Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, pawnman said:

It wasn't lower levels of society that escorted those black girls to school in Arkansas...

No, it was the government jumping in front of the parade. 

 

If you think the very famous incident you are citing was at the beginning, rather than the end of the process that led to the civil rights of black people being recognized and enforced in America, you are mistaken. 

 

Where does government get it's power from? How well does it work when the government does something that the majority opposes? Were all the civil rights advocates voted out of office during the next election cycle?

 

The government could have stepped in 50 years earlier, why didn't it?

 

Remember that Jim Crow laws were *governments* forcing private citizens to segregate their business. Those laws were passed because citizens were desegregating on their own. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

No, it was the government jumping in front of the parade. 

 

If you think the very famous incident you are citing was at the beginning, rather than the end of the process that led to the civil rights of black people being recognized and enforced in America, you are mistaken. 

 

Where does government get it's power from? How well does it work when the government does something that the majority opposes? Were all the civil rights advocates voted out of office during the next election cycle?

 

The government could have stepped in 50 years earlier, why didn't it?

 

Remember that Jim Crow laws were *governments* forcing private citizens to segregate their business. Those laws were passed because citizens were desegregating on their own. 

You can’t reason with the far left (and right)—they’re the same people who think that it’s racist to require an ID to vote and it’s like Jim Crow, but yet requiring that same ID to purchase a gun is just “common sense”.  We even have people on this site who support such nonsense.

The difference I see is that for the most part it’s the left that has gotten far more extreme with their views in the last 10+ years.  Remember when the left was against illegal immigration, and now if you even say the words the left will call you a racist?  Just one of many examples.  And sure there are examples on the right—the abortion issue for one. But again, which side has seen the greatest change in the last 10+ years?  I think it’s obvious.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

......  And sure there are examples on the right—the abortion issue for one. ......

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  -  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  -  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

Not to get on an abortion debate, but do you think women who get an abortion should be charged with murder?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

This has nothing to do with individual choices. Also, your religious beliefs are irrelevant.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with individual choices. Also, your religious beliefs are irrelevant.

I’ve read your statement several times. I don’t understand your point alone or as related to the quote you are quoting. Could you please explain what you mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:


I’ve read your statement several times. I don’t understand your point alone or as related to the quote you are quoting. Could you please explain what you mean?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what he meant. I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guardian said:


I’ve read your statement several times. I don’t understand your point alone or as related to the quote you are quoting. Could you please explain what you mean?

Sure. Abortion is an individual decision. @bfargin quoted the constitution and bolded 'life' implying it referred to abortion. I highlighted "nor shall any state" because it doesn't apply to an individuals actions, only the state.

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what he meant. I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

🤨

6 hours ago, bfargin said:

The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion.

Science and logic usually don't agree with religion on anything. Let me know if I incorrectly inferred what you were saying (that the constitution, science, logic, and reason are all against abortion).

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bfargin said:

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  -  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

They all agree huh? 

 

I'm anti-abortion, but to act as though it's a settled topic is pretty obtuse.

Using your words, define "person."

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

You literally wrote "religion" In your second sentence. 

Can an infant be an individual if it is wholly reliant on another person for existence?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

.You literally wrote "religion" In your second sentence. 

They all agree huh? 

 

I'm anti-abortion, but to act as though it's a settled topic is pretty obtuse.

Using your words, define "person."

Can an infant be an individual if it is wholly reliant on another person for existence?

I'm not arguing against abortion because of my religious view. That was a statement highlighting that because science now confirms that a fetus is a human (fully understood and yes settled - once the egg is fertilized), they agree.

The supreme court acknowledged, when they somehow pulled the roe v wade ruling out of their rear, that if science showed that a fetus was a human life (person), then a different ruling would have been made. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Roe 410 US

After my accident, was I an individual (person) for the two weeks I was on life support and totally dependent on others? Is the person on hospice care and can't feed themselves and sometime can't even communicate an individual? Reliance doesn't define if someone is an individual.

 

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

Sure. Abortion is an individual decision. @bfargin quoted the constitution and bolded 'life' implying it referred to abortion. I highlighted "nor shall any state" because it doesn't apply to an individuals actions, only the state.

🤨

Science and logic usually don't agree with religion on anything. Let me know if I incorrectly inferred what you were saying (that the constitution, science, logic, and reason are all against abortion).

 

 

If you abort you can't really have life, so it applies in that the government can't take a life without due process. So if somehow we could charge and convict those little fetuses with a crime worthy of the death penalty, then I guess it would be legal.

Science has now confirmed the fetus is a human life with distinct dna - different from the mother and father. Religion already claimed it was a human life so I lumped them together. So no, they don't necessarily agree on abortion, but on the fact that a fetus is human life they agree.

