Abortion debate (split from bball forum)

[therealUT]

But such belief is not a choice, as you earlier asserted, right?

Then who could blame you for it? Or anyone else, for theirs?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Christian theology, doctrine, and canon try to argue that it belief and faith are choices; ergo, I blame.

I also took issue (and you took issue with my response) to the statement:

I believe because I believe.

That statement says nothing. If someone wants to state why they believe, then, IMO, a sensible statement of such would be:

I believe because the impression/phenomena/etc. is so overpowering that I cannot escape it.

The impressions formed upon my thoughts in the form of my five senses are so sensational, so overpowering, so penetrating, that I cannot escape them, no matter how hard I try; therefore, I believe in material existence.

If a Christian supplied that they get the same overwhelming, unquestionable, and inescapable sensations from the Bible, Church, etc., that pervade every last moment of their conscious existence, then I would take that as a sufficient belief.

As such, and from diaries, journals, and letters in which "saints" even express serious doubts, I do feel that most "believers" are in denial.

Statements such as the one above (I believe because I believe) only serve to more absolutely convince me of such denial.

 

[WesternKyVol]

Jtrain, I went and caught freakanomics on Netflix. The abortion bit was eye opening.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That chapter has been disproven. Read "Freedomnomics."

 

[Tenacious D]

Responses in line:

You didn't reply to the wrong one, but your asides are rather snide, and no different than the berating you are attempting to give to others over ridicule.

TD: What snide remarks? And can you link the berating part, too? Let's not get sensitive here. Its not like we're talking about God or hookers. Geez, I thought the bible-thumpers were unreasonably touchy....not you guys, too.

She absolutely did abort it, so I fail to see what you mean by "nonsensical semantics."

TD: Are you talking about an actual instance of a woman aborting a fetus which was suspected of being born with FAS? I'm asking if the woman should be criminally prosecuted for drinking while pregnant - hypothetically. Maybe I wasn't clear.

I don't see R. v W. being overturned, perhaps you would like to offer up arguments that will result in its reversal?

TD: I don't know what would overturn it, or if it even should be, but was merely quoting Dershowitz (Sp?). I stated earlier in this thread that I believe a fetus' right to live outweighs a woman's right to choose, with the caveat that its easy for me to say that as a man, never being faced with that choice. Does that shed ample light on it for you?

Rights of the citizen to be free to do to themselves as they desire. If you are attempting to turn this to abortion, you would have to argue that the fetus is:
1. a person
2. capable of making their own choice
3. acting or voicing such opinion that is not mere reaction to external stimuli

So, should any living person who fails to meet this criteria have its right to live infringed upon, as well? And, just to be transparent, really consider the answer to that as it is fraught with pitfalls.

What about the mentally handicapped? Mimes?

You demonstrate those three requirements, and I will agree that a fetus should have such equal rights.

Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Christian theology, doctrine, and canon try to argue that it belief and faith are choices; ergo, I blame.

I also took issue (and you took issue with my response) to the statement:

I believe because I believe.

That statement says nothing. If someone wants to state why they believe, then, IMO, a sensible statement of such would be:

I believe because the impression/phenomena/etc. is so overpowering that I cannot escape it.

The impressions formed upon my thoughts in the form of my five senses are so sensational, so overpowering, so penetrating, that I cannot escape them, no matter how hard I try; therefore, I believe in material existence.

If a Christian supplied that they get the same overwhelming, unquestionable, and inescapable sensations from the Bible, Church, etc., that pervade every last moment of their conscious existence, then I would take that as a sufficient belief.

As such, and from diaries, journals, and letters in which "saints" even express serious doubts, I do feel that most "believers" are in denial.

Statements such as the one above (I believe because I believe) only serve to more absolutely convince me of such denial.

There's lots here - but I'll just ask: and you think that its your task to point these things out to them?

If so, surely there are more reasonable and effective means to do so, right?

You aren't going to out-zealot Christians any more than you can out-crazy Charlie Sheen. That was my whole point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

What snide remarks? And can you link the berating part, too? Let's not get sensitive here. Its not like we're talking about God or hookers. Geez, I thought the bible-thumpers were unreasonably touchy....not you guys, too.

For starters, the above line. In addition:

Post #298
I really think you've got this all figured out, and am eager for my education to begin.

Post #303
If you aim to change their minds, you could easily do so.

Post #306
The billions of people who could be liberated if only they understood the power which you feel the mind to possess. Addicts, those living in abstract poverty, or well, anyone who isn't entirely guided by reason and logic at all time

Post #307
Oh, a quick interjection as you craft your next philosophical masterpiece

Post #315
Thanks for the definition on belief. You did read that before commenting that beliefs were not a choice, right?

Post #323
I've been busily taking notes on all of this, and when coupled with my low intelligence, might have become discombobulated.

