Political Roundtable Part XXIII

[pancakes3]

also framing it as "giving" the fetus a voice instead of hijacking the fetus's voice for your own is disingenuous.

the hypothetical, physically impossible voice of the fetus may not want to be born into a world where it isn't wanted, can't be properly cared for, disenfranchised, will be neglected, etc. especially if the pregnancy can be terminated in a safe, humane manner

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

FAKE NEWS!!

[JWizmentality]

Does my sperm have a voice also? Should jerking off be outlawed? Serious question. At what point does this whole "voice" come into play?

[nate33]

Does my sperm have a voice also? Should jerking off be outlawed? Serious question. At what point does this whole "voice" come into play?

Strawman. Nobody is protecting the rights of sperm or ova. They have no capacity to produce a human life until fertilization and implantation takes place.

There really is no obvious point at which a human life becomes worthy of rights. Why do we bestow rights about an infant that is 1 month old? It is still totally dependent upon others for life, which isn't so different from a fetus of 7 months. What makes the passage through the birth canal somehow the logical point for bestowing rights? Why not the first division of the cell? Or the first beat of the heart?

It is a gradient. A fetus' value as a human life clearly increases as it develops into an adult human. We bestow more rights on 18-year-olds than 16 year-olds. 15 year-olds have more rights than 5 year-olds (who have no right to declare independence from their parents). We value 5 year-olds more than infants because they've made it through the riskier stages of development and we've invested more time in their growth. And we value infants more than fetuses. But that doesn't mean we can't logically extrapolate that a fetus is on his way to become an adult human and therefore has more value than a "collection of cells".

I'm not here to declare at what moment a fetus' rights outweigh the rights of a women to control her body, but let's not disregard the argument. It's not evil to have a moral framework where the value of a fetus - an undeveloped adult - is more important than the right of a woman to control her body.

[nate33]

I don't support it, at all. The last news I heard about him relating to it was he said there would be hell to pay if they're proven guilty. if he truly ignores it as if nothing happened, then he deserves to be called out and criticized.

I have been pretty busy at work lately and haven't followed this story all that deeply.

I'm not trying to be provocative here and fully admit that I may be grossly misinformed on the matter. Am I correct in understanding that Jamal Khashoggi is a Saudi-born Saudi citizen with a long history of criticizing the Saudi government? He has been fired from multiple state run newspapers. In 2017, he characterized the Saudi government as "forcing him to shut up" and he later fled the country because he believed his situation was growing "more precarious each day". He ultimately disappeared while on Saudi Arabian soil in a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Obviously, we as a free society don't condone the silencing and murder of journalists, but authoritarian regimes do this stuff all the time. I'm sure China has killed or imprisoned journalists for speaking out yet we still maintain relations with them and don't interfere in their internal affairs. We look the other way in all kinds of shady stuff that our Middle Eastern "allies" do to their own citizens. What exactly makes this different?

Is it because he now works for the Washington Post? Is that the deal? If you are a dissident journalist in an authoritarian country, all it takes is for you to land a job with a U.S. corporation for a year or so and suddenly you get the full protection of the U.S. government? Effectively, whomever does the hiring at the Washington Post has tremendous influence over our foreign policy. Is this what we want? The Washington Post can suck us into economic sanctions, a trade war, or outright open conflict by hiring the wrong guy?

The nuance behind Khashoggi's relationship with KSA or the US doesn't really matter that much to me when I already don't support the US-KSA relationship as it stands. If KSA is murdering dissidents and doing things that don't align with our values as a nation, we shouldn't be doing business with them, and this goes against the foreign policy establishment of both parties, as you know.

Things aren't black and white, and I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrisies and inconsistencies in any hardline foreign policy position, but I really don't see how the American people benefit from the existing quasi-alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia.

I don't really disagree much with what you just said. I'm totally in favor of re-assessing our relationship with Saudi Arabia in general. I'm just saying I don't see why the Khashoggi story is such a big deal. It seems pretty routine to me.

As far as our relationship with Saudi Arabia, I thought it was pretty well understood that Israel has formed an alliance with the Sunni in opposition to the Shia. And because Israel backs the Sunni, America backs the Sunni. I'd be happy backing out of the Middle East altogether and let them figure it out themselves - particularly now that we are self-sufficient in energy production. But there are a lot of financial interests (military-industrial complex, Israel lobby) that are vested in the status quo.

[Pointgod]

Both sides want it both ways. Querid pointed one side, the other side is my body my choice, government should stay out, but they have no problem going to government funded facilities for any issues with their body.

That's a gross misrepresentation. The pro-choice movement is simply that, pro-choice.

The other side is anti-choice, while actively undermining programs that would actually reduce the number of abortions that they purport to care so much about.

Studies have shown time and time again that abortions positively correlate with socioeconomic standing, education level and unintended pregnancies.

It stands to reason that if you actually cared about reducing the rate of "baby killing", letting go of your binary world view to embrace policies that empower and educate people would be far more effective than moral posturing.

