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

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Well, this is where we split. The gordian knot. Me... I tend to like the women I know. And that tends to compel me to value them above the rights of whatever might be groing in them. Call that callous, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

And maybe the majority of the population of Wyoming also tend to like to the women they know. And they think they are responsible. And realize and trust that women and men are responsible enough to understand that sex can lead to children.

Children, that cry and pee, and before you realize it, are looking for a cell phone and an allowance. And realize that children - growing in them - are a bit different than the mole on your neck growing an unsightly hair at the speed of light - also growing in them.

And maybe the people of Wyoming put it to a vote, and the people who feel that way win out.

And I come down as pro-woman. Thats really what we're talking about here, isn't it?

No, it's not. And you're much smarterthan that to be spewing such bogus platitudes from NOW's brochures.

The way this issue has been drawn, one is either pro-woman or pro-unborn.

Um, no. Not fucking at all.

It's been drawn as Anti-Woman/ Pro-Choice or Pro-Death/Anti-Unborn.

And why?? Because it was determined by judicial fiat, and not by the legislature. The silent majority had no say, and the violent fringe at both ends have stolen the discourse.

We should start using those terms. It'd keep a lot of hyopcrites from getting laid. Try to explain how you're "pro-unborn" while you're trying to get in any self respecting progressive woman's pants.

I've done okay with my Anti-Roe stance.

PS: My indpendent research, conducted over nearly two decades of trying to get in women's pants, indicates that the women who call themselves pro-life are not the women one wants to fuck.

So you ignore the MILF spam?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

It's been drawn as Anti-Woman/ Pro-Choice or Pro-Death/Anti-Unborn.

And why?? Because it was determined by judicial fiat, and not by the legislature. The silent majority had no say, and the violent fringe at both ends have stolen the discourse.

I don't think that's the reason. I think that whether it was passed as a law or decided as a constitutional matter, it's inherently divisive. I see it more as a public health issue -- people are going to abort babies whether it's legal or not. I guess it's a tradeoff.

And you got your contrasts wrong. I'm not sure if you wanted to say "Pro-Woman/Pro-Choice or Pro-Death/Anti-Unborn" or "Anti-Woman/Prochoice or Pro-Life/Anti-Unborn." As it is, you quite fittingly have three in one camp and only one in the other.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And maybe the majority of the population of Wyoming also tend to like to the women they know. And they think they are responsible. And realize and trust that women and men are responsible enough to understand that sex can lead to children.

Children, that cry and pee, and before you realize it, are looking for a cell phone and an allowance. And realize that children - growing in them - are a bit different than the mole on your neck growing an unsightly hair at the speed of light - also growing in them.

And maybe the people of Wyoming put it to a vote, and the people who feel that way win out.



No, it's not. And you're much smarterthan that to be spewing such bogus platitudes from NOW's brochures.



Um, no. Not fucking at all.

It's been drawn as Anti-Woman/ Pro-Choice or Pro-Death/Anti-Unborn.

And why?? Because it was determined by judicial fiat, and not by the legislature. The silent majority had no say, and the violent fringe at both ends have stolen the discourse.



I've done okay with my Anti-Roe stance.



So you ignore the MILF spam?

So basically, your position is based on a dislike of "bad" law and undying need to see states' rights unfettered? I actually agree with you that if we put it to a vote, the majority will vote to allow abortion.

But we split on the issue of privacy rights. I view privacy, and the right to control one's body, which stems from that right, as written into the fabric of the Constitution. Roe is an inartful attempt to explain that right. To avoid strict constructionalist (absurdist) critique, the drafters of Roe never came right out and said what we all know as a matter of common sense and basic interpretation of the document:

- If there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, then there is no Constitution. Its absurd to suggest no such right exists. It goes to the center of everything the country was founded on. Its like one of those court rules that are so obvious you can never find them codified anywhere. They're just aassumed, and you'd be a fool to contest they exist (unless you're an absurdist). -

The only debate is to what extent the privacy right applies (and this debate I only endure as academic exercise). I think the right to privacy ends where it hurts others. I do not count fetuses as others.

And so it comes full circle. My opponents count fetuses as others and assert the fetal rights above those of women. As I said, no matter how the issue is framed, to be pro-life is to assert the fetus has rights above the woman; to be pro-choice is the reverse. I did not get that logic from a Naral or Now campaign button. That is a fact.

