Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think this is the reason many pro-choicers are for abortion rights - they are trying to make up for a biological inequity that only women are the one's who get pregnant.

It's not just the pregnancy part, which (speaking from experience here) is certainly no picnic -- it's the "bringing up baby" part. The father disappears, and the woman is left with the consequences. Which is why I hypothesize that if fathers of unwanted/unintended children experienced real consequences as a result of their dalliances, there would probably be fewer unintended/unwanted pregancies/children.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Ok, answer the question "When does "life" begin?"

2. Now, tell me how your "begin" date is valid, but any other "begin" date offered is not. Uh uh uh... lets be careful - no biblical references or religious dogma. Strictly logic. Why is your "conception" date more valid than, say... the date when the fetus can survive out of the womb?

3. So, technology/progression of the species is not part of Darwin's law, eh? That women can now control their reproduction is somehow not an evolutionary event?

4. I never asked the govt to saolve any problems. You, my libertarian friend, are the one crying for govt regulation of others to fit your moral framework. I'm saying "give the people a choice". Can a libertarian ever argue against choice? Seems "inconsistent", doesn't it?

5. I have no idea what the hell you're saying in thos paragraphs about Virginia and Illinois. All I can offer is that I like both states, and really like Chicago.

1 and 2. Whenever Not_Me tells me it does. Great, now let's get this vote on a ballot, so the community can decide this issue instead of a court. Otherwise, what's the purpose of allowing anyone to be tried for murder? I mean, I don't hear anyone defending themselves in courts with a defense of b-b-but Sebby says the guy might not have even been a "life".

3. No, its not. The entire unraveling of the social fabric in this country at the hands of government has been a gigantic step backwards. Murders: up. Jail population: up. Government expenditures: up. Abortions: up. Teenage birthrate: up. Thank God for activist judges and the silver-spoon cheering section.

4. Of course you didn't. No student loans, no police protection, no sewers, no ambulance services, your a regular Grizzly Adams.

5. Yeah, I like both states too. Chicago is breaking my heart, and I suspect people in Baltimore, DC and Detroit are watching it intently thinking "here we go again".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Fair or unfair, men can't get pregnant. Pregnancy-related problems are always going to affect women more than men.

Yeh, thats a nice convenient lucky break for you, isn't it? Tough luck for the ladies, huh. They get no quarter. Ahhh, but the fetus, well, its not subject to your "tough shit, life ain't fair" rules, is it? We can't argue that its just "life being unfair" when the fetus happens to be located in a womb where it isn't wanted. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work. Either "its a cruel world" for everyone, or its a cruel world for none. This is one of those few areas where you actually do have to be consistent, or you cede all credibility.

Not that you don't cede all credibility on this issue entirely purely because you're harrumphing in favor of taking choice away from women on an issue you have absolutely no experience with. No, that you have a kid does not give you "experience". When you can BEAR a kid, then you'll have the requisite experience to get on your pedestal.

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Fair or unfair, men can't get pregnant. Pregnancy-related problems are always going to affect women more than men.

See my response to Not Me. It's not just the pregnancy; that's nothing compared to what happens afterward.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by dtb
It's not just the pregnancy part, which (speaking from experience here) is certainly no picnic -- it's the "bringing up baby" part. The father disappears, and the woman is left with the consequences. Which is why I hypothesize that if fathers of unwanted/unintended children experienced real consequences as a result of their dalliances, there would probably be fewer unintended/unwanted pregancies/children.

I'll stipulate to this.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, thats a nice convenient lucky break for you, isn't it? Tough luck for the ladies, huh. They get no quarter. Ahhh, but the fetus, well, its not subject to your "tough shit, life ain't fair" rules, is it? We can't argue that its just "life being unfair" when the fetus happens to be located in a womb where it isn't wanted. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work. Either "its a cruel world" for everyone, or its a cruel world for none.

One person's "cruel world" implies nine months of pregnancy. The other's implies death. Excuse me if I don't think they comprise equal qualities of "tough shit".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
See my response to Not Me. It's not just the pregnancy; that's nothing compared to what happens afterward.

Having been the stay-at-home parent for a year while mom traveled, I'd agree with this, except for the part that seems to imply that this is woman's burden exclusively.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Ok, answer the question "When does "life" begin?"

You should rephrase your question to be when do we grant the human life legal rights.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
the date when the fetus can survive out of the womb?

That is around 24 weeks with the technology available today.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
3. So, technology/progression of the species is not part of Darwin's law, eh? That women can now control their reproduction is somehow not an evolutionary event?

