Why the Democrats lost and how the board provides an example

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its actually better, if you think about it, if you're a fundie - you really do believe abortion is murder and thus it is a legal imperative to ban it. Assuming you accept their premises, which are arbitrary declarations from the pulpit, their argument itself is internally consistent. Murder is wrong and must be banned by the State. Abortion is murder. Thus abortion is wrong and must be banned by the State.

If you just think a fetus is a lump of tissue and want to FORCE women to carry that child to term because you believe in "personal responsibility", than you're just a statist of disturbingly paternalistic overtones.

Of course I doubt most people who say their justification is secular really believe what I just wrote down. More likely they think that the personal responsibility in this case is so important because they DO believe that an early-term fetus is a human person, which can only be justified with 20th century declarations from the pulpit, which goes right back to the beginning and reinforces what Mike called it: religious anti-abortionism in a clown suit.

[McC]

McC you didn't really call bullshit on Mr. Wong as you don't seem to support a whole hearted ban, you more or less seem to be philosophically against the idea of abortion as a get out of jail free card for woman who (sorry to all the ladies for this) can't keep their legs shut.

Yeah, that's more or less the case. If you want to get picky, I'm against the idea of abortion as a get-out-of-jail free card and as a denial of potential life to seek out that potential (within the first and maybe second trimesters, I can't really honestly say I feel it's murder, but it is denying the ability of a potential sentient organism to have a life). I also don't think sex and children should be so frivolous. Nothing religious about it (for the reasons cited above).

The reason I called bullshit, though, is that Mike seemed to incidate that the only reasons to be against abortion were religious (or religious disguised) in nature, and that is flat-out false.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Perhaps; all the rest, then, are the yappings of paternalist statists who want a nanny state with amazingly broad powers to restrict and grant rights on the basis of how it thinks it's citizens should be conducting their personal lives.

Wow, that's so much better.

[McC]

Of course I doubt most people who say their justification is secular really believe what I just wrote down. More likely they think that the personal responsibility in this case is so important because they DO believe that an early-term fetus is a human person, which can only be justified with 20th century declarations from the pulpit, which goes right back to the beginning and reinforces what Mike called it: religious anti-abortionism in a clown suit.

See, but that's a load of crap. If you're going to sit there and say that any reason that opposes abortion in a moral light is religious, only disguised, because it happens to be/coincide with the view of the religious people as well, then you can justify all sorts of ridiculous correlations. I don't think an early-term fetus is a human person, but that early-term fetus will undeniably become one. As I said, it's not murder, but it's a repression of potential life which strikes me as unjust.

Do I think this way because God compels me to? No. God doesn't compel shit But if I were to find out that my girlfriend were pregnant, I'd want to see that baby live, because it's my child that the woman I love and I are responsible for creating.

[McC]

Perhaps; all the rest, then, are the yappings of paternalist statists who want a nanny state with amazingly broad powers to restrict and grant rights on the basis of how it thinks it's citizens should be conducting their personal lives.

Um...not quite. I'm not saying "kick abortion out, do nothing else." I'm saying "kick abortion out, promote and increase use of contraception." Unless you're a retard, condoms are pretty much perfect. I know the statistic is like 94% or something, but that's only because it accounts for condom breakage and improper use. You use it right and stop if it breaks, and you're fine. Add universal(?) birth control on top of that and you get an almost totally impregnable birth control system without the need for abortion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

See, but that's a load of crap. If you're going to sit there and say that any reason that opposes abortion in a moral light is religious, only disguised, because it happens to be/coincide with the view of the religious people as well, then you can justify all sorts of ridiculous correlations. I don't think an early-term fetus is a human person, but that early-term fetus will undeniably become one. As I said, it's not murder, but it's a repression of potential life which strikes me as unjust.

Well I found it hard to believe, if it was not murder, how anyone on this board would find it worthy to enscribe law on the basis of enforcing "individual responsibility."

Like I said, that's ok, it just makes you, in my opinion, a creepy advocate of paternalist government. I don't really give a shit about your personal tastes in behavior, except I know I don't want that to be legal authority.

Do I think this way because God compels me to? No. God doesn't compel shit But if I were to find out that my girlfriend were pregnant, I'd want to see that baby live, because it's my child that the woman I love and I are responsible for creating.

