this stance, I'd have no logical defense of his argument. He'd be right.

[daoneandonly]

The argument that being pro choice does not inherently mean you support abortion is ridiculous and down right insulting. If you're pro choice, you support a woman's (and her male counterpart's) choice to terminate her child, to end the pregnancy, hence, you support the act. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Being pro-choice but then saying you don't support abortion or you would "leave it up to the woman" is like being in favor of legalizing murder even though you personally don't support killing people. It's a ridiculous stance.

You either endorse living in a society that permits snuffing out a fetus, or you don't. As I've said before, I think there are reasonable arguments for being pro-choice that have to do with individual liberty and sovereignty over one's body; but if you are pro-choice, don't pretend you are not compromising on the other very real moral principle of defending innocent life. You are voting to legalize the execution of a fetus. Be a man and admit that that's what you are doing.

I personally would permit first trimester abortion in the case of rape, incest, and perhaps some other legitimate hardship cases. I fully admit that that stance will result in the killing of some innocent life. I'm not proud of it, but I do think the importance of sovereignty over one's body is an equally compelling moral cause. If a hard line pro-lifer accused me of supporting the killing of babies by taking this stance, I'd have no logical defense of his argument. He'd be right.

Well said, thank you!

[dobrojim]

Dirt - this is an emotional argument not a logical arguement. He "feels" that anyone that doesn't want to ban abortions is a baby killer. There is no way to reason with that.

If someone believes you are a murder, they aren't going to listen to what you have to say.

It's an emotional argument and not a logical one, agreed. I feel there is a bit more to it, though, in the sense that the emotion isn't centered just on the one issue, but also centered around a certain sense of superiority which is reinforced by making the issue effectively into a yes/no question when life simply doesn't work that way. Having such a superior high ground, it becomes inconceivable that anyone who isn't on that same high ground could possibly be reliable in a position of authority. That's a dangerous game on any issue. With abortion, it has effectively derailed most of the discussion around any other potential issues in politics and is to the point where people will flat out parrot things that are clearly not true, even knowing the hypocrisy of their own words though they will never admit it, as they still have that high ground. It turns what is an opportunity to help everyone into a zero sum game, which is why it is so dangerous, and also why it's so commonly found to be such a useful political tool.

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

In your opinion. In the opinion of many others, what you describe as a baby is not quite
as deserving of the legal protections and status of someone who actually has been born.
Is an in vitro fertilized egg a baby? A clear majority of people would say no. Your writing
here would appear to me to suggest you believe they should be morally and legally
indistinguishable. It would be fine for you to have this as a personal belief.
It's not so great when you want to impose that standard on everyone else.

[daoneandonly]

It's an emotional argument and not a logical one, agreed. I feel there is a bit more to it, though, in the sense that the emotion isn't centered just on the one issue, but also centered around a certain sense of superiority which is reinforced by making the issue effectively into a yes/no question when life simply doesn't work that way. Having such a superior high ground, it becomes inconceivable that anyone who isn't on that same high ground could possibly be reliable in a position of authority. That's a dangerous game on any issue. With abortion, it has effectively derailed most of the discussion around any other potential issues in politics and is to the point where people will flat out parrot things that are clearly not true, even knowing the hypocrisy of their own words though they will never admit it, as they still have that high ground. It turns what is an opportunity to help everyone into a zero sum game, which is why it is so dangerous, and also why it's so commonly found to be such a useful political tool.

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

In your opinion. In the opinion of many others, what you describe as a baby is not quite
as deserving of the legal protections and status of someone who actually has been born.
Is an in vitro fertilized egg a baby? A clear majority of people would say no. Your writing
here would appear to me to suggest you believe they should be morally and legally
indistinguishable. It would be fine for you to have this as a personal belief.
It's not so great when you want to impose that standard on everyone else.

But the government tries to impose regulations on people all the time for the "greater good" Drugs like cocaine, heroine, etc are illegal, but similar logic can be used, it's my body, who is the government to tell me what i can and cannot put into it? Obama's ACA fines people who dont have health insurance, essentially forcing their hand to do so, again who is the government to say what I have to pay for when it comes to my own health concerns?

