Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

MWoO

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
1,604
Abortion has to be framed as a women's medical rights issue because that is how Supreme Court decision frames it. Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, it is about the states ability to legislate against a person's liberty v. the states interest in protecting human life. It was later interpreted to consider viability.

Essentially as long as a fetus requires it's mother's body to live, the mother's right to self supersedes that of the fetus. It ties directly to the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment, the same amendment that defined a citizen under the law as having to be born here. Born being a key word as unborn children are not citizens and thus have no rights under the law. Truth is, Roe v. Wade protects everyone against state action that looks to decrease personal liberty and choice. 14th amendment is a heck of a thing.

Interestingly, republicans, who do not want personal freedoms taken away by big government, should theoretically agree with the decision, even if they do not agree with abortion morally. Democrats, who are currently more concerned with the government protecting the helpless, should disagree with the decision because they tend to want more governmental power, including laws against free speech, since they feel no one can help themselves anymore.

As for a morally legal argument for abortion, that's a whole other ball of wax. First you need to define life, which for arguments sake lets say life begin at conception. Then you have the argument that life is sacred and must be protected. Well, "life" in and of itself is not really the issue, otherwise we would also want laws against eating meet, hunting, and to a greater extent even laws against eating plant life. So, the actual question is of human life.

Well, now we need to define what makes someone a human. Some argue that simply having human DNA means you are a human. From a species point of view this is true. But if that is the case, then why are we allowed to disconnect brain dead humans from life support? Is that not murder? If you say it is, then logic follows abortion is also murder and the discussion is over. If you think we have the right to disconnect brain dead humans from life support, then we can keep going.

Legally, it is not murder to take a person off of life support. We allow family members or state appointed social workers to make that call. Sentient human life now becomes our new cut off for murder. It is wrong to kill a fully functioning human, but it's ok to take a brain dead human off of life support. I submit that a fetus, up until at minimum week 12, is incapable of sentience. Therefore, abortion should be legal, until that point. I do not make room for potentiality as it is vague and ambiguous. This is also why I do not agree with the viability condition as it changes over time and geographic location.

Personally, I think abortion should be a last resort. Even those people who are "pro-choice" (which is also a disingenuous term, since I think everyone is "pro-choice") have a hard time coming to terms with having an abortion. It's an emotionally damaging thing to go through. I still think the government should not legislate against it, up to a point.

Edit: Sorry for the short essay, but I never see anyone frame the topic for what it really is about.
 

CensoredAlso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,292
Edit: Sorry for the short essay, but I never see anyone frame the topic for what it really is about.
You made some very intriguing points here. I'll be able to comment more later. These debates are never not demoralizing for me, heh.
 

fuzzygobo

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
5,596
Reaction score
5,072
I seriously hate politics, lol.

Yesterday, I was, again, all ready to vote Democrat. They made a good point about the Republicans potentially taking away medical benefits people need.

But then, of course, a Democrat male had to condescendingly explain to me why abortion was so kind and merciful towards special needs children. Don't get me wrong, the conversation started out promising, like we actually might make some progress. But no, he had to panic over the very IDEA of anyone challenging abortion EVER. And smugly walk away bragging about how "proud" he was of his "polite discourse."

Screw you. Forever. I'm staying home.
Back in my college days I would've agreed with this guy. Abortion was just as big an issue back then as it is now. My attitude was it's better not to bring a life into this miserable world. One less mouth to feed.

30 years later, I can't support abortion in good conscience. My view now is the moral equivalent of murder. I know there is sometimes a moral dilemma for the woman. But the baby has no say in the matter. Putting the baby up for adoption is more humane than killing it. But using abortion as a form of birth control is irresponsible and I would never support a woman for making poor decisions like that.

Some of you younger folks might think the views you have now will never change. That's not necessarily true. The older you get, the more experience in your life, views can change.
 

MWoO

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
1,604
Back in my college days I would've agreed with this guy. Abortion was just as big an issue back then as it is now. My attitude was it's better not to bring a life into this miserable world. One less mouth to feed.

30 years later, I can't support abortion in good conscience. My view now is the moral equivalent of murder. I know there is sometimes a moral dilemma for the woman. But the baby has no say in the matter. Putting the baby up for adoption is more humane than killing it. But using abortion as a form of birth control is irresponsible and I would never support a woman for making poor decisions like that.