Yeah, and your solution for all the women who fucked up because they're young and uneducated (they will always exist) or because something just went wrong and they aren't ready to bare the burden of raising a human being, etc. is "fuck 'em, that's life." And you want the State to enforce that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Perhaps; all the rest, then, are the yappings of paternalist statists who want a nanny state with amazingly broad powers to restrict and grant rights on the basis of how it thinks it's citizens should be conducting their personal lives.

Um...not quite. I'm not saying "kick abortion out, do nothing else." I'm saying "kick abortion out, promote and increase use of contraception." Unless you're a retard, condoms are pretty much perfect. I know the statistic is like 94% or something, but that's only because it accounts for condom breakage and improper use. You use it right and stop if it breaks, and you're fine. Add universal(?) birth control on top of that and you get an almost totally impregnable birth control system without the need for abortion.

Yeah, and for those few people where it slips or breaks or otherwise doesn't work out, and they either do not want or are not ready or equipped to raise a child, you're solution is "fuck 'em, its life." And you'll have Uncle Sam enforce this. That's exactly what you're saying, you just do not like it in that language.

[The Original Nex]

That's the problem isn't it? And I agree that it shouldn't be used as a convinient way for 15 year olds to get out of a pregnancy, but it certainly shouldn't be banned outright as many Right-wing Conservatives call for.

Oh, you're certainly correct on that point. However, last time I checked, Bush was proposing a ban that left open the possibility of abortions for rape/incest/medical danger. So at least he hasn't gone all the way off the deep end...unless he changed his stance.

Well in that case than Bush and Kerry were in complete agreement over abortion, for all that ruckuss Bush said in the 2nd Debate

[McC]

Yeah, and for those few people where it slips or breaks or otherwise doesn't work out, and they either do not want or are not ready or equipped to raise a child, you're solution is "fuck 'em, its life." And you'll have Uncle Sam enforce this. That's exactly what you're saying, you just do not like it in that language.

If you want to phrase it that way, fair enough. As I said earlier, in my opinion having sex is more than recreation -- it's a tactic acceptance of the responsibility of possible outcomes from that intercourse. I don't know how you get paternalistic out of that, though...why does it have to do with being male-dominated to expect both people in a relationship to bear the responsibility of their decisions? Granted, the woman has to actually bear the child, but I also think both parents should be legally obligated to provide at least financial support to the child as well.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If you want to phrase it that way, fair enough. As I said earlier, in my opinion having sex is more than recreation -- it's a tactic acceptance of the responsibility of possible outcomes from that intercourse. I don't know how you get paternalistic out of that, though...why does it have to do with being male-dominated to expect both people in a relationship to bear the responsibility of their decisions?

Paternalistic government, is having a government which acts as a father to its citizens, i.e., in the habit of making moral and social dictates over you. You are a fan of this concept apparently. Its one thing to encourage certain behaviors by government subsidy. Its another to send the police after you for doing something the State does not approve of.

And I hope you enjoy the resurgance of alley abortions.

Granted, the woman has to actually bear the child,

Then both sides are not bearing equal burdens, eh?

but I also think both parents should be legally obligated to provide at least financial support to the child as well.

And if neither have jobs? If they are teenagers? If the mom is psychologically unstable? &c.?

Oh yeah, I know the answer: fuck 'em.

[The Cleric]

IP, can you honestly say that people who have sex do not know the possible consequences of it? That they DON'T KNOW that there is a chance of pregnancy? That they believe condoms and/or birth control to be 100% effective, and if they're used there is no chance at all of conception?

[McC]

Paternalistic government, is having a government which acts as a father to its citizens, i.e., in the habit of making moral and social dictates over you. You are a fan of this concept apparently. Its one thing to encourage certain behaviors by government subsidy. Its another to send the police after you for doing something the State does not approve of.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood. In any case, you're strawman-ing, though your strawman has some merit. Illegalization of abortions and getting abortions and whatever is going to likely create more problems than it'll solve. Making them much more difficult to get/provide (withdrawing federal funding to institutions offering them, for instance), however, is probably the right route to go. Similarly, subsidizing condom companies and pharmaceutical companies that manufacture birth control and also providing funds for distribution and availability are also probably the correct paths to pursue.

Then both sides are not bearing equal burdens, eh?

I'm not getting into this argument again. I laid down my reasons for thinking the situation as equal burden in the past and felt they spoke for themselves.

And if neither have jobs? If they are teenagers? If the mom is psychologically unstable?

