Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been following this conversation for pages now, and the one thing I can't figure out is why were you guys are equating desegration with abortion rights. You seem to believe that, like segregation, the pro-life folks are just objectively wrong, without considering that there may be something to the protecting life argument. In other words, the comparison is certainly not perfect, and this is not JUST a question of civil rights. That is why the federalism side of the argument is very attractive to many . . . because, unlike segregation, we just don't know enough to know who is right on this issue.

I put the rabbit in the hat there. Nice catch. I was wondering when somebody'd flag that...

I doing so, you also highlighted the real anti-abortion position. Why can't we just have the open debate about abortion? I think its because the pro-lifers fear that the majority of America would view it as a necessary right of women. As I said earlier, if put to referendum nationally, abortion would remain legal. Perhaps restricted a bit, but legal. Thats why the pro-lifers have hidden behind this bullshit federalist agenda. It puts them in bed with the gun lobby and all the other interests who want the fed govt OFF their back. They get to push their agenda as though they're being denied a right, when all they're trying to really do is deny other people's rights at the state level.

Its the pro-lifers dishonest hijacking of federalism that makes them so loathesome.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Got a handy reference to the racial makeup of New Trier? You do that and I'll look for the racial makeup of Cook County. Deal? This should be a fun comparison!

Well, the difference is that Wonk doesn't paint you as living in a gated community where all the non-white folk are kept out, while you insist on painting this stereotype of the rich, elitist, suburban liberal.*


*While, interestingly, suggesting that if you looked at red vs. blue counties you would find a pattern that conflicts with the state data about who is drawing federal funds. I guess because Marin County is just rollllling in welfare money.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do you have a recipe for manufacturing whiskey from semen?

No, but your wife does. Think of me next time you have that night cap.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I put the rabbit in the hat there. Nice catch. I was wondering when somebody'd flag that...

I doing do, you also highlighted the real anti-abortion position. Why can't we just have the open debate about abortion? I think its because the pro-lifers fear that the majority of America would view it as a necessary right of women. As I said earlier, if put to referendum nationally, abortion would remain legal. Perhaps restricted a bit, but legal. Thats why the pro-lifers have hidden behind this bullshit federalist agenda. It puts them in bed with the gun lobby and all the other interests who want the fed govt OFF their back. They get to push their agenda as though they're being denied a right, when all they're trying to really do is deny other people's rights at the state level.

Its the pro-lifers dishonest hijacking of federalism that makes them so loathesome.

A majority of pro-lifers would welcome that debate. I think the vote would be close, and I'm not sure who would win, but Americans tend not to like all or nothing positions, so you are probably right on the outcome.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been following this conversation for pages now, and the one thing I can't figure out is why were you guys are equating desegration with abortion rights. You seem to believe that, like segregation, the pro-life folks are just objectively wrong, without considering that there may be something to the protecting life argument. In other words, the comparison is certainly not perfect, and this is not JUST a question of civil rights. That is why the federalism side of the argument is very attractive to many . . . because, unlike segregation, we just don't know enough to know who is right on this issue.

I think that part of the problem, Club is that there are those, myself among them, who believe that the fact we don't know "who is right" on this issue makes it an unfit matter for legislation. Perhaps that is the part of the debate that is not being clearly articulated?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Got a handy reference to the racial makeup of New Trier? You do that and I'll look for the racial makeup of Cook County. Deal? This should be a fun comparison!

I've got a better idea. Why don't you stop acting so damn superior and smug and stop making these absolutist ridiculous arguments? For your sake, I hope you aren't such a putz IRL.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that part of the problem, Club is that there are those, myself among them, who believe that the fact we don't know "who is right" on this issue makes it an unfit matter for legislation. Perhaps that is the part of the debate that is not being clearly articulated?

And the flip side is that it shouldn't be permitted until we know for sure, given the theoretically stakes involved.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And the flip side is that it shouldn't be permitted until we know for sure, given the theoretically stakes involved.

Exactly. The two sides approach the issue from opposite mindsets, so there's a disconnect before either side even says a word.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A majority of pro-lifers would welcome that debate. I think the vote would be close, and I'm not sure who would win, but Americans tend not to like all or nothing positions, so you are probably right on the outcome.

Now you're hitting the nail on the head. The thing is, America historically gets squicky about intolerant policies. Barring anything as personal as abortion would make a lot of voters uncomfortable, so they'd default to the position Taxwonk articulated - "This should be a personal decision, not a legislative one", which is the pro-choice argument.

People don't like the idea of having a very traumatic and personal decision being the subject of legal prohibition. That sort of simplistic thinking only works for the people of simple backward morals who see everything in black and white. It ain't that simple. I personally think abortion is a necessary evil. Its a terrible thing for a woman to endure, but it needs to remain legal, and should be private. Imagine where we'd be as a society if we prosecuted women for having abortions. How horrific would that sort of witchhunt be? And you know thats exactly what would happen in the bible belt if this "federalism" were to take root.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Exactly. The two sides approach the issue from opposite mindsets, so there's a disconnect before either side even says a word.

Which is why the federalism approach is so attractive. As I said to Sebby, Americans hate all or nothing outcomes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've got a better idea. Why don't you stop acting so damn superior and smug and stop making these absolutist ridiculous arguments? For your sake, I hope you aren't such a putz IRL.

He's more a douchebag than a putz. A putz is likable.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now you're hitting the nail on the head. The thing is, America historically gets squicky about intolerant policies. Barring anything as personal as abortion would make a lot of voters uncomfortable, so they'd default to the position Taxwonk articulated - "This should be a personal decision, not a legislative one", which is the pro-choice argument.

People don't like the idea of having a very traumatic and personal decision being the subject of legal prohibition. That sort of simplistic thinking only works for the people of simple backward morals who see everything in black and white. It ain't that simple. I personally think abortion is a necessary evil. Its a terrible thing for a woman to endure, but it needs to remain legal, and should be private. Imagine where we'd be as a society if we prosecuted women for having abortions. How horrific would that sort of witchhunt be? And you know thats exactly what would happen in the bible belt if this "federalism" were to take root.

I suspect that it would be the abortioner (i.e., the doctor) that would be prosecuted, but you are right, it could get ugly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Which is why the federalism approach is so attractive. As I said to Sebby, Americans hate all or nothing outcomes.

Yeh, but thats just moving the all or nothing from the fed to the state level. It doesn't solve the real problem. As I said earlier, the bible thumpers will pass laws to prosecute their citizens for sseeking or obtaining abortions beyond state lines. The pro-lifers are nuts. They can't be trusted.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but thats just moving the all or nothing from the fed to the state level. It doesn't solve the real problem. As I said earlier, the bible thumpers will pass laws to prosecute their citizens for sseeking or obtaining abortions beyond state lines. The pro-lifers are nuts. They can't be trusted.

It's similar to the debate on the death penalty, and I have yet to hear a similar argument made on that issue.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Think of where we'd be today if the greatest states rights candidate of the last century, Strom Thurmond, had been elected to office.

Trent Lott thinks we could have avoided a lot of problems had this happened.