Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And you have absolutely no regard for the chick holding the fetus. Its like her life doesn't matter. What happens to her is at worst irrelevant and at best secondary in importance.

The main argument against outlawing slavery was that the slaveowners had a Constitutionally-guaranteed property right in those slaves - they had purchased them for good money, and they had a right to keep them.

The counter was, yes, you have property rights, but you are ignoring the rights that we (the abolitionists) claim are held by those slaves you own.

So, like today, there was an argument over whether someone deserved to be called a "person". And, like today, there were competing rights - to own property, and to live free - that had to be balanced.

And, like today, there was a "wreck their lives" argument - the economy of the South was almost completely dependant on slave labor at that point, and abolition would wreck havoc with an entire economy.

As it worked out, the property rights of the South were eventually deemed to be less compelling that the rights of the slaves to freedom. No one ever claimed that their property rights didn't exist - just that the other parties' rights trumped them. Similarly, while it's certainly not a wonderful situation for the woman involved, I would say that, following intercourse, and a resulting pregnancy, the best balance of the competing rights might lie in letting the kid live.

[sgtclub]

"The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait."

http://www.hughhewitt.com

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by dtb

To who/whatever dismissed the documented views expressed in my earlier post: why don't you just go shoot a healthcare provider who performs abortions -- I'm betting it'll make you feel better.

You know, if I said half the shit you jackasses say I did, you'd be drooling like rabid dogs instead of building scarecrows.

That said, I'm going to laugh my ass off when Bush does replace O'Connor with someone who doesn't believe in making shit up outside of the framework of laws. You people will be screaming, begging, crying when the majority is again allowed to exercise their will instead of having this shit imposed on them by liberal judges and the silver-spoon cheering section.

God forbid you get something like a Constitutional Amendment before imposing your morality on us. And how ironic that you accuse us of doing the same to you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The main argument against outlawing slavery was that the slaveowners had a Constitutionally-guaranteed property right in those slaves - they had purchased them for good money, and they had a right to keep them.

The counter was, yes, you have property rights, but you are ignoring the rights that we (the abolitionists) claim are held by those slaves you own.

So, like today, there was an argument over whether someone deserved to be called a "person". And, like today, there were competing rights - to own property, and to live free - that had to be balanced.

And, like today, there was a "wreck their lives" argument - the economy of the South was almost completely dependant on slave labor at that point, and abolition would wreck havoc with an entire economy.

As it worked out, the property rights of the South were eventually deemed to be less compelling that the rights of the slaves to freedom. No one ever claimed that their property rights didn't exist - just that the other parties' rights trumped them. Similarly, while it's certainly not a wonderful situation for the woman involved, I would say that, following intercourse, and a resulting pregnancy, the best balance of the competing rights might lie in letting the kid live.

Race, while rooted in physiological and cultural reality, is at bottom a construct. The developmental differences between stem cells and fetii, on the one hand, and small children, on the other, are undeniable. Deciding where on that spectrum the being becomes human, such that rights start to obtain, is a really hard question. Pretending, however, that there is no salient difference between a few stem cells and a new-born baby is simply ducking that hard question.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
The main argument against outlawing slavery was that the slaveowners had a Constitutionally-guaranteed property right in those slaves - they had purchased them for good money, and they had a right to keep them.

The counter was, yes, you have property rights, but you are ignoring the rights that we (the abolitionists) claim are held by those slaves you own.

So, like today, there was an argument over whether someone deserved to be called a "person". And, like today, there were competing rights - to own property, and to live free - that had to be balanced.

And, like today, there was a "wreck their lives" argument - the economy of the South was almost completely dependant on slave labor at that point, and abolition would wreck havoc with an entire economy.

As it worked out, the property rights of the South were eventually deemed to be less compelling that the rights of the slaves to freedom. No one ever claimed that their property rights didn't exist - just that the other parties' rights trumped them. Similarly, while it's certainly not a wonderful situation for the woman involved, I would say that, following intercourse, and a resulting pregnancy, the best balance of the competing rights might lie in letting the kid live.

I disagree with the result that you've come to for (among other things) the reasons that Ty raises above, but I do feel compelled to note that this is one of the more cogent articulations of the pro-life position that I've seen.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
The main argument against outlawing slavery was that the slaveowners had a Constitutionally-guaranteed property right in those slaves - they had purchased them for good money, and they had a right to keep them.

The counter was, yes, you have property rights, but you are ignoring the rights that we (the abolitionists) claim are held by those slaves you own.

So, like today, there was an argument over whether someone deserved to be called a "person". And, like today, there were competing rights - to own property, and to live free - that had to be balanced.

And, like today, there was a "wreck their lives" argument - the economy of the South was almost completely dependant on slave labor at that point, and abolition would wreck havoc with an entire economy.

As it worked out, the property rights of the South were eventually deemed to be less compelling that the rights of the slaves to freedom. No one ever claimed that their property rights didn't exist - just that the other parties' rights trumped them. Similarly, while it's certainly not a wonderful situation for the woman involved, I would say that, following intercourse, and a resulting pregnancy, the best balance of the competing rights might lie in letting the kid live.

