Obama Campaign Begins

[squiggly]

Yeah But Squiggly...I dont wanna pay for other people's condoms either. :rolleyes:

Do you think I should have to?

I' am just a GED holding surfer dude that spent his life swinging a hammer(so to speak). and sort of a hippy
But
To me, it doesnt seem right for the goverment to demand money (taxes) from people and give it to other people....
People should be able to give freely and joyfully to those in Need.

Peace out farm Bro :)

You seem like a cool dude--and in an America full of yous, your ideas might pan out. It's obvious they come from a good place. I'll try to respectfully say why it is I disagree, but in short the disagreement--I believe--stems from our beliefs about the interconnectivity of society and the complexities of our interactions with one another.

I try, really hard, to see things on as complex a level as I can wrap my head around. Like you--I really do not like the idea babies being twisted apart in the womb. I do not believe it is a good solution, or really a solution at all (except in extremely disturbing and/or life threatening circumstances). However, my belief about the right of a human to control their own body really circumvents this.

On another level, I realize that the best way to prevent these types of things from happening is to work on prevention efforts--and that shouldn't come as a surprise as the name of the game is in the name of the solution. If you really want to take a stand against this type of behavior--surely you wouldn't believe that a dollar spent which kept an abortion from happening wasn't a good dollar spent. You may argue that its not direct cause:effect and I'll address that later. If you really check into their record, though, Planned Parenthood is actually an EXTREMELY efficient use of tax dollars in terms of the health and societal benefits.

I get that a program stands on its merits, and abortion is always going to trump any good that's been done for some parties--but in a way I wish that they would acknowledge the good, so that they could at least make sense arguing what the bad is. I'd still disagree, but there would be room for a reasonable discussion. This incessant dwelling on singular things taken out of context from the right has just become mind-numbing to no end (and I don't mean that to mean you, caregiver, mostly the media and buzz-wordists).

I think this goes beyond just the abortion issue and spills over into just about everything else. Let's look at welfare:

In a perfect world, your idea of giving freely etc would be the best way to handle things--of that there is no doubt. However, the world is not perfect. More than that, some of the biggest proponents of this type of legislation are from the right, and many many many of the same number are Christians. In their Bible (which I've read many times having been raised very strictly Christian) it is essentially suggested that this is one of the tenants of being a Christian.

God says to give away all of one's possessions, in fact. When it comes right down to it, though--many of these people, who follow a religion which requires it do not give generously. Of course many do, but will many keep our impoverished fed? Many such men forget that the Bible also asks Christians to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Which basically means pay your fucking taxes (and "Caesar" was a total dickbag about how he spent his money--name any of them lol). Either way, I find it hard to trust in the idea that in a society where even the people who are supposedly called by a higher power to be giving and generous fall short--that somehow their shortcoming and everyone else's non-deity inspired graciousness and giving spirit will be enough to stem the gap that is poverty in this country (forget the rest of the world). I'm sure you'll forgive my skepticism--especially given the knowledge that society used to be this way, and there were vast amounts more poor and needy people then than there are today. There are actually solid statistics which make this very abundantly clear.

In my mind, a strong nation has a ----> very large <---- and strong middle class--and a small group of impoverished citizens. Such a society has the best ability to react quickly an efficiently to problems, to endure economic woes, to educate it's youth, to increase the health of it's people. No one but the stupidest of people, and the most ditchin'-est people from their economics 101 classes would dare to suggest otherwise. During any of the biggest economic booms (which were not driven by totalitarian rule) of any civilization to date--this has been the case. It is not only not the case now in America, it always seems to become less and less the case under republican's than under the democrats. This, again, is easily traceable throughout history. If you want to talk about a lie--how's about the GOP being the "party of the middle class". It's more like--the party of the middle class, so long as you're already a part of it and are a Christian. A real party for the middle class should be for growing it sustainably--not farming it for resources and saddling the economy over it's back.

People say that the rich should only pay their fair share--their 30% like the rest of us. Forget that they are paying more like 15-20%, but let's for a second realize that all of these people would be poor as shit if they were born on the banks of the Ganges. The most successful Americans should pay more because they owe their success to this great country. Go ahead and tel me Mitt Romney would be a rich bastid if he was born in El Salvador with a straight face. I'll wait.

For many in the generation which is trying to tear our social programs apart (and has done a fucking number on education) owes a large part of their success to the fact that their parents saw fucking fit to give them a ferrari-level education. We are going to be giving our kids pintos--while the rich pay for their kids ferraris. When the free market starts fucking up our access to skilled work--that's where I get worried. This is not only completely vindictive on their behalf given the education they were afforded, it is downright selfish and wrong.

The effects are here, now.

Go and try to get an engineering job in Germany. No?
Okay now try and compete for a job in America with a German-trained engineer, who may or may not speak more proper English than you do (but you know how to say no in German, right? It's all good). Still no?
Whoops.

Okay pay us 100k for your education now. Lol. Let's see how "cutting edge" we are in 50 years if we keep it up. We are already assured to have a dip in productivity due to the shit education we've been shelling out for the past 20 years or so--let's hope we fix it right now tomorrow and the dip doesn't last for 50 rather than 20 years. I fucking threw up in my mouth when a GOP presidental candidate (Santorum) basically said how dare people with educations try to act like their smarter than others, or that being smart matters. He said it way more right-wingy and stupid than that, but you get the gist. He was guffawing at the idea that to be a productive society we need high class education. Maybe we wouldn't if China and India hadn't turned their education systems into genius-factories, but they have--and we need to follow suit. Even if they only perform highly for 10% of their population (and they do muuuuuuuch better than this) their number of skilled workers would still equal ours if we were at 100% genius production efficiency.

