Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I will refer you to SD's "tough luck" being a fetus in the wrong woman at the wrong time.

honey I'm with you on the result, but this argument was a bad stretch for Sebby. for you, its a non-starter.

[bilmore]

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

Hush. You're treading on my "you'ed better do your homework or else . . ." lines for the night.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You think that immoral evil women who are willing to murder their own children would balk at a false report to the police?

It would be an imperfect system, as our judicial system is not perfect. Innocent people get convicted of crimes, too. Should we stop convicting everyone to prevent that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
According to Edwards today, "When John Kerry is President, there won't be any more pain"

Globally, or elsewhere also?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

I understand that's what you think, but that's not what he said. Without regard to the interests of the unborn fetus, he suggested that when a woman has sex -- setting aside rape and incest -- he discounts the burdens she experiences in connection with a resulting pregnancy. He's not talking about how to weigh the fetus's interests against the woman's interests -- he never reaches that question because he's pretty clear that the woman's interests don't count. He wants to know whether the fetus suffers pain, but he doesn't care whether the woman suffers pain. And so on.

I agree with you that it's hard to figure out how to reconcile the competing interests of the fetus and the woman. Club makes it easy, by excluding the latter from the calculation at all. Except in cases of rape and incest. That gets a separate equation in which the woman's interests count. (This is "intuitive," says club, and obviously doesn't reflect that the fetus's interests are different.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

Don't tell the sperm. They're alive, they're human, and they're full of hope.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
It would be an imperfect system, as our judicial system is not perfect. Innocent people get convicted of crimes, too. Should we stop convicting everyone to prevent that?

Aside from the fact that pregnant women aren't, as a rule, criminals, there are a number of reasons this is not a parallel. For starters, and I'm doing this while tired and hungry, criminals have the option of choosing to have a jury. There's also not an inherent short time limitation on prosecuting a criminal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How Orwellian.

What the fuck does this mean? My reading stopped at the assigned readings from high School? to say "orwellian" when you mean "animal farm or 1984 like" simply means you are poorly read.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Flip-flopper.

Last time we went drinking you agreed with me that the gov't should use our tax dollars to buy us hookers and coke.

That's not a flip-flop, unless you have any hookers in your family.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this test would apply equally to the guy with the cross bow as it does to abortion, wouldn't it?

I would argue that protection of a living being is a compelling public safety interest.

[Not Me]

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

I disagree with you here. There are many instances when it is more humane to terminate the life of a person. For instance, a severely deformed baby that will only live long enough to suffer and then die. Perhaps you disagree with me on this, but I think it is a moral position.

Another example, not an abortion one, is lets say you have a plane hijacked by muslims and they are going to fly it into the Sears tower with 20,000 (or however many) inside. Do you shot the plane down and kill those 120 people inside (all of whom are innocent except the muslim hijackers) or do you let thousands in the Sears tower die?

For me, the rape exception is one in which terminating the life is morally defensible. It is tragic for all involved, certainly, but still one of the few situations that I would agree that it was morally acceptable to take an innocent human life.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought we were talking about bilmore's tax dollars.

No, I distinctly remember that we decided to use Bilmore's tax dollars to pay for section 8 housing subsidies for Hank's illegitimate daughter and her 20 kids.

[Hank Chinaski]

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. 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.

But blowing up a building on someone's property isn't seen as an equivalent crime as murder unless there is a person killed in the building.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

thought about fact checking but i was too far behind. and N.B., Slave, for all his bluster is a quite sensitive person. See post on NY board re lawyers who died. at any rate, I apologize.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But blowing up a building on someone's property isn't seen as an equivalent crime as murder unless there is a person killed in the building.

You forgot the "--Jean Cocteau" line.