Some of you younger folks might think the views you have now will never change. That's not necessarily true. The older you get, the more experience in your life, views can change.
I whole heartedly agree that you should have the right not to participate in abortion. I also agree that there are more humane options, such as adoption. I do not think abortion should ever be a means of birth control, but that's me. I support people making responsible decisions all day long. We do not, however, deny smokers treatment for cancer because they made a bad decision. We do not deny people the ability to get divorced because they decided to marry the wrong person. We don't even legally deny people the ability to return a product because they made a bad decision to purchase something they can't afford. The reality is we allow people to make up for their bad decisions all the time as a society.

The real issue is about personal liberty and whether the government has a right to legislate against personal freedom and choice. That then brings the question of whose rights matter more. I believe the original decision allowed abortion up to the moment of birth because of how the 14th amendment defined citizenship, as non-citizens didn't have legal rights. In 1992 viability became an issue which is why there is now a time limit on when an abortion can take place.

As for whose rights matter more, now we have the question of should be forced to donate organs. If a child, whom is of no relation to you, will die unless you donate a kidney, should you be legally forced to donate your kidney? Does your right to not be forced into surgery supersede the child's right to live? I believe the moral thing is to donate the kidney, but it would be legally unconstitutional to force me to donate my kidney.

I support birth control. I support people who decide not to have sex before marriage. I support the fact that anyone can leave a child at a police station or fire station, no questions asked, in order to prevent an abortion from taking place. I support education on how to prevent pregnancy and how to have safe sex and what you can do in the alternative to abortion. I also support the notion that the government should not legislate medical matters.
 

Old Thunder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
3,422
Great posts @MWoO ! Lots of great points in there, and I think I agree with the most of it.

Here's Carlin on the subject, in case you wanted that:


"Let's get back to this abortion ****. Is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come if it's a miscarriage, they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come they say, "Well, we have two children and one on the way," instead of saying, "We have three children"?

People say, "Life began at conception." I say, "Life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process." Continuous, just keeps rollin' along. Rollin', and rollin', and rollin' along. I say, listen, you can go back further than that. What about the carbon atoms, huh? Human life could not exist without carbon, so is it just possible that maybe we shouldn't be burning all this coal? Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments.

See, the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization: when the sperm fertilizes the egg... which is usually a few minutes after the man says, "Jee, honey, I was gonna pull out, but the phone rang and it startled me." - Fertilization!

But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful 'few days' she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer!

Consistency! Consistency! Hey, if they really wanna get serious, what about all the sperm that are wasted when the state executes a condemned man and one of these pro-life guys cums in his pants, huh? Here's a guy standin' over there with his jocky shorts full of little Vinnies and Debbies, and nobody's sayin' a word to the guy! Not every ejaculation deserves a name!

Now, speaking of consistency, Catholics - which I was until I reached the age of reason - Catholics and other Christians are against abortions... and they're against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?? Leave these ******* people alone, for Christ sakes! Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion, and the Catholics and Christians are just tossin' them aside! You'd think they'd make natural allies!

Go look for consistency in religion. And speakin' of my friends the Catholics, when John Cardinal O'Connor of New York, and some of these other cardinals and bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains, and they've raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I'll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion. I'm sure it'll be interesting. I'd like to... but, but... in the meantime, what they oughtta be doin' is to tell these priests who took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the altar boys. Keep your hands to yourself, Father! Y'know? When Jesus said, "Suffer the little children come unto me," that's not what he was talking about!

So y'know what I tell these anti-abortion people? I say, "Hey - hey, if you think a fetus is more important than a woman, try getting a fetus to wash the **** stains out of your underwear, for no pay and no pension!" I tell 'em, think of abortion as term limits. That's all it is. Biological term limits.

But y'know the longer you listen to this abortion debate, they more you hear this phrase, 'Sanctity of Life'. You've heard that. 'Sanctity of Life'. You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a buncha ****.

Well I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death! Has been for thousands of years! Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians - all takin' turns killin' each other 'cause God told 'em it was a good idea. The Sword of God, the Blood of the Lamb, Vengeance Is Mine - millions of dead motherfuckers. Millions of dead motherfuckers, all because they gave the wrong answer to the God Question:

"You believe in God?"
"No."
*BOOM* Dead!