And you guys all look the same to me. Really intelligent people, that is.

Let us just say that I doubt the sincerity of the above statements. They are neither an attempt to show humility nor meaningful to discussion. I don't mind that you state them, just pointing it out.

Are you talking about an actual instance of a woman aborting a fetus which was suspected of being born with FAS? I'm asking if the woman should be criminally prosecuted for drinking while pregnant - hypothetically. Maybe I wasn't clear.

A woman should not be criminally prosecuted for drinking while pregnant, no. And I am aware of no such instance where a woman was prosecuted for aborting a fetus that was suspected of having FAS. Which means that the action (drinking while pregnant) is not what is prosecutable, but the result (newborn with FAS) has the potential to be prosecutable.

I don't know what would overturn it, or if it even should be, but was merely quoting Dershowitz (Sp?). I stated earlier in this thread that I believe a fetus' right to live outweighs a woman's right to choose, with the caveat that its easy for me to say that as a man, never being faced with that choice. Does that shed ample light on it for you?

Works for me, yea.

So, should any living person who fails to meet this criteria have its right to live infringed upon, as well? And, just to be transparent, really consider the answer to that as it is fraught with pitfalls.

Yea. And has often been done so in many cultures and societies throughout time. Armies the world over have long idolized the Spartan society for their military prowess, combined physical strength and teamwork. Arguably created by euthanasia of smaller, percievably weaker infants. I myself would not have made that cut.

What about the mentally handicapped? Mimes?

A mime that fails to be able to act out its intent and desire is a very poor mime indeed, would you not agree? I think that sufficiently falls under category #3.

As to the mentally handicapped, they qualify as a "person" (in my view, but that is quite often argued in medical ethics).

For those incapable of making their own choice, through acting or voicing such opinion... yea.

And to put my money where my mouth is, I have a living will that states pretty much that same thing, for me. Should I enter into a state where I am incapable of #2 by way of #3, and it is legal at the time, put me down. Should I enter into a coma state, and am unresponsive with no likely chance of being removed from same state. Put me down.

Should I be placed on life support, and unresponsive. Put me down.

It is a harsh position, and not one that I would ever attempt to force on anyone. It is merely my position.

 

[milohimself]

That chapter has been disproven. Read "Freedomnomics."

I read his Yale thesis a few days ago after watching that. He calls Levitt and Donahue's studies out for being a bit skitchy, then when it's time for him to back himself up with the facts, he only points to murder instead of violent crime in general. Clearly, violent crimes in general not counting murder happen at a much higher rate than murder does. The general sense I got was that he was shifting his debate so the numbers would match what he wanted to say.

Aside from that (and I know you're going to go off about "liberal academia, blah blah blah"), I can't recall any economist who's been as widely criticized and ridiculed as John Lott.

Aside from that, his blog repeatedly pimps Fox News and his whole mantra on the deficit issue is the same, tired "Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spending!" mantra from the right, with a complete failure on citing how to bump tax revenues in the right direction.

 

[Tenacious D]

For starters, the above line. In addition:



Let us just say that I doubt the sincerity of the above statements. They are neither an attempt to show humility nor meaningful to discussion. I don't mind that you state them, just pointing it out.

A woman should not be criminally prosecuted for drinking while pregnant, no. And I am aware of no such instance where a woman was prosecuted for aborting a fetus that was suspected of having FAS. Which means that the action (drinking while pregnant) is not what is prosecutable, but the result (newborn with FAS) has the potential to be prosecutable.

Works for me, yea.

Yea. And has often been done so in many cultures and societies throughout time. Armies the world over have long idolized the Spartan society for their military prowess, combined physical strength and teamwork. Arguably created by euthanasia of smaller, percievably weaker infants. I myself would not have made that cut.

A mime that fails to be able to act out its intent and desire is a very poor mime indeed, would you not agree? I think that sufficiently falls under category #3.

As to the mentally handicapped, they qualify as a "person" (in my view, but that is quite often argued in medical ethics).

For those incapable of making their own choice, through acting or voicing such opinion... yea.

And to put my money where my mouth is, I have a living will that states pretty much that same thing, for me. Should I enter into a state where I am incapable of #2 by way of #3, and it is legal at the time, put me down. Should I enter into a coma state, and am unresponsive with no likely chance of being removed from same state. Put me down.

Should I be placed on life support, and unresponsive. Put me down.

It is a harsh position, and not one that I would ever attempt to force on anyone. It is merely my position.

Though disagreeable to my own, I respect your position.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

Though disagreeable to my own, I respect your position.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

And as always, the same to you and yours.

 

[Tenacious D]

I read his Yale thesis a few days ago after watching that. He calls Levitt and Donahue's studies out for being a bit skitchy, then when it's time for him to back himself up with the facts, he only points to murder instead of violent crime in general. Clearly, violent crimes in general not counting murder happen at a much higher rate than murder does. The general sense I got was that he was shifting his debate so the numbers would match what he wanted to say.