I'll just boil is straight down to my gut feeling. It has bitten more than one nation on the ass to leave the sick and needy in dark corners. I don't think we will escape this trend. We are currently trying our damndest to follow it.

 

[squiggly]

(...Continued)

That doesn't mean I don't think the welfare system needs reforms. I grew up surrounded by section 8 housing. I know what welfare abuse is. I know how rampant, unacceptable, deplorable, etc. it is. But I'm here to tell you the following:

It comes in all shapes and sizes. Old, young, poor, rich, white, black, brown, you-name-it. The abuse happens everywhere, and from everyone. That the program is run terribly does not mean it is a bad program (or idea, rather). This really underlies one of my strongest feelings about government and disagreements with many people. People say government is bad, and it will always do things badly, inefficiently, the right hand won't know what the left is doing and so on.

I say that we should be less focused on shrinking government--and much much more focused on optimizing it. Cutting the bullshit. Say what you will, but Obama has done more of this than would've been thought possible without Congress. Imagine the tape he could cut if they were on board.

I don't think that postulating government is bad is a solution. This is essentially what the GOP has done--they've branded it even. Shrink the size of government, they say. Not a mention of getting it to work better--except that somehow less taxes will fix everything and anything.

It's a joke to assume that all of America's woes can be solved so simply. While I might (and I do) disagree with some of Obama's policies and moves, I can say that I believe his approach to our problems and the all inclusive nature of most of his remarks represent reality in a much more vivid way than what the right is selling.

The right sells simplicity. The left sells complexity. Now I'm a scientist, and so I like complexity--but I don't think it takes a scientific mind to realize that the world is very complex, and that any solutions for how to get ahead in it (as a country) are going to be complex as well.

The GOP is a set of 12CD's for 29.95 that will get you rich quick selling real-estate.

The democratic party is a college degree and a real-estate license.

The latter sucks a hellva lot more to navigate and realize than does the former--but there is a trick to the latter. It actually works leaps and bounds better relative to the former. Sure there are some successes and benefits to skipping all of this and buying the CD's--and sometimes a few people will get rich quick. Most of the customers, however, end up lining the pockets of the dudes selling the CD's.

Shit that analogy actually worked out a lot better than I'd intended it to--check that out.

Obama isn't perfect, Planned Parenthood isn't perfect, the government isn't perfect--and that's why I like them, because they are like everything else in the world. It makes sense they aren't perfect because nothing is--not even the most perfect diamond.

The GOP would have us believe that their ideas are perfect, that they do know perfectly well how to fix everything, what we should put into our bodies (drugs, penises, IUDs), what God we should believe in, etc. I just don't think this mentality gels with reality.

Reality is sloppy. For the GOP, the jig has been up since the 70's. In the past 20 years there's been more gay republicans outed than there are openly gay democrats serving in government. It's a funny run around where they tell us how perfect everything would be if we'd just listen to their side for a minute--and then even from their own ranks someone breaks off and shows us why it will never work.

Sure dude--don't spend the money on Planned Parenthood. I volunteered there growing up from 15-18 at a program which was for at-risk youth. There's a good chance a few of us ended up not getting shot because we were there--or maybe someone *raises hand* got out of the ghetto and got an education in part because of the amazing sponsors to our program (who were paid PP employees) and the opportunities they afforded them.

Don't pay for the condoms--more of the babies you want to stand up for will die. This isn't a direct cause and effect, of course, but let's say I keep leaving cheese on the ground and a mouse eats it. If every time I put the cheese on the ground, the mouse eats it--who is to blame. Me or the mouse? I'd say it's my dumbass.

The same thing will happen if you put in welfare without good abuse preventions.

Or if you don't allow at risk youth access to free condoms

Or you create a black market for drugs with prohibition.

Or you etc, etc etc.

As individuals humans are really intelligent--or I should say they have the capability to be. But when we look at society as a whole and how it acts, we look a helluva lot more like monkeys than we'd like to admit.

When it comes to the sick and needy, I don't think it's a good practice to leave it to the monkeys. We need to use a system. I just wish we could quit arguing about that, and start working on improving the system rather than one side trying to build it whilst the other tries to tear it down.

Doing that ends us up with what we've got--a shitty undermined non-working system. Is there any surprise?

Republicans say they are true Americans. Patriots. They claim they believe in this country. Well WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK RUNS THE COUNTRY?

A bunch of Cuban's or something?
Russians?
No man, the answer is it's Americans. Why not believe in their ability to overcome the odds and get the government efficient and working instead of trying with every breath to claim that it is impossible?

They've given up on us before we've even begun. What kills me is that they're almost universally incredibly poor debaters and they make completely shit points at almost all hours of the day. Somehow a good portion of the country just eats it up. I don't know if it's laziness or the promise of lower taxes--but it's got to stop. We can't just say fuck the government and let big business run everything.

If you want to know what that looks like, check out Monsanto. That is a perfect example of where big business has become more powerful than government. Do you like how it looks?

I don't.

Like I said, It's obvious you're coming from the right place--so I hope take all of that in a good light. I know you'll disagree with some things, but my hope is that we can find something--one thing--that we agree on and go from there.

