Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Undoubtedly true, but I would bet they entered foster care at an older age.

I'm not sure why people don't adopt from Africa. Asia/South Amercia seems to rule out racism. Perhaps the adoption process is more arduous there.

While it is true that the millions of children waiting to be adopted who are in the foster care system didn't all start there as infants, many, many of them did. Many people who are "desperate -- just desperate!" to adopt do not want to adopt a child who is black or bi-racial (basically, non-white).

I do have personal experience with this -- but by all means, do your own research if you don't believe me.

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
Can a fetus still smoke a Cuban?

More importantly, can a Cuban smoke the Babies?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
He voted with his dick.

I think a "hanging chad" joke could go here. It is an election year, after all.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thanks for trying to help, but that really doesn't alleviate my jurisdictional nonplussedness (hi dtb!).

Since the US can restrict your overseas travel, why can't they attach conditions to it, the breaking of which subjects you to criminal prosecution?

Are you saying that conduct that takes place outside the US but directed at its interests is not a crime--or at least the US is without jurisdiction to prosecute?

The middle east celebrates tonight!

(I acknowledge the problem that smoking a cuban is essentially a victimless crime, other than the economic stimulus continued consumption of such products may have, contrary to the US's purported interests)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Oh, fun. If you believe the fetus is a full human with full human rights (as opposed to property rights, to answer burger's question), what difference does it make to the fetus how it came to be conceived? Is it not still fully human?

I think both you and Ty misunderstood my post. I am not saying that I cannot buy into abortion rights, I am saying that I can't do so on the basis of the burden of the mother.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Any interest?

Methinks thou doth hyperbolizeth.

Club said "I cannot buy into abortion rights on the basis of the burden on the mother (exceptions for rape, incest, etc.)".

I agree that it doesn't make sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, Ty, Ty. Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they forfeit the right. Do you not see a difference between a woman who used birth control and still got pregnant v. one that threw caution to the wind?

How am I pretending? I haven't taken a position on the issue.

Is there a non-rhetorical difference between saying that a woman who engages in non-incestuous consensual sex forfeits the right to autonomy, and saying that you're not going to include the burdens to her in weighing the relative interests relevant to her desire to have an abortion? I'm not seeing it.

Do I see a difference? Yes. Do I think it should be material? No. It's not much of a right to autonomy if it disappears when someone thinks you've been irresponsible. That's like saying that you have a right to free speech, but that it disappears if you say something dumb. Not so much of a right, that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On what other basis could you buy into it? Or can't you?

It's a very difficult question and one I haven't yet come to grips with yet. I said before that I believe science will give us the data necessary to answer it. Paramount to me is the experience (or lack thereof) of the fetus. Can it/he/she feel pain? Can it/he/she think? Etc. If either of these are present, I could give a shit about the mother's rights.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore

If you truly see it as murder, it does become an uncompromisable issue.

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?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Depends. How sick does grandma have to be before I kill her?

I'm sorry - what's the interest competing with grandma here?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's a very difficult question and one I haven't yet come to grips with yet. I said before that I believe science will give us the data necessary to answer it. Paramount to me is the experience (or lack thereof) of the fetus. Can it/he/she feel pain? Can it/he/she think? Etc. If either of these are present, I could give a shit about the mother's rights.

Well, you can answer it in either of the two contingencies:


If no pain--legal;
if pain--not legal?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Since the US can restrict your overseas travel, why can't they attach conditions to it, the breaking of which subjects you to criminal prosecution?

Are you saying that conduct that takes place outside the US but directed at its interests is not a crime--or at least the US is without jurisdiction to prosecute?

The middle east celebrates tonight!

(I acknowledge the problem that smoking a cuban is essentially a victimless crime, other than the economic stimulus continued consumption of such products may have, contrary to the US's purported interests)

It's one thing to talk about a criminal conspiracy directed at targets within the United States but which takes place in other countries. It's another to talk about economic activity which is lawful where it takes place but which our government has decided is against our foreign policy interests.

I don't get why the United States should be able to restrict one of its citizens from travelling from Country A to Country B, but maybe there's a lot about international law I don't understand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's a very difficult question and one I haven't yet come to grips with yet. I said before that I believe science will give us the data necessary to answer it. Paramount to me is the experience (or lack thereof) of the fetus. Can it/he/she feel pain? Can it/he/she think? Etc. If either of these are present, I could give a shit about the mother's rights.

If the mother experiences pain, could you give a shit about the fetus's rights?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there a non-rhetorical difference between saying that a woman who engages in non-incestuous consensual sex forfeits the right to autonomy, and saying that you're not going to include the burdens to her in weighing the relative interests relevant to her desire to have an abortion? I'm not seeing it.

Do I see a difference? Yes. Do I think it should be material? No. It's not much of a right to autonomy if it disappears when someone thinks you've been irresponsible. That's like saying that you have a right to free speech, but that it disappears if you say something dumb. Not so much of a right, that.

I think it goes to how much weight you give the burdens - less if she didn't take proper precautions in the first place.

Answer me this? Why do most people agree there should be a rape/incent exception? Could it be that there is a "no fault" element to their rationale?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, you can answer it in either of the two contingencies:


If no pain--legal;
if pain--not legal?

If pain - not legal
If no pain/no thought - I still struggle with the balancing of the right to live v. mother's rights.