Aside from that (and I know you're going to go off about "liberal academia, blah blah blah"), I can't recall any economist who's been as widely criticized and ridiculed as John Lott.

Aside from that, his blog repeatedly pimps Fox News and his whole mantra on the deficit issue is the same, tired "Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spending!" mantra from the right, with a complete failure on citing how to bump tax revenues in the right direction.

I have no respect for anyone who is criticized by our academic leaders, who pimps Fox News or who wants to cut federal spending.

Unassailable logic is my guide.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kidbourbon]

I think we should legalize the "post-birth abortion".

 

[MG1968]

I think we should legalize the "post-birth abortion".

we do, it's called "cigarette smoking"

 

[utvolpj]

Aside from that, his blog repeatedly pimps Fox News and his whole mantra on the deficit issue is the same, tired "Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spending!" mantra from the right, with a complete failure on citing how to bump tax revenues in the right direction.

what is the "right direction" if meaningful spending cuts are actually made?

 

[WesternKyVol]

I read his Yale thesis a few days ago after watching that. He calls Levitt and Donahue's studies out for being a bit skitchy, then when it's time for him to back himself up with the facts, he only points to murder instead of violent crime in general. Clearly, violent crimes in general not counting murder happen at a much higher rate than murder does. The general sense I got was that he was shifting his debate so the numbers would match what he wanted to say.

Aside from that (and I know you're going to go off about "liberal academia, blah blah blah"), I can't recall any economist who's been as widely criticized and ridiculed as John Lott.

Aside from that, his blog repeatedly pimps Fox News and his whole mantra on the deficit issue is the same, tired "Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spending!" mantra from the right, with a complete failure on citing how to bump tax revenues in the right direction.

I don't know much about Lott besides the book and that one of my professor's dislikes him. I actually watch MSNBC --albeit in the morning, not Fox news. Honestly, economics is the only discipline in which a slight majority of professors self-identify as conservative. Of course, economic growth is the key. But if you look at the growth of the deficit in the last 10 years, it swamps GDP growth in even the best of periods.

I found the chapter in Freedomnomics very confusing, and at first blush I didn't follow its train of thought. But after about three reads I figured out his line of logic. It convinced me. Also, if you follow the Freakonomics argument to the extreme, there are some very racially charged results.

 

[milohimself]

what is the "right direction" if meaningful spending cuts are actually made?

Cutting spending (re-examining government spending to improve efficiency in order to cut spending might be more accurate regarding my standpoint) is part of the right direction, but all I see on tv either way are political ploys, either "those welfare recipients need to stop taking money out of MY pockets!" from the right or "Poor people need public assistance!" from the left. I rarely see anybody discussing how things will impact economy, GDP, tax revenue, etc. as a whole.

To get back on topic, I'm of the belief that outlawing abortion is legislating morality. If you believe abortion is wrong, don't get one. Some people even want to refer to it as murder, that's fine. But why should the laws who govern all be reflective of the laws of one religion? That's forcing your beliefs on others.

 

[Tenacious D]

I don't know much about Lott besides the book and that one of my professor's dislikes him. I actually watch MSNBC --albeit in the morning, not Fox news. Honestly, economics is the only discipline in which a slight majority of professors self-identify as conservative. Of course, economic growth is the key. But if you look at the growth of the deficit in the last 10 years, it swamps GDP growth in even the best of periods.

I found the chapter in Freedomnomics very confusing, and at first blush I didn't follow its train of thought. But after about three reads I figured out his line of logic. It convinced me. Also, if you follow the Freakonomics argument to the extreme, there are some very racially charged results.

I'll take a "charged" truth (racial, religious or otherwise) any day of the week over a lie or half-truth, despite whatever temporarily pleasing comfort it may provide.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Cutting spending (re-examining government spending to improve efficiency in order to cut spending might be more accurate regarding my standpoint) is part of the right direction, but all I see on tv either way are political ploys, either "those welfare recipients need to stop taking money out of MY pockets!" from the right or "Poor people need public assistance!" from the left. I rarely see anybody discussing how things will impact economy, GDP, tax revenue, etc. as a whole.

To get back on topic, I'm of the belief that outlawing abortion is legislating morality. If you believe abortion is wrong, don't get one. Some people even want to refer to it as murder, that's fine. But why should the laws who govern all be reflective of the laws of one religion? That's forcing your beliefs on others.

So we should simply let the spending continue to spiral out of control - until we improve the efficiencies of the system? Is not cutting spending both the more tangible and manageable aspect of the two, and immediately so?

Who says someone can only oppose abortion on religious grounds?