Until we can mend fences like this, it is going to be difficult to move forward in this country--whether you believe the solution is complex or not. The last time the political landscape looked anything even remotely like this--we had a civil war. The only reason we aren't headed there now is the might of our military (one of the reasons the founding fathers were wrong about this, by the way)--but that doesn't mean the societal divide is sustainable.

Not with China and India chugga-lugging behind us. I've got this thing where I actually want to be patriotic, and I actually want to effect change, and I actually want America to remain number 1. I feel like so many other people just want to be right.

I want to be wrong so that I can be right next time. All I want is for someone to prove it to me. I want the argument to be logical. I want it to translate into a reasonable solution. Unreasonable solutions are useless. Illogical arguments are useless. We need something we can depend on, not something that merely looks and sounds like something dependable. I won't fault the GOP there--damnit if they aren't amazing at playing the role of the patriot.

But it's just playing--it's not the real thing. Not as long as we can't reconcile reality with the rhetoric.

 

[nebulius]

Do I think it's good?

No.

Would I want it done if it were up to me?

No.

Do I think it should be up to me?

No.

You either, for that matter.

I can understand abortion when it is a case of medical necessity or in the case of rape. But morally, ethically, and logically, I think it is wrong to use abortion as a method of birth control.
I know a lot of Republicans (I'm independent) that vote solely based on pro-life issues, which I don't understand because I think sending soldiers off to war is a pro-life issue also and one shouldn't be so quick to condemn one yet support the other.
I think as a human race there are certain rights or values that are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason. One being that every human being has a right to live and a right to die, and no other human should be able to deny those rights or make that choice for another human being.

 

[squiggly]

I can understand abortion when it is a case of medical necessity or in the case of rape. But morally, ethically, and logically, I think it is wrong to use abortion as a method of birth control.
I know a lot of Republicans (I'm independent) that vote solely based on pro-life issues, which I don't understand because I think sending soldiers off to war is a pro-life issue also and one shouldn't be so quick to condemn one yet support the other.
I think as a human race there are certain rights or values that are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason. One being that every human being has a right to live and a right to die, and no other human should be able to deny those rights or make that choice for another human being.

Pregnancy is a high-risk condition. It is completely unpredictable whether or not there will be complications. You can spot only those complications which we've nailed down--and that is not an expansive list nor can the risk be easily quantified. It is very high. If you think your taxes are high now--imagine the battery of tests which would need to be done to most precisely ensure what type of complications might arise if any. Surely if we're to compel women into this process, we must provide the best possible care for them for free to ensure they do not come to harm. This will include CT scans MRIs, EEGs, cardiovascular testing, multiple bioassays, genetic testing, multiple doctor visits and hospital admissions, at-home nurses, labor training classes, deliveries, time from multiple specialists (and we'll need a shitload more of them if every pregnancy is going to term) and on and on and on. If you think this is an exhaustive list--I invite you to visit the ER and see what they charge you for when they want to get you out of there with the least care necessary.

It really is that simple for me. It's a question of personal rights. I value a person at sexual maturity's right to make decisions about the state of their body more than a zygote or a fetus. It's just where I come from. Some people believe this does not have to be a mutually exclusive thing. I think this issue makes it clear that sometimes, it does. The world is ugly, and this is one of those ugly decisions. Is it okay to tell people how they should live (or possibly die) or not? Can we force someone to do something which might kill them who hasn't done anything unlawful?

Or should we just outlaw sex without intent to procreate?

I'm a person who realizes that I cannot have my cake and eat it too. Because of my marijuana activism one of my strongest held beliefs is that the government needs to back the fuck off of what I choose to do with or to my body. If the women can't have it, then neither should you or I.

This, to me, is a right given to me merely by existence. I prove it every day--I'll hit this greened up bong and prove it again right this moment. The feeling that I get, the way that it makes me think. The doors it opens, the friends I've made--the experiences I've had. If the government was always right, and more specifically to me if the party of "family values" was always right, none of it would've happened--and I'd sit here a different person entirely. Perhaps I'd have stuck with violin rather than becoming a chemist--I was good :)

These women will prove it with coat hangers if you force them--and while you might think that is reprehensible and betrays a disgusting truth about the world. In some deep recess of your mind you've got to know that this all of the bad from the professional abortions--mixed in with a little bit of extra bad.

What's at the center of this is a fight between what we should abide by.

Morals, or ethics.

Moral code--

A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.


Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

The former (usually and for the purposes of this argument) deals with one's gut belief--naked of any type of systematic or logical reasoning, despite it's being highly codified in most religions. The moral codes which are most prevalent today are those of religion, and that of law--which is derived from the latter.

Ethics deals with what we, as a society, agree upon through a systematic discussion and iterative process which is voted on and codified as law. If you believe it should be an ethical stance that abortions are illegal despite my previous argument, then that is obviously within your rights--but in order for that to happen you *should* need to get over 50% of the country to agree with you and get congress to make a law about it, unfortunately as you point out that will inexorably link you to a party which is intent upon driving the car that is America off a proverbial bridge. They have decided we should all follow their precise moral code--and I've gotta say it loud and proud that I dis-a-fuckin-gree. I think that Christianity is essentially a book that says some good things which are obvious (don't kill people, don't steal, be nice to people, don't rape your mother, stone insolent children--wait scratch that, that's one of those "interpretive parts")--and then out of left field their like yeah you believe that? Well also Jesus is the son of God--so obviously these two are inexorably linked, and everything else he says it totally infallible at all times. It's called a false dichotomy, and it's fallacious in even the worst of debate circles.

I think that moral codes which are thousands of years old are a bit outdated for 2012. I think we can figure out the easy parts on our own (the killing, raping, stealing)--we don't need a dusty book.