Then one of them gets a job. Again, I'll use myself as an example. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, I stop school and go to work. It's that simple. If they're teenagers, then they had better hope they'll have family support (and they ought to -- another thing that needs to be fixed *sigh*). If the mom is psychologically unstable, then you have a recipe for an adoption situation once the child is born.

Oh yeah, I know the answer: fuck 'em.

Gee, doesn't look like I said that...

[Illuminatus Primus]

IP, can you honestly say that people who have sex do not know the possible consequences of it?

For one, there are people who literally think condoms are useless, so they don't use them and think the "pull-out" or "rhythm" methods are effective. In my personal experience, you know who was responsible for this particular turd? The Roman Catholic Church and its pro-abstinence and anti-contraceptive bullshit. Specifically, being told that a condom was like "holding a tissue over a faucet on full-blast." So yeah, there are millions of kids getting astounding disinformation which is putting them at high risk to pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. And guess what, genius? Kids are always going to have sex. Young people are always going to have sex. Most people are always going to have premarital sex.

That they DON'T KNOW that there is a chance of pregnancy? That they believe condoms and/or birth control to be 100% effective, and if they're used there is no chance at all of conception?

On the other hand, some people honestly believe that too, in addition to the polar opposite above. Generally this isn't helped by an Administration and religious right advocating abstinence-only education and immature, infantile attitudes toward sexuality in this country.

[McC]

For one, there are people who literally think condoms are useless, so they don't use them and think the "pull-out" or "rhythm" methods are effective. In my personal experience, you know who was responsible for this particular turd? The Roman Catholic Church and its pro-abstinence and anti-contraceptive bullshit. Specifically, being told that a condom was like "holding a tissue over a faucet on full-blast." So yeah, there are millions of kids getting astounding disinformation which is putting them at high risk to pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. And guess what, genius? Kids are always going to have sex. Young people are always going to have sex. Most people are always going to have premarital sex.

On the other hand, some people honestly believe that too, in addition to the polar opposite above. Generally this isn't helped by an Administration and religious right advocating abstinence-only education and immature, infantile attitudes toward sexuality in this country.

Precisely my point, too. Education about this shit and the availability of it needs to be inflated enormously. Putting it dichotomously, Churches can choose to be against abortion or against sex, not both The latter is ridiculous, since as you say people are going to have sex. Period. The former makes plenty of sense so long as the latter is not in effect and in fact "intelligent" sex is the goal, rather than the idiotic notion that abstinence is even remotely realistic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Illegalization of abortions and getting abortions and whatever is going to likely create more problems than it'll solve. Making them much more difficult to get/provide (withdrawing federal funding to institutions offering them, for instance), however, is probably the right route to go.

Which will create the same problem with the poor as banning. You know what, I really would rather (quite cynically) these idiot poor girls in the inner city kill their 2-month old fetus than trying to raise it, failing utterly, having the state pay for its (poor) education and nourishment, and then have it grows up to quite probably contribute to our social problems because most criminals and degenerates had fucked childhoods. Surprise!

I'm not getting into this argument again. I laid down my reasons for thinking the situation as equal burden in the past and felt they spoke for themselves.

You're full of shit. I'm not going and looking for your arguments for your benefit. Either back this shit up or its an implicit concession.

And what're you going to do if the guy bails? Arrest him? Throw him in jail? Wow, you've just provided a father and money for that single mom and her kid, let me tell you.

Then one of them gets a job. Again, I'll use myself as an example. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, I stop school and go to work. It's that simple.

How is this different than right-wing shill shrieking about poor people, homeless people, &c. "Y'know, why do we need any welfare? They can get off their lazy ass and get a job."

Try legislating in the real world, dumbass. Of course your solution for if none of these things are done is: fuck the kid. Which is what the American social services for orphans and abused children amounts to, especially in this fucked up state.

If they're teenagers, then they had better hope they'll have family support (and they ought to -- another thing that needs to be fixed *sigh*).

Oh, they ought to. Well in that case...

If the mom is psychologically unstable, then you have a recipe for an adoption situation once the child is born.

Which the state will fund and organize? And how are you going to find this out, exactly? Force every pregnant woman to take psychological evaluations? I'd rather dysfunctional people just abort their kid early. What are you going to do if they refuse? Throw them in prison?

Gee, doesn't look like I said that...

No, no, no, you didn't say that. You said, "if I have an ideal world this this and this would work." Your "proposal" is about as useful as Marxist economic theory.