And only that legislation which fails to contain any moral aspect should be passed into law?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

So we should simply let the spending continue to spiral out of control - until we improve the efficiencies of the system? Is not cutting spending both the more tangible and manageable aspect of the two, and immediately so?

Who says someone can only oppose abortion on religious grounds?

And only that legislation which fails to contain any moral aspect should be passed into law?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Given the choice between unsustainable spending and cutting it altogether to maintain the economy, I'll take the latter.

And one doesn't have to oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, but when people do take that side it's the overwhelming reason I see as to why they do.

 

[BeecherVol]

So we should simply let the spending continue to spiral out of control - until we improve the efficiencies of the system? Is not cutting spending both the more tangible and manageable aspect of the two, and immediately so?

Who says someone can only oppose abortion on religious grounds?

And only that legislation which fails to contain any moral aspect should be passed into law?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Do you see the cases that do not involved rape, but rather consent on both parties behalf as irresponsible when abortion is used as an eraser?

 

[MG1968]

Do you see the cases that do not involved rape, but rather consent on both parties behalf as irresponsible when abortion is used as an eraser?

abortion as a form of birth control is an awful thing, but what is the remedy, force the woman to have the baby?

 

[BeecherVol]

abortion as a form of birth control is an awful thing, but what is the remedy, force the woman to have the baby?

Im trying to separate the "religious" aspect considering my stance. Thats why I asked that particular question. Most of the time the abortion discussion ends up with questions about why you force a woman who was abused into having a baby that she did not consent to.

There is not a simply remedy, I agree. I understand that having a baby that she does not want (after being irresponsible) brings in complications that can harm the kid. That is the difficult part. But I have a hard time with people that understand the repercussions and go forward knowing they have that out.

 

[Tenacious D]

Given the choice between unsustainable spending and cutting it altogether to maintain the economy, I'll take the latter.

And one doesn't have to oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, but when people do take that side it's the overwhelming reason I see as to why they do.

Isn't the latter exactly what they are trying to do now, and taht which you disagreed with earlier, even in the course of this same thread?

Aside from that, his blog repeatedly pimps Fox News and his whole mantra on the deficit issue is the same, tired "Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spending!" mantra from the right, with a complete failure on citing how to bump tax revenues in the right direction.

You're implying that this guy is somehow less-than-credible because of his "cut spending" stance - but then go on to state that as your preference, as well.

And I don't think that you answered the "bump tax revenue" question which PJ asked, either, really.

Maybe I am confused. Tell me what it is that you feel needs to be done, left alone, or simply chided before embracing it yourself, please.

And you think that your personal experiences with those who oppose abortion is representative of the entirety of everyone in that oppositional group? Or not only from a religious bent, but even that of a single religion?

It's pretty narrow-minded of you to paint everyone with such a broad brush of stereotypical assumptions, Melo.

 

[Tenacious D]

abortion as a form of birth control is an awful thing, but what is the remedy, force the woman to have the baby?

Why is that awful, again?

 

[milohimself]

Isn't the latter exactly what they are trying to do now, and taht which you disagreed with earlier, even in the course of this same thread?



You're implying that this guy is somehow less-than-credible because of his "cut spending" stance - but then go on to state that as your preference, as well.

And I don't think that you answered the "bump tax revenue" question which PJ asked, either, really.

Maybe I am confused. Tell me what it is that you feel needs to be done, left alone, or simply chided before embracing it yourself, please.

And you think that your personal experiences with those who oppose abortion is representative of the entirety of everyone in that oppositional group? Or not only from a religious bent, but even that of a single religion?

It's pretty narrow-minded of you to paint everyone with such a broad brush of stereotypical assumptions, Melo.

I am speaking specifically to what I have seen from Lott on tv, and that he ends up going off on talking points rather than meaningful discussion (which is what ends up happening the majority of the time).

Go repost this in one of the myriad tax discussions so this thread can stick to the abortion topic, we'll resume this elsewhere.

 

[MG1968]

Why is that awful, again?

how many times have you enjoyed something you were forced to do under penalty of law? The militant pro-life crowd would force unwanted pregnancies come to term and then expect these mothers (many of whom are unfit to begin with) to then take care of the child. Conservatives and republicans can't have this both ways, they can't force more and more mouths into the welfare state and then deny the welfare state funding.

Like I said before, this is an issue I wrestle with more than most and I don't believe that there will ever be a satisfactory resolution. I would like to see Roe v. Wade looked at and possibly overturned, but only, ONLY, if it were an issue that the states could handle responsibly.

 

[LawVol13]

I would like to see Roe v. Wade looked at and possibly overturned, but only, ONLY, if it were an issue that the states could handle responsibly.

I disagree with that. I don't think each state should be given the right to determine what rights they "think" the U.S. Constitution gives people. If the U.S. Supreme Court determines the right of privacy includes the right of choice, the states shouldn't be allowed to decide if they agree or disagree.