We need to focus on adapting our current societal moral code--rather than imposing some tired version a guy across an ocean thousands of years ago wrote down and buried in a god damn desert. We're talking about a dude who probably had no idea of the nature of the universe--even less than a particularly bright 6 year old might have today.

I'd just like to address a final thing and say that by forcing pregnancies to go to term you will without a doubt be restricting the "right" of some women to live. Statistics tell us that it is a flat out guarantee that this policy will kill some women, and furthermore that you cannot guarantee to within any degree of accuracy the percentage risk involved as it goes to life expectancy of a pregnant woman. Even further you fail to quantify that the restriction of life imposed merely by being encumbered by pregnancy in late term--and I suggest that this is also a non zero value as it goes to the restriction of life. This is a fundamental right you yourself said no human being should be able to deny. My question is does that include you, or people who believe what you do about abortion?

 

[ttystikk]

All this talk about whether we can or should force women to carry their children to term misses an essential point; one I like to sum up in the phrase 'quality vs. quantity';

Leaving aside for the moment the morality/ethics of abortion, what happens to the unwanted baby? While the Right in this country is all too happy to gin up soothing visions of a mother miraculously cherishing her newborn and the rest of scoiety joyfully showering them with gifts, diapers and money to cover all the expenses, that just doesn't square with the truth. Not even one little bit.

Aside from burdening mom (in these scenarios dad is usually long gone) with generally unaffordable health care costs, we as a society then force her to run a gauntlet of poorly run social programs and substandard EVERYTHING from housing to used ramshackle cars to second class foods to a crummy job because she doesn't already have wealth and a fully developed support system in place. Can someone please tell me how that's 'better?'

The main example made famous by the book 'Freakonomics' was about what happens to a society that allows women to NOT be forced to have and raise their children. It turns out that not only does she have a better life- and so do her children, once she's farther along in her life and career and has developed a support system of friends, relatives, etc- but it turns out the kids who are born into a society where mom is forced to have them don't do very well, either.

These 'unwanted' kids, for lack of a better word, end up far less likely to be successful, far more likely to be criminals, dropouts, drug addicts and are in general much, much more likely to make up the bottom rungs of society. I would tell you why, but I'm sick of spoon feeding answers to people- think about it yourself for awhile, dear reader, and see if you can't also visualize a direct link between unwanted children and a rough life.

In short, not only is society better off, but so is the family, and likely the child itself, if that child were never born. The fixation by the religious right on forced childbirth has its roots in times when children most often did not survive childhood- due to disease, defect or harsh circumstances, only the minority of humans born made it to adulthood. That is no longer the case in most of the world, except in places that are very poor- and overpopulated. It also clings to this is a wedge issue to disenfranchise and disempower women and put them back in 'their place' in the kitchen with a baby on her hip, cooking dinner and darning daddy's socks while he goes out and does 'important' things. To those women who want such a life, I say, 'enjoy it! The world needs all of you we can get!' To those who do not, I say that it would be a life sentence with that mom as her child... and imagine how that's going to turn out. That kid was ME, people, and I got where I am today not because of my parents- both of whom were highly educated and middle class, by the way- but in spite of their 'I wish they just went away' attitude towards me and my sister.

Maybe instead of trying to take away a woman's right to choose, perhaps we should empower and educate her as to the gravity of the decisions she's making around sexuality and pregnancy. In interviews with women who have had abortions, the overwhelming majority say they did it because they knew they weren't in a situation where raising a child well- or even at all- was possible. Maybe they need other choices besides lack of access to either health care or birth control?

So what about the quality argument? You hear ZERO discussion about these obvious truths from conservatives. It's a nasty, ugly little reality they'd really rather not have to discuss in anything deeper than platitudes. It's so much simpler to scream 'abortions kill!' from the sidelines of a woman's life, and then ignore her when all the obvious consequences begin to play out.

Looks like it's working about as well as a three legged duck on stilts walks.

Our great country is at a precipice, as we have been for much of our existence. Today, it's not 'indians' or the British or disease... rather, it's an oncoming catastrophe of our own making, as inevitable as standing on the train tracks. If we as a people don't figure out how to come togather and make solutions out of political rhetoric, build a better government, social system and educational institutions, we will be the country the rest of the world 'outsources' to- with all those shit jobs no one else wants to do. And don't look to the Rich to save us. Did they save the poor in the 19th century? Nope. The early 20th? No. Not until unions got teeth, that is.

Class warfare is a very dangerous subject for rich white conservatives to bring up and attempt to smear others with; they've been waging a successful campaign of class warfare on the middle class for most of our lives; if you don't believe me, look at how the country is run, how the laws are written, how taxes are levied, how many 'human rights' have been afforded to corporations. Some are unwilling to examine this and want to keep their head buried firmly up to their lapels in Fox News- but hell, even Rupert Murdoch isn't looking so hot as a role model these days, is he?

 

[Jarofunk]

my plan to save the country: a VOLUNTARY sterilization program. anyone is eligible. $5k cash if you get sterilized. can you imagine how much tax $$$ this would save in the long run?

P.S. fuck ALL establishment politicians. they will never do the right thing and they all have the same agenda

 

[caregiverken]

IBTL...

Hey Squggly...folks like you like to say its a woman choice..because its their body.


mr scientist,
Does one body have two beating hearts?

how can you be so blind?