In the world I live in, the practical result, and thus intrinsic meaning is pretty succinct: fuck 'em.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Precisely my point, too. Education about this shit and the availability of it needs to be inflated enormously. Putting it dichotomously, Churches can choose to be against abortion or against sex, not both

Ah, so your UberGovernment will tell the Roman Catholic Church what its social policies will be? Gee, why didn't I think of this?

Now we're violating freedom of religion to boot.

The latter is ridiculous, since as you say people are going to have sex. Period. The former makes plenty of sense so long as the latter is not in effect and in fact "intelligent" sex is the goal, rather than the idiotic notion that abstinence is even remotely realistic.

But a standing refutation to handwaving that attitude and it's existance away is sitting its pompous Texan ass for a second term in the Oval Office.

[McC]

I'm going to respond in lump, since this is turning in to a point-by-point policy debate, which it's not. My overall point with my "alternative" is that it's just that: an alternative to abortion. You can't kick abortion and have nothing replace it. It's as bad as anything else. There are a lot of bases to cover with it, and particularly in instances of morality, Occam's razor needs to leave its blade at the door: the simplest solution isn't necessarily the best one.

My stance on abortion works in my life, for me. I respect other people's right to have their own view of it too, and don't ostracize them for it, but make it clear where I disagree with them and do attempt to explain my stance in the hope that they'll see some merit in it. My stance is that if someone gets pregnant by me, then that child will be born and cared for to the absolute best of our ability. Period. Abortion is not an option in my relationships, excepting rape or medical danger.

I feel as though this is not a hard policy to work with, and as a result it's a policy I'm comfortable proposing on a national level, with acknowledgement that revision and exceptions need to be created in order to apply to everyone rather than just people in my economic bracket.

That clear enough for you?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm going to respond in lump, since this is turning in to a point-by-point policy debate, which it's not. My overall point with my "alternative" is that it's just that: an alternative to abortion. You can't kick abortion and have nothing replace it. It's as bad as anything else. There are a lot of bases to cover with it, and particularly in instances of morality, Occam's razor needs to leave its blade at the door: the simplest solution isn't necessarily the best one.

Look, you're the one who suggested cutting off abortion while encouraging alternatives. I support encouraging alternatives, but you're going to flush people down the toilet by shutting the door on abortions. And why will you do that? Because you want how you run your life enforced by the State.

My stance on abortion works in my life, for me. I respect other people's right to have their own view of it too, and don't ostracize them for it, but make it clear where I disagree with them and do attempt to explain my stance in the hope that they'll see some merit in it. My stance is that if someone gets pregnant by me, then that child will be born and cared for to the absolute best of our ability. Period. Abortion is not an option in my relationships, excepting rape or medical danger.

Good for you. So the police should start kicking down doors and making sure everyone follows McC, the Dear Leader's Moral Policies?

I feel as though this is not a hard policy to work with, and as a result it's a policy I'm comfortable proposing on a national level, with acknowledgement that revision and exceptions need to be created in order to apply to everyone rather than just people in my economic bracket.

That clear enough for you?

In other words, you're comfortable fucking people over for not following your personal moral codes. Like I said in the beginning, you're a statist of disturbingly paternalist overtones.

[McC]

Look, you're the one who suggested cutting off abortion while encouraging alternatives. I support encouraging alternatives, but you're going to flush people down the toilet by shutting the door on abortions. And why will you do that? Because you want how you run your life enforced by the State.

Severely curtailing, not cutting off. Withdrawling federal funding, mostly. I don't think taxpayer dollars should go towards supporting something most people don't want to support.

Good for you. So the police should start kicking down doors and making sure everyone follows McC, the Dear Leader's Moral Policies?

Strawman. I have not once discussed legal rammifications of abortions. My stance, again, is "no state support." If a private institution wants to fund and charge for abortions all by itself, so be it.

In other words, you're comfortable fucking people over for not following your personal moral codes. Like I said in the beginning, you're a statist of disturbingly paternalist overtones.

False. I'm saying that I feel these are fairly common moral codes that a lot of people could easily adhere to. I don't think most people are capable of adhering to the moral code I have created for and adhere to myself. But this seems easy and common enough to apply to most people. Again, you're making this comment from a false assumption of my stance, but whatever.

[Slartibartfast]

If you just think a fetus is a lump of tissue and want to FORCE women to carry that child to term because you believe in "personal responsibility", than you're just a statist of disturbingly paternalistic overtones.

It's kinda if the government made illegal to return merchandise to a store, not because it hurts the store, but because they want to make sure you suffer for your mistake.