[dckingsfan]

The argument that being pro choice does not inherently mean you support abortion is ridiculous and down right insulting. If you're pro choice, you support a woman's (and her male counterpart's) choice to terminate her child, to end the pregnancy, hence, you support the act. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Being pro-choice but then saying you don't support abortion or you would "leave it up to the woman" is like being in favor of legalizing murder even though you personally don't support killing people. It's a ridiculous stance.

You either endorse living in a society that permits snuffing out a fetus, or you don't. As I've said before, I think there are reasonable arguments for being pro-choice that have to do with the individual liberty and sovereignty over one's body; but if you are pro-choice, don't pretend you are not compromising on the other very real moral principle of defending innocent life. You are voting to legalize the execution of a fetus. Be a man and admit that that's what you are doing.

I personally would permit first trimester abortion in the case of rape, incest, and perhaps some other legitimate hardship cases. I fully admit that that stance will result in the killing of some innocent life. I'm not proud of it, but I do think the importance of sovereignty over one's body is an equally compelling moral cause. If a hard line pro-lifer accused me of supporting the killing of babies by taking this stance, I'd have no logical defense of his argument. He'd be right.

No he wouldn't. Someone has to make a choice between two bad choices in that case.

And in the case of a women choosing to have/not have a baby - you are in the same dilemma - two bad choices.

We make the same choices with guns, cars and opioids, wars and immigration (we know that there are lots of cases where we are sentencing folks to a death sentence by sending them back to their home country).

This is just the one issue where you feel that the trade off (a women's right to determine her life against a fetus) isn't worth it in your opinion. And when life begins is, of course, the central disagreement that fuels the controversy over abortion - and where you don't feel you shouldn't cede that determination to the women.

You either endorse letting the women determine when life begins or you choose that you should have that say. This is not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be...

[dckingsfan]

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

In your opinion. In the opinion of many others, what you describe as a baby is not quite as deserving of the legal protections and status of someone who actually has been born. Is an in vitro fertilized egg a baby? A clear majority of people would say no. Your writing here would appear to me to suggest you believe they should be morally and legally indistinguishable. It would be fine for you to have this as a personal belief. It's not so great when you want to impose that standard on everyone else.

But the government tries to impose regulations on people all the time for the "greater good" Drugs like cocaine, heroine, etc are illegal, but similar logic can be used, it's my body, who is the government to tell me what i can and cannot put into it? Obama's ACA fines people who dont have health insurance, essentially forcing their hand to do so, again who is the government to say what I have to pay for when it comes to my own health concerns?

So, you want it both ways?

[closg00]

Good overview of the disgusting Republican effort to shave Native American votes in North Dakota

Watch on YouTube

[daoneandonly]

In your opinion. In the opinion of many others, what you describe as a baby is not quite as deserving of the legal protections and status of someone who actually has been born. Is an in vitro fertilized egg a baby? A clear majority of people would say no. Your writing here would appear to me to suggest you believe they should be morally and legally indistinguishable. It would be fine for you to have this as a personal belief. It's not so great when you want to impose that standard on everyone else.

But the government tries to impose regulations on people all the time for the "greater good" Drugs like cocaine, heroine, etc are illegal, but similar logic can be used, it's my body, who is the government to tell me what i can and cannot put into it? Obama's ACA fines people who dont have health insurance, essentially forcing their hand to do so, again who is the government to say what I have to pay for when it comes to my own health concerns?

So, you want it both ways?

Not really, I'm just pointing out examples. Again, a notable difference is, people who are against drug reform, ACA, mandated health, immigration measures, etc, whatever have you, they can fight, they have a voice, a say. An innocent, precious baby does not, so there are those of us who choose to fight for them, be their voice, try and let them have a puncher's chance

[pancakes3]

and the counterargument is that you're trying to give a voice to something that doesn't have a voice. bc it doesn't even have brain function yet.

[stilldropin20]

The argument that being pro choice does not inherently mean you support abortion is ridiculous and down right insulting. If you're pro choice, you support a woman's (and her male counterpart's) choice to terminate her child, to end the pregnancy, hence, you support the act. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Being pro-choice but then saying you don't support abortion or you would "leave it up to the woman" is like being in favor of legalizing murder even though you personally don't support killing people. It's a ridiculous stance.