When you stop the beating heart of a human fetus...your killing a human being.:mad:


lets talk about growing weed. :)

 

[caregiverken]

Hey sqig, look at the size of the leaf on my Bubba Gold plant this morning,
Its huge Bro!

 

[squiggly]

Maybe instead of trying to take away a woman's right to choose, perhaps we should empower and educate her as to the gravity of the decisions she's making around sexuality and pregnancy. In interviews with women who have had abortions, the overwhelming majority say they did it because they knew they weren't in a situation where raising a child well- or even at all- was possible. Maybe they need other choices besides lack of access to either health care or birth control?

You know--I might be crazy...but this is exactly what Planned Parenthood does better than any other single entity in the country, and that by-and-large includes parents.

 

[squiggly]

IBTL...

Hey Squggly...folks like you like to say its a woman choice..because its their body.


mr scientist,
Does one body have two beating hearts?

how can you be so blind?

When you stop the beating heart of a human fetus...your killing a human being.:mad:


lets talk about growing weed. :)

Actually, in the case of the woman/baby system--it only has one that matters. The mother's.

The babies heart can stop and the woman's will go on beating--but it will not go the other way around.

The angle your arguing from ignores the point I made which is that compelling pregnancies to go to term is not only dangerous and unpredictable--it is statistically guaranteed to be a death sentence for some women. Say what you will--but the truth is there is no comparable infringement upon a person's right to this situation. This is something that a man will never understand implicitly and might have to think long and hard about to understand explicitly.

I love how even though I'm online, I can almost universally tell when it is a man arguing the other side of this point (99.9% of the time).

Facts are facts:

From a societal standpoint--the ethics say it's okay. Our law says it--it's been poured over multiple times and the statute stands.

From a moral standpoint--perhaps you are right, but it is not for you to decide how other people will live their lives. You're no more able to decide that, than I am to decide what your position on this issue will be.

It's important that you realize that you haven't a chance in hell of saving a single baby doomed to abortion. Clinic or coat rack--99.9% of them which are wanted out, will come out. Shutting down planned parenthood is only going to add to the, as you pointed out, already very long line.

How do you feel about abortions which pre-date the first heartbeat?

To me a living thing is exactly what wikipedia defines it to be:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not.
If something cannot sustain itself, it is not alive--it's as good as dead. If a woman dies in pregnancy, a half-gestated slimy thing doesn't claw out of her stomach. The thing expires within a minute or two as the mother's blood pressure plummets. The only thing capable of bringing a child to life is a woman--it takes 9 months of her hard work to do it the proper way.

What you're saying essentially is it's better to give up some of our personal rights, and sovereignty over our own bodies so long as it serves the greater good. My question is, then, where is your support for chopping the dicks off of any men who have sex without the intention of procreating. You might think this is extreme, but remember that at least these men get to universally live--there is a small but not insignificant portion of women who will die from a pregnanc--I'm still waiting on your answer concerning them. Do you believe their right to life is any different from yours or a babies? Do you think it's cheaper or worth less? You said no one should be able to take away this right--I asked you if that also applied to you, and I really would like an answer. You've asked me some hard questions and I've done my best to answer them--I think you should be able to offer the same thing here.

If he's inadvertently creating a "life" which he has no interest in, isn't that as good as manslaughter--or negligent homicide.

You would have us believe this slope isn't really so slippery--that it's as simple as "don't kill babies." I argue that you're dead wrong, or fetus wrong--however you want to flip the coin.

The truth is, again, this is an example of the right oversimplifying things and the left realizing the world is complex.
You'll notice almost nobody on the left thinks abortion is "good" we just think that it's a necessary evil that improved conditions for all of us--including the soon-to-be-dead-fetuses. The right can stick with don't kill babies if they want to--but that is a slogan which isn't ever going to break 30% market penetration. It just isn't reality.

Don't get me wrong--I find abortion disgusting and regrettable. I've done my part to ensure that it's not something that would ever happen to my seed (even in an indiscretion). Accomplishing that to my own satisfaction has taken more than me simply telling every girl I fucked, "don't kill babies." It had a lot more to do with me discussing reality with them.

I dunno maybe we should just stick with abstinence education that doesn't work, too. It's as in touch with realty as this idea is. It is one of the funniest things in the world to me that the party of abstinence only education is also the anti-abortion party. How deluded and confused can a group's logic be?

I take comfort in the fact that it was hard for me to find a fellow christian growing up in my neighborhood. At the time it was a source of great discomfort for me--but now it's helps me to realize that this way of thinking is on it's way out the door in the next 50 years. Good riddance says I.

 

[caregiverken]

Boy, It no wonder you like Obama...you both use a lot of words.....o_O

How do you feel about abortions which pre-date the first heartbeat?

a little different feeling on that. Brain waves start

at about 40 to 43 days after conception.​

To me a living thing is exactly what wikipedia defines it to be:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not.
If something cannot sustain itself, it is not alive--it's as good as dead. If a woman dies in pregnancy, a half-gestated slimy thing doesn't claw out of her stomach. The thing expires within a minute or two as the mother's blood pressure plummets. The only thing capable of bringing a child to life is a woman--it takes 9 months of her hard work to do it the proper way.

aww come on Really? o_O You Know there are many "living organisms" that would die with out the right conditions. including you and i.


