Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Baseless my ass. My neighbor died from Alzheimer's this week. I know that nothing that Bush has done re stem-cell research would have made a difference to her. But don't go throwing around the slogan "pro life" without thinking about the lives on the other side of the equation.

If there were two people drowning and you could only save one, and one was an infant who had not yet had the chance to experience life and the other was a 60 year old with Alzheimer's who had had a chance at living and was at the end of their life, which one would you save?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you saying that, in your mind, the inconvenience of 1 woman outweighs any harm to, and rights of, the fetus/embryo/? I'm not ssure how you reach this conclusion, given that you've admitted that your are ignorant (as am I and the rest of us) on the most important fact.

"Inconvenience"? You expect me to have a serious conversation with you when you characterize pregnancy and birth in that way? It's your side that says it's a magical process in which a fetus gets a soul when sperm meets egg. But if you think the process of pregnancy and birth is merely an inconvenience to the woman who happens to provide the uterus, you're in for a surprise. I've half a mind to go to Walnut Creek and impregnate your wife.

Conservatives say we don't have a "right" to things in scarcity, such as a place to live. Medical care is one of those things in scarcity. Yet they say a fetus has a right to occupy a person's internal organs? If you think there is any coherent non-religious conservative theory against abortion, you're nuts. It's all spiritual. To be opposed to things like RU-486, you have to believe at some point a collection of cells is imbued with magic powers.

In the absence of agreement on whether particular conduct is bad, I say it shouldn't regulated. You call yourself a conservative?

Let me ask you this. Would your mind change if science could tell us with 90% certainty that the fetus was a human being? With a 100% certainty?

You expect too much of science. Science can't tell us if brain-dead people are "beings." It can tell us that they are homo sapiens, but we've known that about both brain-dead people and fetuses for a long time now. It isn't the question.

Characterizing abortion as a "social problem" slants the issue beyond argument. But again, I think that characterization is wholly-dependent on the scientific question.

Characterizing it as "murder" also slants the issue. But we can't help it --- it's the core of the question. I repeat my statement in a way less objectionable to you --- the criminal laws should not criminalize conduct that less than 90% of people agree should be punished. Whatever.

And speaking of that scientific question, I'm not sure exactly how that argument goes for the left. Do they think that at some point during the developmental process, the non-human magically becomes human?

There is little doubt that an embryo and a fetus are human. What else could they be? The question is whether they are "beings" in the sense that they have a right to be, and to continue to be, as we have come to believe children and adults do. Even people on the right agree that a person whose body is being kept alive but who experiences no brain activity is not a "being."

At some non-magical point in the developmental process, a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. In my personal view, at that point it has interests independent from the woman who, until that point, kept it alive. This is only my personal view. I am generally opposed to any form of abortion after viability. I am unclear how we would accomplish removal of a viable fetus without the woman's consent, especially since I would be frightened by the development of any technology that could teleport the fetus out and directly into a NICU incubator.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I've always sort of liked these people, and I certainly wish them no harm. Still, these tidbits were interesting, to say the least.

"MSF, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999, has been working in Afghanistan for 24 years — through a decade of Soviet occupation, a brutal civil war and the rise and fall of the repressive Taliban. A French staffer was killed in 1990, but they have never withdrawn until now. "

So the premise isn't just that they help others. The premise is that they help others when its safe?

This business of targeting aid workers is relatively new, no?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm seeing a difference between a frozen embryo and a prisoner with a life sentence.

I am, too. The frozen embryo is an innocent life.

[Replaced_Texan]

From the Daily Kos

TX-22: Morrison internal poll
by kos
Wed Jul 28th, 2004 at 13:26:51 GMT

Here's a summary of Richard Morrison's first internal poll of the race. I'll work on getting more of the poll as information trickles out.
Beattie Hamilton & Staff for the DCCC. Poll details unknown.

DeLay (R) 49
Morrison (D) 39
Fjetland (I) 7
DeLay is running 11 points behind Bush/Cheney (which means Bush is garnering 60 percent in the district). DeLay also runs poorly in Galveston County, which has just been added to the district. The theory is that the county, which was cut in half by DeLay's redistricting, is unhappy with the maneouver -- a theme echoed by every Texas Democrat I have talked to the last week.
Morrison's name ID is apparently non-existant, so there's room to grow.

While any DeLay defeat would be a cherished event, I'd be especially elated if redistricting is the ultimate cause for his demise. 10 points is a lot to overcome, but here's hoping.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"Inconvenience"? You expect me to have a serious conversation with you when you characterize pregnancy and birth in that way? It's your side that says it's a magical process in which a fetus gets a soul when sperm meets egg. But if you think the process of pregnancy and birth is merely an inconvenience to the woman who happens to provide the uterus, you're in for a surprise. I've half a mind to go to Walnut Creek and impregnate your wife.

It is certainly more than an inconvenience, but 9 months of pregnancy (even when the pregnancy sex is so-so, nme) is also not, in most cases, quite on the level of a life and death undertaking. Probably comparable in invasiveness in a man's life to being drafted for military service.

If you think there is any coherent non-religious conservative theory against abortion, you're nuts. It's all spiritual.

Not sure I'd go this far. Would you say there is no non-religious theory (I'll ignore the conservative part for now) for opposition to the death penalty? You can have ethics without religion.

