|
|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Jul 5, 2024 15:14:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 6, 2024 6:01:14 GMT -6
What's that you say Chirp Chirp? Sorry I can't understand what you said from inside your echo chamber.
|
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Jul 6, 2024 8:03:39 GMT -6
Biden freezing up is, of course, nothing new to anyone with the slightest willingness to pay attention. for example at the recent Juneteenth thing shown below, we saw....wait....wait a minute. What the FUCK is that on the left?  Antonio Brown has completely lost it. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 6, 2024 10:27:14 GMT -6
What's that you say Chirp Chirp? Sorry I can't understand what you said from inside your echo chamber. Which pot is calling which kettle black? |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 6, 2024 14:45:16 GMT -6
Except I have the worst echo chamber of all time. My relationship with politics and political commentators and new sources is not unlike my relationship with BSU basketball and other BSU basketball fans: Hardly anyone ever agrees with my opinions and predictions until it's too late. There are no politicians I'm aware of that would touch my preferred plans/platform with a 10-foot pole. The statistical and factual data sources I like to browse don't echo my opinion or give any opinion at all...they just have facts and stats. It's a piss poor echo chamber, all-in-all.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 6, 2024 16:06:55 GMT -6
What statistical and factual data source gives the answer to questions of rights and duties, or right and wrong?
In the world of laws which source do we consult to resolve questions like whether the state recognize which rights exist for life in the womb and when they exist?
What factual source answers the question whether the state can create duties toward that life for a woman that outweigh other rights she might have such as life, liberty, and pursuit of her own preferences, health and happiness. Don't they count?
Granting that Roe created an imperfect practical rule how do we weigh or judge alternative rules?
What data or factual source do I consult?
That your echo chamber is very small and excludes others opinions or values may be very good, but how do you suggest we resolve the issues raised?
|
|
|
|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Jul 6, 2024 18:06:52 GMT -6
Except I have the worst echo chamber of all time. My relationship with politics and political commentators and new sources is not unlike my relationship with BSU basketball and other BSU basketball fans: Hardly anyone ever agrees with my opinions and predictions until it's too late. There are no politicians I'm aware of that would touch my preferred plans/platform with a 10-foot pole. The statistical and factual data sources I like to browse don't echo my opinion or give any opinion at all...they just have facts and stats. It's a piss poor echo chamber, all-in-all. "There are no politicians I'm aware of that would touch my preferred plans/platform with a 10-foot pole" For curiosity and engagement. What are your preferred plans/platform? |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 8:21:52 GMT -6
I don't want to write a lengthy political screed, nor do I think anyone really wants to read it. Short version: my views are centered around taking responsibility for one's own actions and decisions and not expecting the government to transfer other people's money to you to make up for your own mistakes, and not scapegoating other people/groups for your (or your group's) bad decisions and habits. In general, coercive government actions (including taxing) should only be used when absolutely necessary.
Sorry, but I can't help you much on abortion. As I said, it involves the deepest possible thinking on medical, scientific and philosophical matters and does not lend itself to statistical analysis, as other social issues do. I might go so far as to suggest that women could better exercise their rights over their own bodies by making more frequent use of widely available and inexpensive contraception and/or exercising better judgement over who to sleep with, as that could eliminate somewhere around (I think) 95% of abortions overnight.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 9:13:13 GMT -6
I might go so far as to suggest that women could better exercise their rights over their own bodies by making more frequent use of widely available and inexpensive contraception and/or exercising better judgement over who to sleep with, as that could eliminate somewhere around (I think) 95% of abortions overnight. OK, let's ignore the difficult issue about rights of life in the womb, and whether they are superior to the life of the woman, and when that is the case. And moreover, who should decide this question. Ignore all that.
I don't know about 95%, but in fact most abortions are not based on rape, incest or medical necessity. Nonetheless, the legal prohibitions against abortion do extend to those situations as well as those the cases that are result of "poor judgment" by the woman (and a man). We should at least change that...