 

This is way off the topic of this thread so I'll stop discussing here. If we move it elsewhere i'm more than willing to discuss, but frankly I don't see any legitimate arguments to support state sanctioned infanticide. Discussions should be had on how to help expectant mothers who face difficult circumstances with a newborn (whether that is through government policy and assistance programs or private sector organizations that provide prenatal and postnatal services).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you abort you can't really have life, so it applies in that the government can't take a life without due process. So if somehow we could charge and convict those little fetuses with a crime worthy of the death penalty, then I guess it would be legal.
Science has now confirmed the fetus is a human life with distinct dna - different from the mother and father. Religion already claimed it was a human life so I lumped them together. So no, they don't necessarily agree on abortion, but on the fact that a fetus is human life they agree.
 
This is way off the topic of this thread so I'll stop discussing here. If we move it elsewhere i'm more than willing to discuss, but frankly I don't see any legitimate arguments to support state sanctioned infanticide. Discussions should be had on how to help expectant mothers who face difficult circumstances with a newborn (whether that is through government policy and assistance programs or private sector organizations that provide prenatal and postnatal services).


The abortion (and by extension, pregnancy and children's) issue doesn't live in a vacuum. It touches on healthcare access, economic issues, and societal/community support both during pregnancy and through when that child becomes an adult.

1- The state isn't making that decision to abort a pregnancy, typically it's the mother. If we were looking at state-directed abortion or sterilization, then you have a point here, but that's not the case. However, the US still allows forced sterilization, which was upheld by the supreme court...(you could argue that this just prevents life from starting, or that this is the government's way of killing off kids before they can even be conceived)

2- Your argument doesn't address problems with triage. How do you weigh the life of the mother against the life of the unborn baby? If carrying the baby to term will kill the mother, who's life is more important? And who should make that decision (the mother who's life is in danger, or someone else)?

3- It also ignores the need for access to medical care, both for the the mother and baby, and not just for the pregnancy, but through the first several months after birth, assuming no complications.

4-We also don't have any real mandated maternity leave (sure, they can take 12 weeks of unpaid leave through FMLA assuming they meet the criteria, but what pays the bills then?). Maybe if you work for a decent company and have decent insurance, they'll get some maternity pay, but likely reduced from normal.

5-Should women who have a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

6-Should a mother with a fetus with known serious genetic disorders be forced to give birth to the child, when that child will suffer and live a very shortened life? What if the parents have no means to pay for the medical care for that child? It's laughable to think the gov will pay for that child's medical bills-the parents would likely go bankrupt doing what they can for the kid, or be judged harshly (or criminally) for "letting" the kid die if they don't exhaust every avenue for medical treatment.

7- There's the personal choice argument as well-don't have sex unless you're ready to have a baby. Sure, if you want to take that hard stance, then why not apply it elsewhere and be consistent? Should a drunk driver that wraps their car around a tree receive medical treatment? Should insurance be forced to cover their medical bills for an objectively bad (science shows alcohol degrades cognitive and motor skills needed to operate a car) and illegal personal choice? Should they be allowed to discharge the medical debt through bankruptcy, or should they be forced to pay off what they owe for services provided or harm/damage caused regardless of how long it takes (or maybe cap it at 18 years of payments...).

I don't see how people can believe so strongly that abortion is wrong, and yet work so hard against helping that child be born healthy (specifically, access to healthcare and paid maternity leave), as all of those issues show how society values life. If it's so important to society that the child is born, even against the mother's wishes, society should pay to ensure the child is born healthy and has a support network after birth (which means people need to be willing to adopt or foster kids when the birth parents do not wish to raise the kid).

I'm not advocating for abortion, nor do I believe that is generally the right choice. But there's enough edge cases where it may be the best option available given the circumstances involved. So I'd rather defer the choice from government to the individual, to make the choice that is right for them, rather than have the government dictate what to do.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

1- The state isn't making that decision to abort a pregnancy, typically it's the mother. If we were looking at state-directed abortion or sterilization, then you have a point here, but that's not the case

 

31 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So I'd rather defer the choice from government to the individual, to make the choice that is right for them, rather than have the government dictate what to do.

i was trying to say these things without writing a book...thanks. :beer: 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

If at the point in time in question, the fetus is a person:

Ask what circumstances would make you think justifiable homicide makes sense.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

The crux is that you need to define “person”. Spoiler alert: Not everyone in this country (to include scientists, doctors, theologians, philosophers, judges, etc) is going to agree with your assessment. Not saying you or anyone else shouldn’t continue to be passionate in your beliefs, but reaching any kind of consensus on this issue in our lifetimes is unlikely at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If at the point in time in question, the fetus is a person:

Ask what circumstances would make you think justifiable homicide makes sense.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Let me ask the question in a different way, so as not to lead the conversation into a one way answer like you did.

What is the value of life? Not just for as an embryo or fetus, but as an infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly adult?