"You believe in God?"
"Yes."
"You believe in my god?"
"No."
*BOOM* Dead!

My god has a bigger dick than your god!

Thousands of years. Thousands of years, and all the best wars, too - the bloodiest, most brutal wars fought, all based on religious hatred... which is fine with me. Hey, any time a bunch of holy people wanna kill each other, I'm a happy guy!

But don't be givin' me all this **** about the Sanctity of Life. Even if there were such a thing, I don't think you should be blaming it all on God. Y'know where the Sanctity of Life came from? We made it up! Y'know why? 'Cause we're alive! Self-interest! Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don't see Abbott and Costello runnin' around talkin' about this ****, do ya? We're not hearin' a whole lot from Mussolini on the subject. What's the latest from JFK?

Not a ******* thing. 'Cause JFK, Mussolini, and Abbott and Costello are ******* dead. They're ******* dead. And dead people give less than a **** about the Sanctity of Life. Only living people care about it, so the whole thing grows from a completely biased point of view. It's a self-serving, man-made ******** story. It's one of these things we'll tell ourselves so we feel noble. "Life is sacred." Makes ya feel noble. Well lemme ask you this: If everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm havin' trouble with that.

'Cause even with the stuff we preach about the Sanctity of Life, we don't practice it. We don't practice it! Look at what we kill: Mosquitoes and flies - cuz they're pests. Lions and tigers - 'cuz it's fun! Chickens and pigs - 'cuz we're hungry. Pheasants and quails - 'cuz it's fun... and we're hungry. And people! We kill people... 'cuz they're pests! And it's fun!

And you might notice somethin' else - the Sanctity of Life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says, "Save The Tumors". Or, "I Break For Advanced Melanoma". Nah, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. coli bacteria, the crabs - nothin' sacred about those things.

So at best, the Sanctity of Life thing is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? Now we got it? We made the whole ******* thing up!
"

This is one of the Carlin bits I've had a lot of disagreements with personally, but I think it's also a very interesting one and also quite logical. If you tried, though, it's easy to poke a few whole threw his thing as much as it's easy for him to poke wholes in others'.

(And yes, it took me over an hour to transpose the ******* thing so read it!!)
 

MWoO

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
1,604
Yeah, when I got my driver's license, I was pressured into listing myself as an organ donor.
Firstly, you completely ignored the actual argument I proposed, especially the key word of "forced". I won't assume why you took that specific example, but will counter it anyway.

Secondly, you are comparing someone persuading you to make a choice vs. government enforced organ donation. I hope you realize the two are not the same. I won't even get into the fact that the organ donation you are speaking about is done after you have died and the mere fact you have an option gives even more credibility to my position than it does yours.

Thirdly, your point also supports the idea that society generally makes for the allowance of the correction of mistakes. If you really feel as if you were forced into organ donation, you can reverse it. I believe most, if not all, states have a form you can fill out to remove yourself from the program. So not only are you not forced to sign up for the program, it has a built in remedy if you feel you made a bad choice under pressure.

Again, morally I think we should donate organs when we are dead. I also think it is immoral to force people to do so against their will. I do not think it is immoral to advocate for people to sign up for the program. If you hear an argument and are persuaded to agree, that's the whole point of freedom and free speech. You also get to disagree.

Edited: realized I had the start of a draft that had only 3 words, took it out,
 
Last edited:

ConsummateVs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
1,844
I'm sorry to be "that guy", but I still don't get how h*ll is censored on here but motherf'er isn't.
 

MWoO

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
1,604
I'm sorry to be "that guy", but I still don't get how h*ll is censored on here but motherf'er isn't.
I'm guessing it's because the filter is not set to take into consideration partial words and it was compounded into a single word as opposed to being spaced out. Personally, I'm not for censorship of any kind, but I've come to realize I should respect the private owner's of forums, websites, and services right to make their own rules as long as it's not a governmentally run service.

@ Old Thunder, thank you for your appreciation. Also, I read your entire transcript instead of watching the video. :stick_out_tongue:
 

LittleJerry92

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
17,323
Reaction score
7,657
Also, in fairness, unless you grew up in a crazy religious family, "h3ll" isn't exactly a word kids need to learn at a young age.
 
Top