Since you view this as an purely legal debate and states rights issue, and thus are not pro-life, you don't fit within the camp I'm criticizing. But as to the pro-lifers out there who use states' rights as a weapon to ultimately illegalize abortion wherever they can, make no mistake... they are pro-fetus and anti-woman.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
And you got your contrasts wrong. I'm not sure if you wanted to say "Pro-Woman/Pro-Choice or Pro-Death/Anti-Unborn" or "Anti-Woman/Prochoice or Pro-Life/Anti-Unborn." As it is, you quite fittingly have three in one camp and only one in the other.

True. My error.

With Luttig, that's 2 tonight.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
True. My error.

With Luttig, that's 2 tonight.

Which one did you mean? I think it was more of a Freudian slip than an error.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
And so it comes full circle. My opponents count fetuses as others and assert the fetal rights above those of women. As I said, no matter how the issue is framed, to be pro-life is to assert the fetus has rights above the woman; to be pro-choice is the reverse. I did not get that logic from a Naral or Now campaign button. That is a fact.

Wrong. It is an opinion.

And it also is based on a fallacy.

This is based on an assumption that the woman (and the man, forever tethered for +/-18 years, 9 months with currently no decision whatsoever in the matter) had nothing to do with the matter. That it was somehow FORCED upon them.

Your fiction suggests that these naifs shouldnt be forced to endure something not of their own doing. No actus reus.

Bullshit.

How's this opinion? You willingly engage in certain behavior, fully knowing the consequences - you become a fiduciary. In essence, you become responsibe for yourself AND others.

As a fiduciary, you have rights equal to yours, and you must act at all time with their rights in mind.

As you like to bring up. Actions have consequences. Drive drunk, run the risk of going to jail. Same with buying scalped John Mayer tickets (or the 8 Ball to make that show tolerable).

Since you view this as an purely legal debate and states rights issue, and thus are not pro-life, you don't fit within the camp I'm criticizing. But as to the pro-lifers out there who use states' rights as a weapon to ultimately illegalize abortion wherever they can, make no mistake... they are pro-fetus and anti-woman.

I won't disagree with this, and I rarely argue (let alone know many of these people), but I re-iterate that your anti-woman stance is patently false.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Which one did you mean? I think it was more of a Freudian slip than an error.

Ha.

What was for dinner?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Ha.

What was for dinner?

Nothing yet. Maybe leftovers. Had a big lunch and not really hungry.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That you're confusing the ultimate vote with the procedures that are used to reach it. The Senate does not require a supermajority for consent. But it may require a supermajority to get to the point of voting on whether it consents, just as it does in getting to the point of voting on any legislation.

I don't think so. The Constitution doesn't say that Bills must pass either house by majority vote. It is silent on that. So under your theory, the Senate or House could, for instance, pass a supermajority requirement to pass a bill.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But we split on the issue of privacy rights. I view privacy, and the right to control one's body, which stems from that right, as written into the fabric of the Constitution.

I assume then, that you believe suicide should be legal? And unfettered drug use (of course, to the extent it doesn't harm others)? I certainly do, for the reason that there is no competing right to balance. Yet, the presence of a fetus or unborn or whatever certainly gives me pause, because we must, at the very least, recognize the need to balance competing rights.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think so. The Constitution doesn't say that Bills must pass either house by majority vote. It is silent on that. So under your theory, the Senate or House could, for instance, pass a supermajority requirement to pass a bill.

In a world in which Senators have to spend a lot of time out of Washington, and travel is difficult, I can imagine Senate rules permitting measures to be passed by less than half the votes (but a majority of those present). I can also imagine the Senate agreeing to require supermajorities. The point is, if the Senate agrees to set those rules in advance, that is how it has chosen to act. Burger's point, I think, is that the Senate is authorized by the Constitution to adopt rules, which may on occasion frustrate the will of the majority. No one has ever thought that that alone violates the Constitution.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In a world in which Senators have to spend a lot of time out of Washington, and travel is difficult, I can imagine Senate rules permitting measures to be passed by less than half the votes (but a majority of those present). I can also imagine the Senate agreeing to require supermajorities. The point is, if the Senate agrees to set those rules in advance, that is how it has chosen to act. Burger's point, I think, is that the Senate is authorized by the Constitution to adopt rules, which may on occasion frustrate the will of the majority. No one has ever thought that that alone violates the Constitution.