If you value life (which is *the* argument against abortion, and most people value life in some form or fashion), do you value it equally across a lifetime, or does the value change at different points in life, and why does it change?

A related question that feeds into the value of life is what is the goal or purpose in life? Minimize suffering? Maximize personal happiness? Work towards some greater societal good? Maximize wealth? Is it a sense of duty or obligation to society (family, friends, organization, country)? Create as many offspring to propagate your genes? Different goals will cause you to change how you value life in general and for particular groups.

Along the same line as the original question you passed, is it ever right to kill another person? I'd hope that since most people on this board are in the military that the answer is yes. However, there are people who don't believe it's right to do so, or set the bar much higher than where our national policy is for the use of force. Is collateral damage acceptable in military operations, and if so, where do you draw the line on what an innocent life is worth in order to achieve military objectives?

Yes, those are philosophical questions, and I'll probably be accused of waffling in the middle. But it's a way to examine why you think the way you do in a reasoned way.

And just for reference, younger me was staunchly pro-life, but older me who's talked with more people about their opinions and tried to take hard looks at not just what I believe, but also why (which is largely why I post lengthy posts on topics here that pique my interest), has led me to be pro-choice for a matter of national policy while still viewing abortion as generally wrong, because there's enough situations where it might be an acceptable choice given the facts of the situation.

I'm cautiously optimistic that most people value life and will do the best they can if they are face with this decision. And if they're getting abortions because they don't want the responsibility of raising a kid for whatever reason, well, they'd probably be a crappy parent that would raise a kid that doesn't contribute to (or becomes a drain on) society anyways.

It's good to encourage them to keep the baby, but if not, that decision is on them, and not on me, and on the religious side of this issue, the action is between them and God, and God will take care of any punishment that is due to them.
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Let me ask the question in a different way, so as not to lead the conversation into a one way answer like you did.

What is the value of life? Not just for as an embryo or fetus, but as an infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly adult?

 those are philosophical questions,
 

I would argue a person has agency, and therefore a right to life and liberty.  I don't believe in god, and don't think there's any inherent value in human life.  Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicides are fine by me, even if the actual implementation is super sticky. 

I wasn't being snarky, justifiable homicide is generally how I think about an acceptable abortion at this point in time. 

I realize you can argue about levels of agency in a baby, but we all know babies grow.  I can't see how a zygote is a person, I also can't see how a soon to be born baby isn't a person.  I don't have a good answer beyond that.  I'd probably be fine with an arbitrary line drawn somewhere in the middle.  But I'm not personally wound up about, since I can't parse a 100% answer myself.

Of course this is all philosophical.  If you aren't dogmatic about it, that's the only place this conversation ends up.  There are many people who aren't capable of actually having a conversation, nor agreeing on what the conversation is actually about.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why lie?  

Along the lines of Hillary's (btw, she was never president, so I got that going for me...) landing under fire BS story, our duly elected (say, why is DOJ, et al, fighting so hard to interfere/slow roll the Maricopa County election audit?) President had to tell a lie about Amtrak, his mother, a conductor...

https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/amtrak-joe-bidens-story-about-conductor-being-question/

TLDR version:  Biden, promoting Amtrak, recounts how as VP, he'd take Amtrak to see his ailing mother and a long-time conductor would pinch his cheek, and say, "Joey, baby!" to congratulate him on a million plus miles on Amtrak.and that the Secret Service had a fit the first time.

A. Biden's mother died in 2010 and the story is circa 2013-ish according to Biden.

B.  The conductor retired in 1993.

Dementia means never having to get your story straight.

 

But at least he's not tweeting meanly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the mars rover had the capability and it found a single cell organism or, more impressively, a multicell organism on that distant planet, all the scientists on this planet would say we have discovered what?  A)  A non-viable mass.  B)  an inconvenience  C)  life.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the mars rover had the capability and it found a single cell organism or, more impressively, a multicell organism on that distant planet, all the scientists on this planet would say we have discovered what?  A)  A non-viable mass.  B)  an inconvenience  C)  life.  

I guarantee regardless of whatever they call it, they will make endless rules to protect it from any outside influence or risk to its existence.

Good luck landing any more scientific studies within 400 miles of the “existing pool of biological mass.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

If the mars rover had the capability and it found a single cell organism or, more impressively, a multicell organism on that distant planet, all the scientists on this planet would say we have discovered what?  A)  A non-viable mass.  B)  an inconvenience  C)  life.  

can you clarify what you mean here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

If the mars rover had the capability and it found a single cell organism or, more impressively, a multicell organism on that distant planet, all the scientists on this planet would say we have discovered what?  A)  A non-viable mass.  B)  an inconvenience  C)  life.  

5 Best I See What You Did There Baby Memes

 

Nicely done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...