Has someone has said pro choice is not pro abortion. It’s giving women agency to make her own decisions about her body. Think about it, we can’t just harvest organs from dead people without their consent despite the fact that this will most definitely save lives and prolonged lives. Think about it, according to a pro lifer a dead person has more autonomy over their body than a living woman.

This is because the pro life movement has been turned into an ideology that’s more about punishing and controlling women. Or else they’d be advocating for family planning, sex education, single payer healthcare, childcare, mat leave etc. The least they could do is drop the pretense.

[dckingsfan]

Does my sperm have a voice also? Should jerking off be outlawed? Serious question. At what point does this whole "voice" come into play?

Strawman. Nobody is protecting the rights of sperm or ova. They have no capacity to produce a human life until fertilization and implantation takes place.

There really is no obvious point at which a human life becomes worthy of rights. Why do we bestow rights about an infant that is 1 month old? It is still totally dependent upon others for life, which isn't so different from a fetus of 7 months. What makes the passage through the birth canal somehow the logical point for bestowing rights? Why not the first division of the cell? Or the first beat of the heart?

It is a gradient. A fetus' value as a human life clearly increases as it develops into an adult human. We bestow more rights on 18-year-olds than 16 year-olds. 15 year-olds have more rights than 5 year-olds (who have no right to declare independence from their parents). We value 5 year-olds more than infants because they've made it through the riskier stages of development and we've invested more time in their growth. And we value infants more than fetuses. But that doesn't mean we can't logically extrapolate that a fetus is on his way to become an adult human and therefore has more value than a "collection of cells".

I'm not here to declare at what moment a fetus' rights outweigh the rights of a women to control her body, but let's not disregard the argument. It's not evil to have a moral framework where the value of a fetus - an undeveloped adult - is more important than the right of a woman to control her body.

The "voice" argument posited early was the real strawman. The real argument as articulated was:

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

Basically, the rights of the adult trump the rights of the fetus (another gradient argument).

vs. your argument that you articulated as:

The value of a fetus - an undeveloped adult - is more important than the right of a woman to control her body or her right to privacy.

[pancakes3]

i drive past a planned parenthood on my commute and i see protesters outside just about every day and it's so depressing. ignoring the abortion aspect, planned parenthood provides std testing, birth control, and plan b.

[JWizmentality]

Does my sperm have a voice also? Should jerking off be outlawed? Serious question. At what point does this whole "voice" come into play?

Strawman. Nobody is protecting the rights of sperm or ova. They have no capacity to produce a human life until fertilization and implantation takes place.

There really is no obvious point at which a human life becomes worthy of rights. Why do we bestow rights about an infant that is 1 month old? It is still totally dependent upon others for life, which isn't so different from a fetus of 7 months. What makes the passage through the birth canal somehow the logical point for bestowing rights? Why not the first division of the cell? Or the first beat of the heart?

It is a gradient. A fetus' value as a human life clearly increases as it develops into an adult human. We bestow more rights on 18-year-olds than 16 year-olds. 15 year-olds have more rights than 5 year-olds (who have no right to declare independence from their parents). We value 5 year-olds more than infants because they've made it through the riskier stages of development and we've invested more time in their growth. And we value infants more than fetuses. But that doesn't mean we can't logically extrapolate that a fetus is on his way to become an adult human and therefore has more value than a "collection of cells".

I'm not here to declare at what moment a fetus' rights outweigh the rights of a women to control her body, but let's not disregard the argument. It's not evil to have a moral framework where the value of a fetus - an undeveloped adult - is more important than the right of a woman to control her body.

The "voice" argument posited early was the real strawman. The real argument as articulated was:

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

Basically, the rights of the adult trump the rights of the fetus (another gradient argument).

vs. your argument that you articulated as:

The value of a fetus - an undeveloped adult - is more important than the right of a woman to control her body or her right to privacy.

Exactly. Which is why I posted the question. We are not going to reach common ground using arguments like the fetus has a voice.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

i drive past a planned parenthood on my commute and i see protesters outside just about every day and it's so depressing. ignoring the abortion aspect, planned parenthood provides std testing, birth control, and plan b.

You know how much of the federal dollars planned parenthood spends on abortion? ZERO. That’s right all those people that want to shut down planned parenthood want to shut down health services for poor people. Another example of great Conservative maroality.

[JWizmentality]

i drive past a planned parenthood on my commute and i see protesters outside just about every day and it's so depressing. ignoring the abortion aspect, planned parenthood provides std testing, birth control, and plan b.

This. The religious right has poisoned this debate to the point of no return. You have politicians claiming Planned Parenthood were selling baby parts for goodness sakes.

[Induveca]

i drive past a planned parenthood on my commute and i see protesters outside just about every day and it's so depressing. ignoring the abortion aspect, planned parenthood provides std testing, birth control, and plan b.

You know how much of the federal dollars planned parenthood spends on abortion? ZERO. That’s right all those people that want to shut down planned parenthood want to shut down health services for poor people. Another example of great Conservative maroality.