The fact that the "advise and consent" clause was not specified as requiring a super-majority, whereas other specified roles of the Legislative Branch do, lends itself to the negative assumption that a super-majority is not required to confirm judicial nominees.

That being said, the point is irrelevent, since no Congress can be bound by former Congresses, nor bind future Congresses, with rules outside of the Constitution.

Ergo, if Leahy was stupid and tried to filibuster Roberts, a majority GOP could kill the filibuster until 2006, and then the GOP approve every Bush nominee he threw up there.

[SlaveNoMore]

I learned Daily KOS requires a 24 hour wait period before allowing comments on their site. I'll send the uber personal resonse I received from the "Huffington" folks to anyone that asks, since its rather personal (and hilarious).

Congrats to Ty, Sidd, Gatti, Sidd, and others (e.g.the half-brain of Sebby) for allowing the silencing of dissention.

Godspeed, lefties.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wrong. It is an opinion.

And it also is based on a fallacy.

This is based on an assumption that the woman (and the man, forever tethered for +/-18 years, 9 months with currently no decision whatsoever in the matter) had nothing to do with the matter. That it was somehow FORCED upon them.

Your fiction suggests that these naifs shouldnt be forced to endure something not of their own doing. No actus reus.

Bullshit.

How's this opinion? You willingly engage in certain behavior, fully knowing the consequences - you become a fiduciary. In essence, you become responsibe for yourself AND others.

As a fiduciary, you have rights equal to yours, and you must act at all time with their rights in mind.

As you like to bring up. Actions have consequences. Drive drunk, run the risk of going to jail. Same with buying scalped John Mayer tickets (or the 8 Ball to make that show tolerable).

I won't disagree with this, and I rarely argue (let alone know many of these people), but I re-iterate that your anti-woman stance is patently false.

Notwithstanding the cosmic wrongness of the fiduciary analogy, sex is not the same as any other human activity for which a person may be held responsible. As you and I both know, once you hit 14, its a biological urge that can all but overwhelm ones life. To hold women hostage to a quirk of nature (not getting that Y chromosome you and I did) is not the same as holding them accountable when they drive drunk.

This is where the need for progressive interpretation of rights runs headlong into conservative rigidity. I am staunchly social Darwinist on 99% of these matters. I don't agree with many govt social safety nets. BUT, I think progressive policies which try to equal the rights and burdens of the sexes are fair and proper in a free market society. We can't have a fair playing field where one side pays a draconian penalty for a biological urge (or broken condom) and the other gets to walk away from it (I suggest you not even attempt to make the argument that are equally responsible because they have to pay paternity... thats a dead lock loser for innumerable reasons).

I can appreciate what I know your comeback will be - "people must play the cards they're dealt... women included." I agree with that on all things but reprdocutive rights. I think such a belief would keep women out of productive jobs, thus holding back our society and our markets. Nobody benefits where half the workforce can be taken out of commission because of a biological urge or malfunction of birth control.

Again, you're not anti-woman. You're rigidly libertarian. The pro-lifers, however, are absolutely, 100%, card carrying anti-woman.

Lastly, you have to understand how noxious your argument sounds coming from a man. The GOP seems to believe that being a chickenhawk is OK, that its wrong to have a rule which requires a publi official go to war before he can send others there. Academically, technically, they're right. But that will never change the public's low perception of a chickenhawk. His warmongering will always make others disgusted. For this same reason, your high minded academic justifications for policies which are regressive toward women will always come off disingenuous and chickenhawkish. You and I will never truly understand the abortion debate, so the last thing we should be doing is telling those who can and do understand it as a result of their anatomy what they can or can't do with their bodies.

You're free to do it anyway, of course, but understand that, to women, it will always look pretty goddamned hypocritical.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In a world in which Senators have to spend a lot of time out of Washington, and travel is difficult, I can imagine Senate rules permitting measures to be passed by less than half the votes (but a majority of those present). .

Isn't that in fact the case now? It's a majority of votes, which given teh quorum rules, could mean only 26 senators (51 for a quorum). And, really, even fewer if no one notes the lack of a quorum.