Characterizing it as "murder" also slants the issue. But we can't help it --- it's the core of the question. ... There is little doubt that an embryo and a fetus are human. What else could they be?

a. Agreed on murder.

b. Describe what makes us human and I'll tell you whether they are human. Is it DNA? Or the ability to engage in some combination of humanoid appearance, rational thought, use of opposable thumb, and thirty five other major and several thousand minor characteristics? Because, just off-hand, certain great apes would bear more of a similarity to a new-born child than will an embryo. I simply am not at this point convinced that an embryo is indeed human. An eight month old fetus, on the other hand, I have no doubts about. I don't have answers everywhere in between. And someone telling me from on high that the Church has determined that life begins at conception doesn't answer all my questions.



All of this leads me to the position that it is a question of balancing inconsistent rights (which Roe got right) and desires (which Roe may have overstated), but I'm not at all comfortable with where the balance has landed.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm seeing a difference between a frozen embryo and a prisoner with a life sentence.

One can make you a license plate. The other can keep your drink cold.

We are all god's children, useful in our own ways.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not sure I'd go this far. Would you say there is no non-religious theory (I'll ignore the conservative part for now) for opposition to the death penalty? You can have ethics without religion.

Of course. I said "coherent" theory. Anything that talks about a sliding scale and balancing rights is probably non-religious, but it's also not coherent, except in the law school sense that it will provide some future court with some mumbo jumbo to justify a result. The idea that "life" (whatever that means) begins at conception, or that there is a discernable day at which one goes from "non-objectionable medical procedure" to "murder," is necessarily spiritual in nature.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
b. Describe what makes us human and I'll tell you whether they are human.
Is it DNA? Or the ability to engage in some combination of humanoid appearance, rational thought, use of opposable thumb, and thirty five other major and several thousand minor characteristics? Because, just off-hand, certain great apes would bear more of a similarity to a new-born child than will an embryo.

While I agree that what is and what is not human is definitional, by the definition you suggest, a child born with microencephaly (who cannot use their opposable thumbs nor engage in rational thought) is less of a human than an ape with a fully functioning brain.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I've always sort of liked these people, and I certainly wish them no harm. Still, these tidbits were interesting, to say the least.

"MSF, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999, has been working in Afghanistan for 24 years — through a decade of Soviet occupation, a brutal civil war and the rise and fall of the repressive Taliban. A French staffer was killed in 1990, but they have never withdrawn until now. "

So the premise isn't just that they help others. The premise is that they help others when its safe?

and then there is this from the same Chicago Tribune article

>>The aid group also called on the U.S. military to halt its expanding use of humanitarian work to win over skeptical Afghans.


U.S. and NATO (news - web sites) troops are running a string of so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams across the country, setting up clinics, digging wells and doing other work normally carried out by civilians.

...

Blurring the distinction "puts all aid workers in danger," MSF secretary-general Marine Buissonniere said. <<

Mmmm, hmmm.

I think there is more going on here than their people being unsafe. They are also finding their effectiveness compromised, and they are finding that they are being put into a political position against their will, since the US and the Afghani government are using them and other aid workers as a political chit, limiting access or granting access based on how it serves political ends.

There's a very difficult debate in the relief world as to whether it is better to be an independent force that maintains autonomy from the "locals" or whether it is better to work organically with the local organizations. Most of the organizations with political as well as relief oriented goals want to work organically, but who they want to work with differs (the US wants to work with political allies, left-leaning organizations want to work with their political allies, certain, but not all, church groups want to work with affiliated local religious organizations). Doctors without Borders has always been in the camp of organizations that maintain autonomy, and this position is consistent with others they have taken in the past.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
While I agree that what is and what is not human is definitional, by the definition you suggest, a child born with microencephaly (who cannot use their opposable thumbs nor engage in rational thought) is less of a human than an ape with a fully functioning brain.

I didn't proffer a definition, but asked what his is.

You are making my point on one possible definition, but that point will work with all definitions.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
One can make you a license plate.

Only in the blue states. In the red states they have prison farms, which afford prisoners a much more meaningful way to spend their lives. See conservatives really are compassionate.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Of course. I said "coherent" theory. Anything that talks about a sliding scale and balancing rights is probably non-religious, but it's also not coherent, except in the law school sense that it will provide some future court with some mumbo jumbo to justify a result. The idea that "life" (whatever that means) begins at conception, or that there is a discernable day at which one goes from "non-objectionable medical procedure" to "murder," is necessarily spiritual in nature.

Interesting definitions of both coherent and religious.

Can you give me a coherent, non-religious analysis of how to distinguish between a minor and an adult for purposes of laws against statutory rape and pedophilia? Do you think there is a non-religious basis for jailing practicing NAMBLA types?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I didn't proffer a definition, but asked what his is.

You are making my point on one possible definition, but that point will work with all definitions.

I agree. That is why I consistently try to steer this conversation away from what is and what is not human life and toward the real issue - do the mother's rights outweigh the fetus' rights (or the state's rights in protecting the fetus if you don't want to confer rights on the fetus) and if so why.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree. That is why I consistently try to steer this conversation away from what is and what is not human life and toward the real issue - do the mother's rights outweigh the fetus' rights (or the state's rights in protecting the fetus if you don't want to confer rights on the fetus) and if so why.

Sometimes.

Because if there are two different sets of conflicting rights, and each of those sets of rights vary from a relatively low level to a relatively high level, there will be times when each one outweighs the other.

So those who think that one set of rights is always high and the other always low will, of course, disagree.