That’s bull. The funding alone and name attract massive NPO donations. The funding itself is a magnet to other funding

This is just accounting/PR gymnastics.

That being said why even attempt to argue this point! None of us would fall for it....

[Pointgod]

i drive past a planned parenthood on my commute and i see protesters outside just about every day and it's so depressing. ignoring the abortion aspect, planned parenthood provides std testing, birth control, and plan b.

You know how much of the federal dollars planned parenthood spends on abortion? ZERO. That’s right all those people that want to shut down planned parenthood want to shut down health services for poor people. Another example of great Conservative maroality.

That’s bull. The funding alone and name attract massive NPO donations. The funding itself is a magnet to other funding

This is just accounting/PR gymnastics.

That being said why even attempt to argue this point! None of us would fall for it....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

This counters the narrative of people that say their money goes to funding abortions. Again if they want to shut down health services for mostly poor people then own that.

[Pointgod]

i drive past a planned parenthood on my commute and i see protesters outside just about every day and it's so depressing. ignoring the abortion aspect, planned parenthood provides std testing, birth control, and plan b.

This. The religious right has poisoned this debate to the point of no return. You have politicians claiming Planned Parenthood were selling baby parts for goodness sakes.

That was truly disgusting. I don’t know how James Okeefe isn’t behind jail.

[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.

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.

i do agree with the premise that America slow-walks its students through the k12 curriculum, especially with math and science, but pointing to HK/Singapore schools is a false dichotomy.

when a kid fails out of school in Asia, the blame is on the kid for not working hard enough. when a kid fails out of school in America, the blame is on the school system. it's an cultural difference.

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.

i dunno DOCTOR. how did the baby become chemically dependent on a substance that you're characterizing as a learned behavior?

The scientific community defines learning as a physical experience. Neurons physically and chemically fire and connect with each other as the mind and body experience mental and physical "events." Memories of those "events" are nothing more than the neurons remaining physically connected. Neurological cells in the brain begin making very basic connections very early in the womb. And the brain is already telling the heart to beat at 5 months old. And the brain will tell the lungs to breath.


So the brain learns Chemical dependency in the womb no different that it does out of the womb. At 5 months, 20 weeks, Thats a real human being in there. really it is.

[popper]

also framing it as "giving" the fetus a voice instead of hijacking the fetus's voice for your own is disingenuous.

the hypothetical, physically impossible voice of the fetus may not want to be born into a world where it isn't wanted, can't be properly cared for, disenfranchised, will be neglected, etc. especially if the pregnancy can be terminated in a safe, humane manner

Do you know anybody that regrets being born? How can we know “that a fetus may not want to be born” if they’re never given the chance to make that determination. Maybe they could overcome the disadvantages you mention. History is replete with those that have. If I were a materialist, I’d not only promote abortion but I’d want to kill old people as well. Its only logical.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Gotta talk about the Clinton Foundation tho

[popper]

You know how much of the federal dollars planned parenthood spends on abortion? ZERO. That’s right all those people that want to shut down planned parenthood want to shut down health services for poor people. Another example of great Conservative maroality.

That’s bull. The funding alone and name attract massive NPO donations. The funding itself is a magnet to other funding

This is just accounting/PR gymnastics.

That being said why even attempt to argue this point! None of us would fall for it....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

This counters the narrative of people that say their money goes to funding abortions. Again if they want to shut down health services for mostly poor people then own that.

I think Wikipedia is misleading you if that’s what they’re publishing.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

i told you guys entitle reform was next 2 years ago!!! SD20 has kept you informed!!! And right after that the wall with immigration reform is going to happen as well. And you bet your azz that mexico IS going to pay for it!!

trump gets stuff done!! This will be very much like the Clinton presidency. a wild ride and shxt is going to get done and I am 100% convinced that if R's keep both house and senate in 2018 the budget will be balanced by 2022 and well will be running a surplus in 2023 and 2014. We just got to stay out of a damn (costly) war this effin time and not give our middle class jobs away to emerging economies! If we learn from history, we'll be fine this time around. let's keep bringing the jobs back snd ma'phuckas going to have to work this time instead of mass immigration! no more long term "free stuff!!" Very Short term safety nets remain in place and that's it!! You wanna git to eat'n, ma'phuckah? Then git yo azz to workin!!

And how can anyone be against that? How can anyone be against sustainable government? How can any american be against an honest day's work for a fair day's pay?? Jobs and with good wages will take care of everything. If the jobs are more abundant than the employees then employers will be forced to pay higher wages to compete and maybe...even pay for healthcare again like they did in the 50's and 60's and 70's and 80's. We dont need "free stuff!!" It doesn't work. Induveca is right. As all of you know, i'm probably the only one on here from crack head parents and grew up mostly flat broke. Entitlement scammers like my parents look at entitlements as a life style instead of a safety net. They dont want careers or even jobs...because the know the entitlement scams and just "work" for the "free stuff" instead...that's their version of a job...begging for free stuff. They are a huge burden on society...and we can easily force them to work by making the jobs more rewarding and the free stuff less rewarding. Its that effing simple.