Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by nononono
But a mother's relationship to her child is not the same as yours and bilmore's (I surmise, without knowing). Not before and not after birth (with some exceptions, of course).

And we do put limits even on people's behavior vis a vis their own bodies (drug use crimes come to mind, legal ages on certain substances, etc.). It doesn't strike me as completely unreasonable that the one exception to "you don't have to save someone" would be this one, if there were going to be one. But I also think it may be useful to separate out abortion on demand, vs. abortion after consideration of interested parties' physical heath. Seems a different analysis to me.

I appreciate the distinction, but find it very weak. But rest assured, Bilmore will glom on to it, seeing as how Not Bob stepped on the last finger Bilmore was using to hang onto the plank.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You don't believe that, assuming the Iraqi Military gets up to speed, that they won't have more success in identifying the bad guys and winning hearts and minds? I do. I also saw on Charlie Rose recently a retired general and former member of the Joint Chiefs say that the training of the Iraqis is going far better than he expected and far better than he witnessed a year before, and his belief was that we would begin pulling out within a year, though he acknowledged that we would need to keep command and control personnel there fore many years to come.

I'd be delighted to see it happen. However, let's say I'm skeptical. We started out in an advisory role in Vietnam, and we supposedly returned to an advisory role in the early 70's there. We all know how well that turned out.

I'm not suggesting that we throw in the towel. I just worry that we have gotten our man-tits in a wringer that we will working long and hard to get out of.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Assuming that life begins at conception, or at some point before the end of the second trimester.

Well, this is the assumption upon which this whole controversy rides, I think. Accept it, and you're on one side - not, and you're on the other. And I doubt it's the kind of thesis that can be intellectually conveyed or promulgated, so maybe we're just left with eventual armed conflict.

Slaves weren't people, either, were they?

[nononono]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I appreciate the distinction, but find it very weak. But rest assured, Bilmore will glom on to it, seeing as how Not Bob stepped on the last finger Bilmore was using to hang onto the plank.

Why is it weak? When you're talking about people, not just principles, these things can be meaningful distinctions.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That your great grandfather was a state legislator is a fact. That he was bought and paid for by Weyerhauser is the sort of thing that most folks hope people either don't realize or politely forget.

It is the truth baby. Warts and all. Pretty much everyone in his district was either employed by the company or owed their living to the lumber company's employees.

But he seemed to be spending most of his time accusing Wilson of being a racist and a communist. According to my aunt, Wilson vetoed or blocked some anti lynching legislation that sent the Republicans in Washington state into a frenzy.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is the truth baby. Warts and all. Pretty much everyone in his district was either employed by the company or owed their living to the lumber company's employees.

But he seemed to be spending most of his time accusing Wilson of being a racist and a communist. According to my aunt Wilson

Your Aunt Wilson?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Slaves weren't people, either, were they?

Punt.

What about your kidney, dad? Why can't the state make you give it to me if I need it?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by nononono
But a mother's relationship to her child is not the same as yours and bilmore's (I surmise, without knowing). Not before and not after birth (with some exceptions, of course).

And we do put limits even on people's behavior vis a vis their own bodies (drug use crimes come to mind, legal ages on certain substances, etc.). It doesn't strike me as completely unreasonable that the one exception to "you don't have to save someone" would be this one, if there were going to be one. But I also think it may be useful to separate out abortion on demand, vs. abortion after consideration of interested parties' physical heath. Seems a different analysis to me.

Your drug analogy is not apropos. Those limits are requiring people to abstain from behavior that may harm them, not requiring people to continue a situation that may harm them. I don't think one can know ahead of time in all cases whether there are going to be complications late in a pregnancy, so considering only the known risks is not really completely on point either.

If the mother truly does not want a child, then the mother's relationship to the fetus/potential child is not that different from bilmore's relationship to Not Bob, it seems to me. How is it different? Merely asserting that there is a difference does not advance your argument.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, many people can't take owenrship of their life. And even those who can, don't always make it. That's the price of a capitalist market-driven economy. It produces winners and losers.

Taking care of the losers to some degree is the price of peace. I'm not preaching equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is a good beginning, but it still won't take care of everyone.

Some degree of safety net is a requirement, lest we fall into decay and are brought down from within. That's the thing that many conservatives have a tough time with. They want the benefits, but are unwillling to share in the burden.

I don't disagree with that, although at a base level I think there is equality of opportunity, and I came from below the midlevel so I'm not fully jaded.

[nononono]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your drug analogy is not apropos. Those limits are requiring people to abstain from behavior that may harm them, not requiring people to continue a situation that may harm them. I don't think one can know ahead of time in all cases whether there are going to be complications late in a pregnancy, so considering only the known risks is not really completely on point either.

If the mother truly does not want a child, then the mother's relationship to the fetus/potential child is not that different from bilmore's relationship to Not Bob, it seems to me. How is it different? Merely asserting that there is a difference does not advance your argument.

1. That is why I think it is useful to separate situations.

2. A parent's relationship to a child doesn't arise solely (or maybe not much at all) as a result of "want."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, this is the assumption upon which this whole controversy rides, I think. Accept it, and you're on one side - not, and you're on the other. And I doubt it's the kind of thesis that can be intellectually conveyed or promulgated, so maybe we're just left with eventual armed conflict.

Slaves weren't people, either, were they?

3/5, no?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
But a mother's relationship to her child is not the same as yours and bilmore's (I surmise, without knowing). Not before and not after birth (with some exceptions, of course).

You surmise correctly -- I have never kayaked in bilmore's amniotic fluid.

Originally posted by nononono
And we do put limits even on people's behavior vis a vis their own bodies (drug use crimes come to mind, legal ages on certain substances, etc.). It doesn't strike me as completely unreasonable that the one exception to "you don't have to save someone" would be this one, if there were going to be one. But I also think it may be useful to separate out abortion on demand, vs. abortion after consideration of interested parties' physical heath. Seems a different analysis to me.

Well, we limit what people can do with their bodies, but -- by and large -- we don't force them affirmatively to do something risky with their bodies against their will.

It's a very difficult issue. I don't know what the answer is, other than to note that there would probably be a lot fewer abortions if there was more to most sex ed classes than "abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is the truth baby. Warts and all. Pretty much everyone in his district was either employed by the company or owed their living to the lumber company's employees.

But he seemed to be spending most of his time accusing Wilson of being a racist and a communist. According to my aunt, Wilson vetoed or blocked some anti lynching legislation that sent the Republicans in Washington state into a frenzy.

Oh my, I think the Dems should apologize for their racist leader(s), Wilson. And Byrd.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by nononono
1. That is why I think it is useful to separate situations.

2. A parent's relationship to a child doesn't arise solely (or maybe not much at all) as a result of "want."

1. What separate situations?

2. You don't think it would be good if every child were a wanted child?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Punt.

Why is that a punt? It's a direct response to what you posited, correctly, as the central dividing line in this mess. Slaveowners were able to defend their position only because they also considered this statement to be a punt, I suspect.

What about your kidney, dad? Why can't the state make you give it to me if I need it?

Are you asking, would this be constitutional? Kelo seems to say, yes. (Okay, just kidding.) I think there is a qualitative difference between, {you have to do this or someone else will die}, and, {if you do this, you will kill someone else}. There's no legal or social mandate that a fetus start growing in some specific womb - but, once it's there, I think that we need to engage in a balancing of constitutionally-protected rights in order to determine if the womb-person has the right to simply kill the invading fetus.

I can refuse to feed you, and watch you die. I can't accomplish the same goal with a shotgun. We recognize that difference, at least.