Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


I have not yet formed a position on . . . abortion,

Maybe you could get together with Clarence and work one out.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Maybe you could get together with Clarence and work one out.

I find it a very difficult question, though the recent in vitro pictures of 3 month old fetuses leads me to believe, at a minimum, that abortion should be prohibited earlier than it currently is.

[Not Me]

Does anyone object to using the fetal tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research?

FYI - fetal tissue has many of the same regenerative properties as embryonic cells and has been transplanted into patients with varying results.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not apologizing for anything because I do not see this as a major issue, just like I don't see abortion as a major issue. It just seems to me that Bush's position on this is consistent with his pro-life views, though, inconsistent with his pro-dealth penalty views. Similarly, the left's positions are consistent with the death penalty views, but inconsistent with their pro-choice/abortion views.

I have not yet formed a position on either stem cell research or abortion, though I tend to side on the side of science in most cases. I am anti-death penalty.

Just as I am marginally anti-death penalty because I don't want to live in a world in which even one wrongly convicted person is put to death in my name, I am pro-choice not because I think abortions are justified in all cases, or that the embryo or fetus is not a human being (I frankly don't know), but because I don't want to live in a world in which even one woman is compelled to carry an unwanted child to term and experience the birth of that child. It's horrifying so long as options exist. I further don't want to live in a world in which prosecutors must "abortion qualify" juries to convict women of having criminal abortions because they want to combat jury nullification and cut out the 30-49% of persons in their jurisdiction who don't believe abortion should be a crime, period.

Bottom line --- the criminal law should not be used to combat social problems that fewer than 90% of the people agree is a problem. Until nearly everyone agrees a fetus is human, it shouldn't be called murder.

In the meantime, this argument is being hard-fought because it shows that Bush believes eternal moral principles outweigh all negative practical effects. You think this is a virtue. I think it's a vice. We both can agree it's a repudiation of the older conservative principle that politicians should take responsibility for all consequences of a policy, even the unintended consequences. Instead, the Administration is denying the existence of any unintentional consequences, period. It's all McClellan-speak.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't want to live in a world in which even one woman is compelled to carry an unwanted child to term and experience the birth of that child. It's horrifying so long as options exist.

Do you feel it is horrifying to have your head crushed with a forceps or to be chopped up with a scalpel? That is what happens in 3rd trimester partial birth executions. Do you want to live in a world where that occurs?

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I further don't want to live in a world in which prosecutors must "abortion qualify" juries to convict women of having criminal abortions

The laws would criminalize the act of performing the abortion, not getting the abortion. It is the doctor who commits the crime if abortion is illegal.

[sgtclub]

Sometimes I think that you are actually trying to be objective and that is a scarry thought, but I'm game:

Just as I am marginally anti-death penalty because I don't want to live in a world in which even one wrongly convicted person is put to death in my name, I am pro-choice not because I think abortions are justified in all cases, or that the embryo or fetus is not a human being (I frankly don't know), but because I don't want to live in a world in which even one woman is compelled to carry an unwanted child to term and experience the birth of that child. It's horrifying so long as options exist.

Are you saying that, in your mind, the inconvenience of 1 woman outweighs any harm to, and rights of, the fetus/embryo/? I'm not ssure how you reach this conclusion, given that you've admitted that your are ignorant (as am I and the rest of us) on the most important fact. Let me ask you this. Would your mind change if science could tell us with 90% certainty that the fetus was a human being? With a 100% certainty?

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bottom line --- the criminal law should not be used to combat social problems that fewer than 90% of the people agree is a problem. Until nearly everyone agrees a fetus is human, it shouldn't be called murder.

Characterizing abortion as a "social problem" slants the issue beyond argument. But again, I think that characterization is wholly-dependent on the scientific question.

And speaking of that scientific question, I'm not sure exactly how that argument goes for the left. Do they think that at some point during the developmental process, the non-human magically becomes human?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I just read on the BBC site that Médecins Sans Frontières is pulling out of Afghanistan because of poor security.

Wonderful. What a success story that has been.

I've always sort of liked these people, and I certainly wish them no harm. Still, these tidbits were interesting, to say the least.

"MSF, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999, has been working in Afghanistan for 24 years — through a decade of Soviet occupation, a brutal civil war and the rise and fall of the repressive Taliban. A French staffer was killed in 1990, but they have never withdrawn until now. "

So the premise isn't just that they help others. The premise is that they help others when its safe?

and then there is this from the same Chicago Tribune article

>>The aid group also called on the U.S. military to halt its expanding use of humanitarian work to win over skeptical Afghans.


U.S. and NATO (news - web sites) troops are running a string of so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams across the country, setting up clinics, digging wells and doing other work normally carried out by civilians.

...

Blurring the distinction "puts all aid workers in danger," MSF secretary-general Marine Buissonniere said. <<

Mmmm, hmmm.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Not Me

The broadest patents in this space are owned by the University of Wisconsin which has licensed them to US corporations. Any subsequent patents that are issued will be dominated by the UofWi's patents.

Patents? Patents?!?!

If only patentgreedy was here to opine on patents. That mutherfucker is a patentguru.

I miss him.

[sniff]

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Do you feel it is horrifying to have your head crushed with a forceps or to be chopped up with a scalpel? That is what happens in 3rd trimester partial birth executions. Do you want to live in a world where that occurs?

The laws would criminalize the act of performing the abortion, not getting the abortion. It is the doctor who commits the crime if abortion is illegal.

I just wanted to see these two paragraphs together.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Mmmm, hmmm.

Exactly. This is such a political move it is ridiculous. DWB's go to unsafe areas all the time and their people have been killed before and they haven't pull out. They just want to make a political statement that they want us out of Afghanistan.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


And speaking of that scientific question, I'm not sure exactly how that argument goes for the left. Do they think that at some point during the developmental process, the non-human magically becomes human?

What is the scientific question?

It's a philosophical/moral/religious question as to whether (or at what point) a fetus she be afforded the generally assumed human right to live, particularly in light of the inherent conflict of any such rights with the mother's right of self-determination. Where does science enter the equation, other than identifying possible relevant times subsequent to conception which might provide some philosophical guidance?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the scientific question?

It's a philosophical/moral/religious question as to whether (or at what point) a fetus she be afforded the generally assumed human right to live, particularly in light of the inherent conflict of any such rights with the mother's right of self-determination. Where does science enter the equation, other than identifying possible relevant times subsequent to conception which might provide some philosophical guidance?

It is really a legal question that has to do with balancing the state's compelling interest in unborn life with a mother's right to control her own body. At least that is what the USSC said in RvW.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I am pro-choice

I don't want to live in a world in which even one wrongly or irresponsibly conceived soul of one of G-d's children is put to death in the name of feministic immoral equivalency.

MURDERER!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This type of baseless emotional argument is way beneath you.

Baseless my ass. My neighbor died from Alzheimer's this week. I know that nothing that Bush has done re stem-cell research would have made a difference to her. But don't go throwing around the slogan "pro life" without thinking about the lives on the other side of the equation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Everyone dies anyway. Therefore, the government may as well execute everyone serving life in prison without parole."

I'm seeing a difference between a frozen embryo and a prisoner with a life sentence.