Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Most abortions are done for convenience.

That word disrespects the reasons that most people have abortions.

The other obvious difference between abortion and most medical procedures is that another human life is at issue.

And yet it's plainly not the same as killing a baby, even if you think it's morally equivalent.

A simple solution to the problem in MN is to change the law to apply only to non-medical abortions (i.e., abortions not done to save the mother's life or birth defects or serious health problems of the mother).

Yes. But that shouldn't stop us from arguing about all of this.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I am more uppity, but much, much less likely than I was to have premarital sex than I was in 1973.

I was a fetus in 1973.

Aside from that quote above, the part of your post that jumps out at me is "excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects." I am trying to understand why we should give American tax payer money to those countries that refused to help us in the Iraqi conflict. I am trying, but I cannot understand it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Yes. But that shouldn't stop us from arguing about all of this.

I know you have to post at least 8 times per hour in order to maintain your current average, but that doesn't require you to respond to everything TempSock writes.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That word disrespects the reasons that most people have abortions.

I don't agree. You said why "most" people have abortions. If you clicked on that link I provided several posts back, you should know that most women who have abortions are white, middle-class women in their 20's who just don't want a baby with the particular father or at that particular point in their lives.

Most abortions aren't had by teens. Most abortions are had by women perfectly capable of supporting themselves and the baby and they are in their 20's. And they are not part of a underprivileged minority.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And yet it's plainly not the same as killing a baby, even if you think it's morally equivalent.

That depends on what you mean by "not the same." If you mean not the same legally, then you are right.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Yes. But that shouldn't stop us from arguing about all of this.

Atticus' time would have been better spent articulating his ideas on legislative reform on this topic to a MN newpaper reporter who could contact that woman on the weblog and write a story about it. And then maybe the publicity would spur people to write their legislators to have the law changed.

[Not Me]

Oops.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I was a fetus in 1973.

Aside from that quote above, the part of your post that jumps out at me is "excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects." I am trying to understand why we should give American tax payer money to those countries that refused to help us in the Iraqi conflict. I am trying, but I cannot understand it.

Try to understand this, then: Competition drives prices down. By reducing the number of bidders on these projects, we can expect to make them more expensive for us taxpayers. The benefits go to American corporations, but this doesn't help you unless you own their stock. I'm not going to villify Halliburton, but I also don't any stock.

Oh, and the money is going to private companies, not governments.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I know you have to post at least 8 times per hour in order to maintain your current average, but that doesn't require you to respond to everything TempSock writes.

You are just mad because I criticized the way the woman on your website looks. Can't you find someone more classy-looking?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you clicked on that link I provided several posts back, you should know that most women who have abortions are white, middle-class women in their 20's who just don't want a baby with the particular father or at that particular point in their lives.

And yet that reason deserves more respect than the word "convenience" confers.

That depends on what you mean by "not the same." If you mean not the same legally, then you are right.

It's also patently obvious that they're not the same as a matter of fact.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Try to understand this, then: Competition drives prices down. By reducing the number of bidders on these projects, we can expect to make them more expensive for us taxpayers. The benefits go to American corporations, but this doesn't help you unless you own their stock. I'm not going to villify Halliburton, but I also don't any stock.

I truly think the "competition drives down prices" argument is a stretch. What this comes down to is a fight over whether we should, in some sense of international joining of hands, bring France and Germany and Russia into this process.

But, even then, I think their protests are laughable. I see one quote (Chirac?) saying that we need to bring everyone in to work together and make their varied contributions in what should be a universal effort to rebuild Iraq.

But, they all were asked to make a contribution in the fight, and they said no.

Then, they were asked to make a contribution monetarily, just a few weeks ago, and they said (basically) no.

They are not being denied a chance to "contribute". They are complaining because they are being denied a chance to make a profit from this effort.

So, once again, we are expected to buy them off? By giving them our money, we promote an international community?

Scroom.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And yet that reason deserves more respect than the word "convenience" confers.

I hope Grandma isn't reading this. We could use the extra room.

It's also patently obvious that they're not the same as a matter of fact.

Once again, you (the generic "you") assume the point in contention to make the point in contention.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I truly think the "competition drives down prices" argument is a stretch.

If they weren't going to be the low bidder, they weren't going to get any of the work, right?

But, they all were asked to make a contribution in the fight, and they said no.

If you read what I posted, you'll see we were calling them again to ask them forgive loans to Iraq. Oops.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's also patently obvious that they're not the same as a matter of fact.

Please elaborate on how.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I hope Grandma isn't reading this. We could use the extra room.

Once again, you (the generic "you") assume the point in contention to make the point in contention.

Maybe I'm crank-addled again, but I give up -- what does this mean?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you read what I posted, you'll see we were calling them again to ask them forgive loans to Iraq. Oops.

Yeah, wasn't that a well-timed effort.

Unless . . .

"Of course, those contract issues COULD be revisited, if you want to look more closely at your odious debt thinking . . . "

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Please elaborate on how.

Babies are different from fetuses in several significant respects. Google it.

(bilmore: this is not an "assumption")