What you're saying essentially is it's better to give up some of our personal rights, and sovereignty over our own bodies so long as it serves the greater good. My question is, then, where is your support for chopping the dicks off of any men who have sex without the intention of procreating. You might think this is extreme, but remember that at least these men get to universally live--there is a small but not insignificant portion of women who will die from a pregnanc--I'm still waiting on your answer concerning them. Do you believe their right to life is any different from yours or a babies? Do you think it's cheaper or worth less? You said no one should be able to take away this right--I asked you if that also applied to you, and I really would like an answer. You've asked me some hard questions and I've done my best to answer them--I think you should be able to offer the same thing here.


Thats a ridiculous question really...Of course the mother comes 1st.

Of course in a medical emergency it should be done...Duh. :rolleyes:

and Im not really even trying to stop women from having abortions...I just dont wanna pay for it!





If he's inadvertently creating a "life" which he has no interest in, isn't that as good as manslaughter--or negligent homicide.

Bingo!

.

Have a Nice Day Squiggly :)

 

[nebulius]

Actually, in the case of the woman/baby system--it only has one that matters. The mother's.

The babies heart can stop and the woman's will go on beating--but it will not go the other way around.

The angle your arguing from ignores the point I made which is that compelling pregnancies to go to term is not only dangerous and unpredictable

Squiggy, you are very intelligent but I think sometimes you think too much with the right side of your brain (no offense). You're looking at this too scientifically.

Saying a mother's heart is more important than a baby's is a ridiculous statement. I mean which came first the chicken or the egg? There would be no mother if her mother said" hey getting pregnant is a dangerous medical condition, abort, abort!" So therefore one relies on the other for their existence, and cannot be separate.

Yes there are risks to having children, in the worst countries the infant mortality rate is around 10-13% for Malawi and Mozambique. I think that's pretty low for the worst countries in the world with the worst medical care. There are 6,840,507,003 people in the world, I mean look at the population chart. If having kids is such a dangerous medical procedure as you suggest, then why is the population increasing substantially?

I am not arguing abortion in the cases of rape or medical necessity but in the case of birth control. Since you think it's such a dangerous medical procedure to have kids wouldn't it be a better means of birth control to use condoms or the pill? Those are safer methods of birth control, not abortion.

 

[nebulius]

That was my last point, I respectfully disagree with those who believe that abortion should be an option for birth control.
The most valuable thing we have as a society is life, and it says something about a society how we treat all living things both big and small.

Ok, that was my last point;) . I'm with Ken, done with politics, back to the herb. Sweet leaf Ken, lol. Nice transition!:D

 

[nebulius]

This is almost like an awkward dysfunctional Thanksgiving dinner at my house. Thanks for making me feel at home on the farm, lol. Pass the gravy please.

 

[squiggly]

Squiggy, you are very intelligent but I think sometimes you think too much with the right side of your brain (no offense). You're looking at this too scientifically.

Saying a mother's heart is more important than a baby's is a ridiculous statement. I mean which came first the chicken or the egg? There would be no mother if her mother said" hey getting pregnant is a dangerous medical condition, abort, abort!" So therefore one relies on the other for their existence, and cannot be separate.

Yes there are risks to having children, in the worst countries the infant mortality rate is around 10-13% for Malawi and Mozambique. I think that's pretty low for the worst countries in the world with the worst medical care. There are 6,840,507,003 people in the world, I mean look at the population chart. If having kids is such a dangerous medical procedure as you suggest, then why is the population increasing substantially?

I am not arguing abortion in the cases of rape or medical necessity but in the case of birth control. Since you think it's such a dangerous medical procedure to have kids wouldn't it be a better means of birth control to use condoms or the pill? Those are safer methods of birth control, not abortion.

Going to address these in order if I can keep them straight:

1. Right side of my brain:

Yes--this is how I believe laws should be delineated. We shouldn't legislate according to feeling, otherwise we might as well start making laws like "it is illegal to not be scared of a black person from the inner city if you are white." The majority of white people are scared of such people--and for a majority it may feel "right" to be this way. Why not codify it then? Because we shouldn't codify things which we think--we should codify things which we know. I definitely have left-brain thinking available to me, I spent the greater portion of my young life locked in a room with a violin--I just don't believe that it applies here, in fact I believe we should avoid at all costs discussing or writing laws in a way which does not at every step respect logic.:)

2. Mother heart more important than babies:

I meant this not as a chicken-before-the-egg argument here, but I can see how my meaning could've been misconstrued as I was not very clear. What I mean is that the "life system" if we want to call it that (mother + baby) depends on the mother's heart--the mother essentially "beats" the fetuses heart for it. Without the mother, the baby dies--without the baby, the mother has a dead fetus in her womb (this can later cause complications, but it usually doesn't--in some cases development actually continues even though the fetus has expired.

3. Population growth implies safety of maternity

It doesn't. In fact--in the US the maternal death rate has tripled over the last decade. It is a small number--24 in 100,000

but lets do the math on that (we'll do a simplified version).

So there's about 300million people in the US--half of that number women. so 150million. Let's halve that number again and get a reasonable estimate of women at sexual maturity (again this is vastly oversimplifying)

Let's just assume that every woman ends up getting pregnant each year (obviously not the case but also not impossible).

So we take 24/100,000 x 75,000,000 = 18,000. This is 18,000 potential deaths this policy could cause per year. Let's instead assume that 1 in 6 women of sexual maturity will become pregnant in a year--a much more reasonable estimate. That's still 3000 women.

I don't think the argument matters really--but I did this to illustrate that it's not as clear cut as you would like it to be. To me if the number is 1, it is too high. I absolutely agree with you that abortion should not be primary birth control--but I do believe it should be an option. Really, by definition abortion is not birth control--it is pregnancy termination. My only argument is that without question removing all options for pregnancy termination will cause the deaths of Americans despite your most noble efforts to stop this from happening (to fetuses).