Whether or not it was just "poor judgment" or not and whether the "poor judgment" involved is unilateral or not you are apparently willing to say the woman bears the entire responsibility. Including avoidable health and economic consequences, resulting in state enforced servitude during and after the pregnancy without using, as is often the case, inexpensive abortion alternatives.
The question arises whether the state in this case should prohibit taking action to prevent the resulting problem. Perhaps the cost benefit analysis of "being responsible" is preferable, but having exercised "poor judgment" in the past are you prohibited from now exercising your judgment to avoid consequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 9:27:16 GMT -6
I don't want to write a lengthy political screed, nor do I think anyone really wants to read it. Short version: my views are centered around taking responsibility for one's own actions and decisions and not expecting the government to transfer other people's money to you to make up for your own mistakes, and not scapegoating other people/groups for your (or your group's) bad decisions and habits. In general, coercive government actions (including taxing) should only be used when absolutely necessary. Personal responsibility is a laudable principle. Look at that as a general principle. Again, we'll ignore the difficult philosophical issues as you prefer to do.
If your bad decisions about drink, or food., or driving recklessly or other unwise behavior lead to a need for medical care, would you support the state preventing you having the choice to seek medical care about a resulting condition? It might have been "better" had you acted "more responsibly," after all. Maybe.
That seems a high rate of taxation to incentivize "better judgment." |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 9:32:41 GMT -6
That image was oversimplification but not entirely unfair. The Project 2025 document does relate to choice and abortion, and many would have endorsed the statements as it was presented, and many would be appalled by it. Not sure that makes it an echo chamber statement, or which echo chamber it came from. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 9:44:16 GMT -6
"If your bad decisions about drink, or food., or driving recklessly or other unwise behavior lead to a need for medical care, would you support the state preventing you having the choice to seek medical care about a resulting condition? It might have been "better" had you acted "more responsibly," after all. Maybe."
Uh. Doesn't this example leave out something rather important involved in the abortion debate?
This is an excellent example of why I don't generally care to discuss abortion with people. They've often dug themselves into a partisan political position and are absolutely incapable of thinking about it in a reasonable way anymore. So go debate abortion with someone else. There is no lack of willing people on the other side, and many of them will do it just as stupidly as you. Or else, just go fuck yourself. I don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jul 7, 2024 11:54:26 GMT -6
In general, coercive government actions (including taxing) should only be used when absolutely necessary. It would seem to me that denying abortion or laws that punish the woman or anyone who assists her in getting an abortion would be a "coercive government action." So it would seem to me that at least legally, if not morally or medically, you would support a woman's right to make as many bad decisions as she wants, get pregnant as many times as she wants and have as many abortions as she wants because the only thing that really restricts her from doing so are those pesky coercive government actions. That's very pro choice of you. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 11:58:21 GMT -6
Keeping people from killing each other would fall under the "when absolutely necessary" caveat of my statement on govt. coercive actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 13:38:01 GMT -6
Keeping people from killing each other would fall under the "when absolutely necessary" caveat of my statement on govt. coercive actions. Wait a minute, so you are adopting the position that the life in the womb is a person with legal rights if you say that.
I thought you took the position above that you had no answers on the abortion question ("Sorry, but I can't help you much on abortion."), that this was a philosophical decision. You did say, I believe, that you rely on facts and data sources, while the abortion question "involves the deepest possible thinking on medical, scientific and philosophical matters and does not lend itself to statistical analysis," as other social issues do.
You avoided that issue and suggested rather an argument based on personal responsibility for the mothers "poor judgment."
Most will agree that human life is extremely highly valued. Although most make exceptions for a number of reasons where we kill one another. For example among others to save another life, defend property, or or our own life. You can't have it both ways.
If you are going to take a position on abortion that the life in the womb is a person with full human rights to life then the questions I asked above deserve an answer.
What is the basis of the position if not factual and statistical?
Why does the state make the decision on these questions?
When does the life in the womb have rights? What rights?
Why does the life in the womb have priority over life, liberty and property of the woman?
|
|