Dred Scott. Really? Shirley, you jest.

A woman is not an economy. The right to be free to control your body is not a property right. And its certainly not anywhere near analogous to a property right in a slave. We're not talking commerce here - the woman didn't buy here body. the state is not merely dispossessing an owner of a right to something considered chattel at the time.

There is no trumping solution here, although I applaud your attempt to work an end-around my reasonable offer to compromise.

I view the woman's right as trumping your argument. So we have the unstoppable force up against the immovable object. There is no moral high ground. Compromise? I'm willing to say I'd outlaw third trimester abortions... hell, I might even go to 5 months if you could provide me with some science to support it. Are you willing to compromise?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I disagree with the result that you've come to for (among other things) the reasons that Ty raises above, but I do feel compelled to note that this is one of the more cogent articulations of the pro-life position that I've seen.

True (the business about the cogency of that position). However, the "it's gonna wreck her life" argument is something of a straw man -- as there are far more compelling reasons someone could have for needing to terminate a pregnancy.

Regarding adoption: there are millions of children in the foster care system who are just waiting to be adopted. However, there seem to be a dearth of those (where are all those parents who are supposedly so desperate for a child -- any child) who are willing to adopt children who are not the right race, age, sex, or what-have-you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You know, if I said half the shit you jackasses say I did, you'd be drooling like rabid dogs instead of building scarecrows.

That said, I'm going to laugh my ass off when Bush does replace O'Connor with someone who doesn't believe in making shit up outside of the framework of laws. You people will be screaming, begging, crying when the majority is again allowed to exercise their will instead of having this shit imposed on them by liberal judges and the silver-spoon cheering section.

God forbid you get something like a Constitutional Amendment before imposing your morality on us. And how ironic that you accuse us of doing the same to you.

You can say you'll laugh your ass off, but it would doom the GOP to minority party status. Right now they get to play the victim, but the sort of decision you describe would simultaneously alienate swing voters and mobilize the Dem base like you can't imagine.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, terrorists are a nuisance, like prostitution and organized crime.

Now, perhaps if he defined "nuisance" as murder, rape and arson, then - perhaps - he could be forgiven for merely having a tin ear.

But to suggest that terrorism is on par with prostitution? Why, SAM why?

Ask Bilmore, he seemed to understand it just fine.

Its a "tin ear" issue. He recognizes you will never completely wipe out terrorism, and wants/needs to reduce the incidents and their severity to the point where (everything else Kerry said in the article).

You may not like the word "nuisance", but consider: the terrorist attacks which have occurred throughout the world _since_ 9/11 are, at most, a nuisance to the American people (excluding those against our soldiers in Iraq).

That is because they haven't hit the U.S. or even American targets, and so mean almost nothing to the average American. Most people just don't care much, _except_ that they are scared that people they know (or other Americans) may be in the cross-hairs. Kerry's statement was nothing more than saying we need to fight and win so that, some day, terrorism will once again be nothing more than background noise for most people. That is as close as we'll ever get to a win.

Your fixation on Kerry's mention of prostitution is both personally revealing and a red herring. Kerry did not COMPARE terrorism to prostitution. Instead, he said we need to fight terrorism and beat it down UNTIL it is no more important that prostitution or illegal gambling. Anyway, the attacks from B/C and the GOP would be identical even if Kerry had mentioned more serious crimes.

So, the question remains: Why, Slave, Why? BoSox in 6.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Pretending, however, that there is no salient difference between a few stem cells and a new-born baby is simply ducking that hard question.

As I recall, Kerry states that life begins at conception.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Race, while rooted in physiological and cultural reality, is at bottom a construct. The developmental differences between stem cells and fetii, on the one hand, and small children, on the other, are undeniable.

That's an arbitrary line you've drawn, one that suits your argument. There are also distinct differences, physiologically based, between me and my prepubescent sons, and yet you likely wouldn't let me shoot my pheasant-scaring progeny. (But, unlike Seb. you would understand the analogy.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
True (the business about the cogency of that position). However, the "it's gonna wreck her life" argument is something of a straw man -- as there are far more compelling reasons someone could have for needing to terminate a pregnancy.

Regarding adoption: there are millions of children in the foster care system who are just waiting to be adopted. However, there seem to be a dearth of those (where are all those parents who are supposedly so desperate for a child -- any child) who are willing to adopt children who are not the right race, age, sex, or what-have-you.

I suspect there are few newborns/infants in that category. Most are going overseas to foreign countries to adopt newborns/infants because of the shortage here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't care to take a position on the substantive issue, but you act as thought the woman played no part in the process. Poor little woman, she just up and got herself pregnant. Sorry, I can't buy in to that.

Where does this line of thinking lead you? It obviously has nothing to do with the rights of the fetus, which couldn't care less how it came into being. Abortion rights for victims of rape, and those whose birth control failed, but not others? Does a father who tells the mother that he had a vasectomy have to pay more in birth control?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you willing to compromise?

Depends. How sick does grandma have to be before I kill her?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As I recall, Kerry states that life begins at conception.

Sperm and ova are alive, too. But does anyone dispute that there is life at conception?