A medical emergency does not always present itself in maternal deaths with time enough to stop the damage, or save the life. Becoming pregnant in and of itself is risky. There is a low--but completely reasonable chance that any woman becoming pregnant can simply drop dead during any point in the pregnancy (heart attack, stroke, etc). This would be the case even in populations of women who are in perfect health. It gets worse as we discuss women in poor health.

As for using population growth as a means to prove that maternity isn't dangerous--these two simply to not correlate. Population growth is logarithmic (or exponential). Generally speaking it follows the formula:

The natural log function (ln) achieves most of its height during the first few equivalents. Once we've reached a high enough number the addition levels off. That is to say that for each equivalent the growth is smaller and smaller. For this reason--the population growth rate does not drop considerably when deaths occur--rather it increases. This might seem counter-intuitive--but part of why this happens is that one woman isn't regulated to having only one child.

If the world was China and we could all only have one child--then this analysis would make a bit more sense (though it still would not correlate well to maternal death--but rather to infant mortality).

4. Medical necessity only

The reason I disagree with this is that we cannot always identify a medical necessity before it is too late. The following is a fact:

Making abortion illegal, except during medical emergencies will will will will will cause the deaths of some women.

The previous fact is not debatable. No economist, no scientist, no doctor, no anyone would deny it. Statistics show us that this happens to women already who appear to be in perfect health and are pregnant (by choice, intentionally, and with excellent medical care). Some such women die, it is unreasonable and illogical to suggest that this number will drop or become zero if we begin forcing pregnancies to term.

This is simply a dichotomy that you cannot escape. Either fetuses will be aborted--or the law restricting abortions will cause the deaths of women. Death is a certainty here. Who is to be the bringer of it. You? The government? I'd rather leave the bloody hands to those who choose to bloody them--rather than bloodying the hands of our entire country as it regards a not insignificant number of women (an insignificant number would be 0).

Again--I agree that condoms and hormones are the best alternative--but the world is not a best-case scenario. The absolute best way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate women about the dangers and the risks involved--and also to educate them about sexuality and how to avoid a pregnancy.

This is yet another place where the right insists on having its cake and eating it too. They want abortions to stop--but they also want pregnancy aversion education to consist of never have sex until you want children. I'm not sure what country you guys live in--but I lost my virginity at 13 and I was a pretty late bloomer if we compare that to the rest of my neighborhood. It is completely naive to believe that these two ideologies match up with one another.

I refer you to my previous argument about the mouse and the cheese.



We need to be educating kids about this stuff much earlier and much better.

5. Conclusion

My overall suggestion here is that you are either forgetting or willfully ignoring the fact that outlawing abortion will essentially be trading the lives of unborn fetuses for the lives of women. It won't be a 1:1 ratio--but every maternal death will be on this countries hands. Who get's to decide which one is more important?

The answer is: there is no answer for that. No one should get to decide who will live or die.

That's part of why we defined what it means to be alive to make way for this policy. You can stand up for babies all you like--but just realize that while you're standing up for them you are doing it whilst standing on the faces and lives of women.

Until someone from the pro-life movement acknowledges that their solution is not a perfect one, and that it will cause the deaths of living (on their own) breathing (on their own) thinking (on their own) people--I will be unable to take the argument seriously. To me the distinction here is that the fetuses can't do anything on their own. Literally nothing. It can't fend for itself, it can't breath on its own, its brain waves are dependent on the blood its mother keeps moving through its body. I do not believe that killing a fetus is right--but i believe that it is more right than killing a woman at sexual maturity. People want things to be black and white so that they will be able to understand them easily--but the truth is that the world is gray. So long as we keep striving for some perfect solution, rather than one based on sound, logical, reasoning--we will bicker and argue and never solve anything.

Goes back to the point I made in my original post: Sometimes even when better is bad--it is still better than worse.

We can't come to any type of mutual conclusion if we don't first agree what it is that we're arguing about. The discussion must have a reasonable scope--and "love babies and forget all consequences" is not reasonable.

 

[squiggly]

Boy, It no wonder you like Obama...you both use a lot of words.....o_O

I JUST DONT WANNA PAY FOR IT

Have a Nice Day Squiggly :)

Good. You haven't, nor will you--so I guess we're both happy.

Any and all tax dollars which have gone to this issue from you or I (or any of us) have been spent in the hope that unwanted pregnancies can be prevented (and that adoptive homes can be found and things of this nature). Choose to believe what you will--but I know first hand that this is not only an effective NGO when it comes to reducing abortions--it is the single most effective method for reducing abortions in this country.

During the congressional attack on planned parenthood--the activist measure of most was to send a coat hangar to their congressmen. This protest brought to light the reality of what our alternative is. Coat hangar abortions are perhaps the most inhumane of all abortive methods. If you really care for the fetuses (which I assure you if they are unwanted, they will be killed irregardless of law)--then you'll want better for them than this--even if its only slightly better.


It is your right to hope that PP burns--but I just hope that you will realize that as it regards your argument that abortions are bad, hoping so is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. It changes your meaning from "abortions are bad," to "abortions are only bad if I haven't saved money on them."

If you had a button to push, right now, that would end planned parenthood--you would save some money on your taxes (an insanely small amount), you'd be assured that you'd never spend a dollar again that was in anyway correlated to an abortion clinic, and you'd also jump the abortion rate up by at least 20% and perhaps as high as 50%.