You either endorse living in a society that permits snuffing out a fetus, or you don't. As I've said before, I think there are reasonable arguments for being pro-choice that have to do with individual liberty and sovereignty over one's body; but if you are pro-choice, don't pretend you are not compromising on the other very real moral principle of defending innocent life. You are voting to legalize the execution of a fetus. Be a man and admit that that's what you are doing.

I personally would permit first trimester abortion in the case of rape, incest, and perhaps some other legitimate hardship cases. I fully admit that that stance will result in the killing of some innocent life. I'm not proud of it, but I do think the importance of sovereignty over one's body is an equally compelling moral cause. If a hard line pro-lifer accused me of supporting the killing of babies by taking this stance, I'd have no logical defense of his argument. He'd be right.

This is my stance but i stretch out abortion to about 18 weeks. After 18-20 weeks it become outright murder to me. And as science gets better this number will shrink. Right now a baby can and will live a great life if removed from the womb at 20 weeks.

How can killing a baby after 20 weeks not be murder????

I am a hard core civil libertarian. As hard core as it gets!! and at 20 weeks that fetus IS a human life. So That little baby human in the womb has rights too!!!!!! The same rights as you and me. So i speak for that child and i stand with those that speak for that child.

Prior to 18-20 weeks. I support the mother and father's right to choose but i still dont agree with abortion...especially in cases of healthy babies. Now, If that child will be born with severe medical deformities or severe health risks to mom and/or baby then i can get more on board with and even support abortion.

But as a form of birth control? hell no!!!!!!! and especially not after 20 weeks. Instead i want to try those people for murder including any doctor or health professional that assists.

Nate33 is right on this...the left is packed with civil libertarians...packed with them!!!!! But they conveniently and entirely disregard the rights of a child in the womb. <--which is disgusting after 20 weeks. DISGUSTING!!!!!

[Induveca]

and the counterargument is that you're trying to give a voice to something that doesn't have a voice. bc it doesn't even have brain function yet.

Isn’t this kind of a pointless argument? On both sides?

I’ve had too many cousins who have had abortions at a young age, and it really **** with their lives. Taught them it was an easy way out of anything. But I don’t judge them, their boyfriends would just skip the country or disappear in nyc.

The ones who kept the babies usually got knocked up by a rich guy from a club or equivalent and hold them hostage for 18 years. It’s a lifestyle problem in the inner city. Get pregnant by the right guy, it’s a paycheck for most of their adult lives. Then throw on food stamps, welfare, public housing there is little incentive to escape.

Banning abortions I’m strongly against, and I’m certainly conservative when it comes to finance. Socially though while I love the entitlement programs for the abuelas and truly disabled the system is games hard in ways people never exposed to the inner city (or poor rural areas) simply don’t understand.

Solution? I wish he government would produce a lot more remote work for these mothers via the internet. But then you have an issue with the public schools in inner city, they are absolute trash (in nyc at least outside of the specialty schools). Algebra 1 in 12th grade isn’t acceptable, far too lenient. And despite the specific curriculums I’ve seen kids get slapped with the learning disability tag just to graduate. Meanwhile they just don’t want to do the work.

I love Hong Kong and Singapore’s school systems. They blast kids with math and science very early. Seems opposite in the US, at least in the inner cities.

[stilldropin20]

and the counterargument is that you're trying to give a voice to something that doesn't have a voice. bc it doesn't even have brain function yet.

you have no clue what that child is learning and thinking in the womb. No clue at all! The science suggest the childs brain is already learning at 14 weeks. Ever heard of a baby addicted to crack? How did it learn to like crack in the womb!!??

using your logic. you can chop off a childs head the second it is born. Which is just as disgusting as killing it at 20 weeks.

[queridiculo]

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

You don't own the moral high ground here, especially not by digging in on the non-sensical claim that women are running around killing/aborting babies.

[gtn130]

It matters because America gave us 2 terrible, horrific, vile candidates to choose from in the general election, so I as many ppl felt stuck, we had to vote for one of these historically bad candidates, I voted for who I felt was the better of the 2 options.

Explain why you support Trump shrugging off SA murdering a WaPo journalist without mentioning Hillary Clinton.