Birth control is controlling your reproduction. Abortion is necessary because you failed to control your reproduction.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
4. I never asked the govt to saolve any problems. You, my libertarian friend, are the one crying for govt regulation of others to fit your moral framework.

I'm a libertarian but I still want the government to regulate murder. I am not an anarchist.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm saying "give the people a choice". Can a libertarian ever argue against choice? Seems "inconsistent", doesn't it?

The choice you are making is to end another's life. You don't seem to get that part.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
5. I have no idea what the hell you're saying in thos paragraphs about Virginia and Illinois. All I can offer is that I like both states, and really like Chicago.

Your beauty is in your simplicity. It is not a good thing, though.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
It's not just the pregnancy part, which (speaking from experience here) is certainly no picnic -- it's the "bringing up baby" part. The father disappears, and the woman is left with the consequences.

The solution to the deadbeat dad problem is to hold them accountable for their actions.

Originally posted by dtb
Which is why I hypothesize that if fathers of unwanted/unintended children experienced real consequences as a result of their dalliances, there would probably be fewer unintended/unwanted pregancies/children.

2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
One person's "cruel world" implies nine months of pregnancy. The other's implies death. Excuse me if I don't think they comprise equal qualities of "tough shit".

If you phrase the dilemma this way, it suggests to me that poor people have the right to health care, at least when their life is threatened. Is this your view?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
One person's "cruel world" implies nine months of pregnancy. The other's implies death. Excuse me if I don't think they comprise equal qualities of "tough shit".

How profound coming from one who'll never have to deal with the "tough shit" he cavalierly suggests others - whom he doesn't even fucking know - must endure to satisfy his moral views. Where in the fuck do you get off telling anyone what he or she can't do with his/her body? You don't even know these fucking people. Mind your own business. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but keep your fucking hands out of your neighbors' business. Its just that simple.

And don't come back with some horseshit about how "if i don't stand up against murder, I'll be remiss" or cite how "the Germans never complained when the Nazis first came for the Jews and look what happened!" horseshit reply. If my 16 year old daughter gets knocked up, you have no goddamn right to tell her what she'll be doing for the rest of her life. That's her decision and hers alone.

I mean, really, where do you get the fucking gall? And don't say I don't "get" your position. I understand that you see it as murder, but I say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you are unqualified to speak. In a free country, you err on the side of freedom, and freedom is choice. You're not fucking with morals here - you're fucking with people's liberty. We don't all have to adhere to "Bilmore's morals" - those are for his house, and his family. I wouldn't dare tell you how to live... where do you get off?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Not Me
Birth control is controlling your reproduction. Abortion is necessary because you failed to control your reproduction.

I may be wrong here, but I thought that the pill is, in essence, an abortion -- the fertilized egg does not implant on the wall of the uterus because the hormones from the pill make the woman's body react as if it is already pregnant.

aV

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by bilmore
Having been the stay-at-home parent for a year while mom traveled, I'd agree with this, except for the part that seems to imply that this is woman's burden exclusively.

I think what she's saying is that it is de facto the woman's burden exclusively if the man is not there to share it. I didn't get anywhere from her post that the raising of a child is biologically the woman's burden.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Not that you don't cede all credibility on this issue entirely purely because you're harrumphing in favor of taking choice away from women on an issue you have absolutely no experience with. No, that you have a kid does not give you "experience". When you can BEAR a kid, then you'll have the requisite experience to get on your pedestal.

That is an incredibly sexist statement.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How profound coming from one who'll never have to deal with the "tough shit" he cavalierly suggests others - whom he doesn't even fucking know - must endure to satisfy his moral views. Where in the fuck do you get off telling anyone what he or she can't do with his/her body? You don't even know these fucking people. Mind your own business. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but keep your fucking hands out of your neighbors' business. Its just that simple.

And don't come back with some horseshit about how "if i don't stand up against murder, I'll be remiss" or cite how "the Germans never complained when the Nazis first came for the Jews and look what happened!" horseshit reply. If my 16 year old daughter gets knocked up, you have no goddamn right to tell her what she'll be doing for the rest of her life. That's her decision and hers alone.

I mean, really, where do you get the fucking gall? And don't say I don't "get" your position. I understand that you see it as murder, but I say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you are unqualified to speak. In a free country, you err on the side of freedom, and freedom is choice. You're not fucking with morals here - you're fucking with people's liberty. We don't all have to adhere to "Bilmore's morals" - those are for his house, and his family. I wouldn't dare tell you how to live... where do you get off?

What's that latin saying for reduced to absurdity?