Planned parenthood statistics can make this abundantly clear for you if you take the time to look.

 

[squiggly]

My only argument is that without question removing all options for pregnancy termination will cause the deaths of Americans despite your most noble efforts to stop this from happening (to fetuses).

Sorry to quote myself--but I wanted to make one more point.

This is one of the reasons Roe. v Wade went down the way it did in the first place. Despite their conservatism--the sitting justices were learned enough to understand this. They were strong enough to admit, and conclude, that America--like the universe--is not a perfect place with perfect components. They understood that two wrongs don't make a right.

When the government finds itself at a place where the only way to do something that seems right is to do something blatantly wrong--it should be its duty to leave the decision up to its citizens, or to choose the less wrong option as it sees fit. I believe this same ideology can be applied across the board to most of our governmental prohibitions.

All of the following had their roots in noble ideas:
1. Alcohol Prohibition
2. Drug Prohibition (has arguably contributed more to loss of morality than any policy in all of history through creation of black markets, cartels, gangs)
3. Censorship
4. Propaganda
5. Socialism (the real kind)
6. Communism (perfect system, in an imperfect world--doesn't work well, sound familiar?)
7. Lot's more shit
8. The pro-life movement

I'm saying that number 8 has far more in common with the rest than it has with which to stand on its own two feet as a policy--if you really get to the nitty gritty of what such a law would mean, the effects it would have--and what the role of government is. I realize it doesn't feel good, but neither did hippies to Nixon and you see how that worked out.

If a girlfriend of mine aborted a pregnancy--I think I would die (of sadness). The suicide rate for women who undergo abortions jumps up 300% (something planned parenthood makes abundantly clear to anyone getting their services). So it's not that I have no heart or that they have no heart. I am amenable to what the problem is.

If you want to know what contributes to a huge amount of abortions--it's this societal ideal that children out of wedlock are embarrassing or dishonorable. I have personally witnessed these circumstances contribute to at least 5 abortions (of close friends).

I'll take a moment to point out which side of the table this drivel comes from. You got it, the "always" Right side.

All of the aforementioned policies came from a good place. The intentions behind them were ALL WELL MEANING, despite what you may believe.

That really underlies something that I think is at the core of our political problem:

THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE (arguably more than 95%) IN ALL COUNTRIES ARE WELL-MEANING AND CARRY GOOD INTENTIONS.

It is important now, that as a global society we begin to realize that even with good intentions often time can come not only an improper response, but a completely wrong and counterproductive response, even what we might call an evil response.

I try to judge people in terms of their intentions. If your intention is good, I forgive your misconceptions (as I see them). These differing outcomes with essentially the same intentions gives reason to why we must use logic to synthesize real solutions to our problems.
Logic is fallible, but less so when properly followed than are the meanderings of each of our singular outcomes (stemming from our intentions). We must do our best to remove our individuality when discussing matters of law so that we might bring our intentions to the surface and realize them as they actually are rather than as we each individually (or according to some group-oriented vague theology, or less-than-complete [according to our abilities] analysis). We need to play to all of our strengths if we are to succeed--and in times like these communism does a better job of this than we do.

The problem, gentlemen and gentle-ladies--is ego.

Aristotle figured this out a long time ago--it's a complete shame we haven't taken to his simple solution after all these years.

 

[ttystikk]

IBTL...

Hey Squggly...folks like you like to say its a woman choice..because its their body.


mr scientist,
Does one body have two beating hearts?

how can you be so blind?

When you stop the beating heart of a human fetus...your killing a human being.:mad:


lets talk about growing weed. :)

This thread is about politics; if you don't like where it's headed, you have a mouse; you're free to go click on another thread. The fact that you so blatantly attempted to hijack the discussion to redirect it is insulting, and shows that you really, deep down, know full well you haven't a good leg to stand on in this debate. Why not just man up and admit that? Or, Chickenman, are you really saying that you want your lil woman to shut up and stay in the kitchen while you're out discussing her political future?

No one yet has addressed my point about what happens to the unwanted kids- and society at large- when these policies force them on us? I'll tell you why no one has tried to rebut it; because we all know everything I said was true!

I'm no big fan of abortion- so let's make the actual 'birth control' options easier, cheaper, more accessible and remove any remnants of stigma from their use. Making these more accessible is the ONLY realistic (and I prefer to deal in realities, as I am opposed- violently- to 'moralities') option available to reducing abortion rates- and let's face it, no one wants more abortions; not women themselves, not liberals, not even their abortion doctors. What the hell is so wrong with funding safe alternatives?

The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood SAVES millions of tax dollars for every one spent on it, by reducing the need for prisons and other remedial and penal institutions to house all those unwanted kids once they grow up to be criminals. I know this might sound liek a new argument, but it isn't; pick up a copy of 'Freakonomics' and read it for yourself.

 

[squiggly]

For a little more clarification, the above is the formula to determine the rate of population growth--the point it demonstrates is that because ln grows and shrinks very very very very very slowly that the rate resists changes beyond a certain value--there is an endemic buffer to the system.

The actual formula which describes population growth is more like this:

Where a and k are constants of the particular growth system and t is time.

I'd have written it f(t) = ae^kt+c

The differential equation looks like this:

dS/dt = kS

which basically says the change in size per unit time is equivalent to a constant multiplied by the size of the population. This differential actually derives the above formula f(t) = ae^kt+c after a bit of calculus. This all explains why populations blows up exponentially--but the rate is still buffered against change.

 

[caregiverken]