Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The government taxes income from non-citizens in the country. I have no problem with that. I just see the justification for the taxation as relating to economic activity within the sovereign's jurisdiction, not a claim on the sovereign's part to reach into the wallet of its citizens wherever they may travel in the world. If I'm a U.S. citizen living in Milan and working in a factory there, I don't understand why the U.S. government should have a claim to take part of my wages. Italy, yes -- the U.S., no.

eta: I'm not hung up on the prospect of double taxation -- I just don't get the justification for the exercise of U.S. jurisdiction. What power should the government have to claim a share of economic activity in another country, simply because one of the participants is a U.S. citizen? I have the same problem with the idea that the U.S. government can send you to prison for deciding to smoke a Cuban cigar when you're in Brazil. Borders mean something, don't they?

Citizenship means something too. If you are working in an Italian-owned factory in Milan, why not just give up your US citizenship?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Citizenship means something too. If you are working in an Italian-owned factory in Milan, why not just give up your US citizenship?

Like when Accenture decided it was Bermudan instead of American?

Always a good time.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I assume you know someone, or at least have met someone who has had an abortion or has gotten someone pregnant and gone along with a subsequent abortion. Do you really view these people as murderers in the same way you'd view a man who walked up and shot your son?

No, for the same reason I don't think slaveowners were truly evil people. That's what their society saw as the norm, at that time. That changed.

I do think they were wrong. And, as our society grows more and more into a life-embracing thing (an evolution that is still ongoing after thousands of years), I think at some point that most people are going to see abortion as wrong.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It shocks me that you referred to me as the dumbass in this sub-part of the discussion. I mean, DUH.

The question I asked, which you said was overemotional or whatever, was how is the rape exception administered? How do you know whether someone's pregnancy is the result of rape? Same thing for incest.

I like Not Me's proposal above for rape. Reporting a rape to the police also should be per se proof. Incest could have the additional feature of a DNA test.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, for the same reason I don't think slaveowners were truly evil people. That's what their society saw as the norm, at that time. That changed.

I do think they were wrong. And, as our society grows more and more into a life-embracing thing (an evolution that is still ongoing after thousands of years), I think at some point that most people are going to see abortion as wrong.

2

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
As for implementing it, this could be implemented very easily. You would go before a judge and give sworn testimony that would remain sealed. If there was no reason to doubt your testimony, the judge would have no reason not to allow it. It would be an ex parte proceeding and reviewable de novo before an appellate court.

(emphasis added)

That is ludicrous. My mom had the experience of being denied medical care (pre-Roe) when she was going through a spontaneous abortion (this is the medical term for miscarriage) because the doctor thought she was faking bleeding (using animal blood, or something) to get an abortion. She had to wait until the bleeding got much worse to get him to decide she really was in need of help. So here we had a woman with blood all over her underwear who was denied assistance with her miscarriage, and you think that it will be easy to administer a law that says you can get an abortion if you were raped?

ETA two things. (1) your "was" in the bolded part above should be "were." (2) My parents wanted the kid. It was a boy. They were very, very upset by it. Since all of this predated me, I'm glad that the medical inattention didn't result in my mom becoming infertile. Well, usually glad.

ETA again to say that the thing about my mom may be outable -- but I guess so be it. And, I would have liked to have had an older brother.

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
Hey, it wasn't me who placed the 2000+ votes for Chicago to beat your 700 votes for Boston. Take it up with Google!

Perhaps then, it is all the voter fraud that explains the success of the Red Sox, White Sox and Cubs.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I like Not Me's proposal above for rape. Reporting a rape to the police also should be per se proof. Incest could have the additional feature of a DNA test.

You think that immoral evil women who are willing to murder their own children would balk at a false report to the police?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
explains the success of the... White Sox and Cubs.

He he he.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you really think that women who decide to have (non-incestous) sex forfeit any interest in autonomy over their own bodies, etc., then surely you also think that anyone who decides to build on real property forfeits any interest in not having the government regulate the property. Both propositions are stupid, but equally so.

for having commented on this, I'll have to go back several pages to catch back up. normally i'd hestitate to do that. But here, i must. What the heck are you saying? this may be the worst parallel ever drawn on the board. i'm not if it is, but i think so.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
More importantly, can a Cuban smoke the Babies?

If he wins, will he have the team down for a pool party?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
for having commented on this, I'll have to go back several pages to catch back up. normally i'd hestitate to do that. But here, i must. What the heck are you saying? this may be the worst parallel ever drawn on the board. i'm not if it is, but i think so.

Club's conception of individual rights -- as least as regards a woman's bodily autonomy -- is a pretty weak one. Woman who act irresponsibly in his book -- e.g., choosing to have non-incestuous sex -- are not deemed to have any real cognizable interests relating to the pregnancy that follows.

In contrast, we all know that club has a very different conception of property rights. He believes in strong property rights. People who use their property irresponsibly aren't subjected higher taxes, or takings, and so on.

I'm not saying that his views on the latter subject are inconsistent with his views on the former subject. I just think the contrast is edifying. Who knows, maybe he can articulate some principled way of tying it all together. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club's conception of individual rights -- as least as regards a woman's bodily autonomy -- is a pretty weak one.

It's that whole compromise thing. He's hung up (I think) on the idea that, if one accepts the "it's a human" principle, you can still bargain its life against a woman's right to autonomy.

I don't think the two could ever be compatible. Even in the rape circumstance, I think a logical consistency mandates no exception.

If you can buy the idea that humanity starts sometime after conception and nearer birth, you can make this bargain. But, if not, it's a pretty merciless moral position.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That is ludicrous. My mom had the experience of being denied medical care (pre-Roe) when she was going through a spontaneous abortion (this is the medical term for miscarriage) because the doctor thought she was faking bleeding (using animal blood, or something) to get an abortion. She had to wait until the bleeding got much worse to get him to decide she really was in need of help.

Did I say you would have to get a doctor's permission? No. I said a judge would rule on it with appellate de novo review.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So here we had a woman with blood all over her underwear who was denied assistance with her miscarriage, and you think that it will be easy to administer a law that says you can get an abortion if you were raped?

Your mother should sue that doctor. Give AG a call and see if he can help her out.

I don't think very many of the 1.2M (or however many it is) abortions performed every year are from rapes. And I think that appellate courts would require a judge to state the reasons the sworn testimony was in doubt and if they didn't agree with the judge, they would overrule him.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ETA two things. (2) My parents wanted the kid. It was a boy. They were very, very upset by it.

I don't think that the right to life should be entirely dependent on whether your parents want you or not.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
If he wins, will he have the team down for a pool party?

Memo to Hank:

If you are going to make a joke about the horrific deaths of two inlaws of Yankees pitching-great Mariano Rivera ("#42"), it would help to (1) recognize that #42 is from Panama, not Cuba, and (2) understand that Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, from Cuba, is not the same person as #42.