Out of curiousity, how exactly could they reverse R v W? Wouldnt it have to come up in litagation to be heard by the SCOTUS? How exactly could that happen? Someone sue someone because their right to not have an abortion was somehow taken away? Not trying to be snarky or anything, really do not know how this would work..
I am anti-abortion. Its why I will never have one......If its your thing, more power to you.
I've only ever had them for blood clots, and my sister's first was done on the outside of her belly. Learn something everyday...That's Ron Paul for you. If a woman wants an abortion, the government gets to stick a probe in her vagina and they are going to use law enforcement to see to it that it is done, despite the fact that neither the woman or her doctor think it is medically necessary.
None of his good ideas will ever get done, and all his stupid ones that will destroy the world will happen on day one.
I really don't know how to reply to this.
The logic here seems off a bit.I would think that if I wanted to end a pregnancy bad enough, I'd do what was necessary to have one. If I didn't want one bad enough to undergo a medical procedure it seems most expectant mothers go through anyway, then what?
Before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying I agree with this law. If abortion is legal, it's legal. Shouldn't be any hoops to jump through, necessarily.
Just thinking out loud...
|
The Federal government (yes, SCOTUS is part of the government) imposed a rule that violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments on the nation. They did the same thing with the national speed limit (which was a joke), threatening states with withholding "Federal" highway money paid for by people who pay Federal income tax (i.e. people in the state) if they didn't change the drinking age to 21, and literally thousands of other bad laws and rulings (Kelo V New London stands out, as does the second half - Breyer's worst moment as a Justice - of Booker v U.S.).
So, you know, maybe they should make that law about STDs. Why not? You seem to be a fan of laws that undermine the Constitution. Why should they all be laws you agree with?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, biologically, at conception, you have a developing human being. The abortion debate can discuss all of the moral and philosophical points they want, but the debate is pretty much retarded when idiots start tossing around "it's just a blastoid" and crap like that. Biology is biology.
The biology doesn't help you directly. This is an ought/value question: What do you consider to be the basis for human rights? Once you've decided if that's a unique genetic human code, brain function, or the ability to survive on their own etc THEN biology can help you decide.
More often than not people will get the answer they want first and then backtrack it to the underlying logic that gives the answer they want.
|
|
Well, biologically, at conception, you have a developing human being. The abortion debate can discuss all of the moral and philosophical points they want, but the debate is pretty much retarded when idiots start tossing around "it's just a blastoid" and crap like that. Biology is biology.The biology doesn't help you directly. This is an ought/value question: What do you consider to be the basis for human rights? Once you've decided if that's a unique genetic human code, brain function, or the ability to survive on their own etc THEN biology can help you decide.
More often than not people will get the answer they want first and then backtrack it to the underlying logic that gives the answer they want.
I don't think humans have rights. I think they have different degrees of privilege. "Rights" are meaningless, they can't protect you from anything. Only the social contract and the willingness of others to honor your perceived rights can do that.
And, considering the piss poor job we've done protecting anyone's "rights" on this planet over the years, including here (see: the two SC decisions I cited above), I laugh at people who go on about them. Frankly, your rights are two pounds or less of pressure from being completely irrelevant.
I don't think humans have rights. I think they have different degrees of privilege. "Rights" are meaningless, they can't protect you from anything. Only the social contract and the willingness of others to honor your perceived rights can do that.
If this were true you wouldn't be arguing so fervently for that social contract to change from its current state. If the social contract is based on the social contract you would never have any room for improvement,change, or growth. Your argument would simply be limited to argue what the existing law IS without any mechanism for deciding what the law OUGHT to be.
|
|
I think people forget that Planned Parenthood also gives out free condoms. Too bad people are too stupid and lazy to prevent a pregnancy rather than have one to terminate.Yeah people are stupid and lazy.
And condoms break.
And kids don't get any sex education except "Don't do it"
And if you're worried about paying for it, which we don't unless you donate to Planned Parenthood or other organizations, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to terminate a pregnancy than to give birth, much less raise a child to adulthood. Not to mention how much harder it is to get out of poverty and support yourself when you've got a kid to take care of.But yah. The only problem is that poor people are stupid and lazy.
Got a solution for that?
Did I use the word "poor" anywhere? People are stupid and lazy, economic status has little to do with it.
|
|
I don't think humans have rights. I think they have different degrees of privilege. "Rights" are meaningless, they can't protect you from anything. Only the social contract and the willingness of others to honor your perceived rights can do that.If this were true you wouldn't be arguing so fervently for that social contract to change from its current state. If the social contract is based on the social contract you would never have any room for improvement,change, or growth. Your argument would simply be limited to argue what the existing law IS without any mechanism for deciding what the law OUGHT to be.
Nope. I can argue for what laws we should or shouldn't have without thinking I have a "right" to any of it. The only "rights" I recognize I have are those I can defend personally. I don't pretend the social contract is going to protect anything. A false sense of security in a society's protection of your "rights" is what allows government to slowly eat away at them. Believing the system will protect you is a foolish, imo.
|
|
You know, if you're in that situation, maybe you shouldn't be doing things that make babies...Yeah, because telling poor people not to have sex works so well.
Fundamental human instinct. Not to mention cheap entertainment. Good luck with that.
** spoiler omitted **
Let me put it this way. I have zero sympathy for people who make bad decisions. I've made some doozies in my day, and I don't feel any sense of entitlement that society should bail me out of my mess.
Either people learn from their mistakes or they don't. I don't think I should have to help people who don't learn from them.
Nope. I can argue for what laws we should or shouldn't have without thinking I have a "right" to any of it
So what is the basis for your should?
|
|
You know, if you're in that situation, maybe you shouldn't be doing things that make babies...Yeah, because telling poor people not to have sex works so well.
Fundamental human instinct. Not to mention cheap entertainment. Good luck with that.
** spoiler omitted **
Let me put it this way. I have zero sympathy for people who make bad decisions. I've made some doozies in my day, and I don't feel any sense of entitlement that society should bail me out of my mess.
Either people learn from their mistakes or they don't. I don't think I should have to help people who don't learn from them.
Are we still talking about legal abortion and extra hoops to jump through? Or have we moved on to something else?
Because I don't see how you "have to help people who don't learn" when it comes to abortion? Where does the sense of entitlement come in?
If we're discussing using one tax dollar to provide an abortion, it's relevant. I have a pothole and a street drainage problem that could use some attention and tax dollars.
My basis is what I think works best for me. Why do I have to believe in "rights" to have enlightened self interest?Nope. I can argue for what laws we should or shouldn't have without thinking I have a "right" to any of itSo what is the basis for your should?
Trying to leave out some of the details to avoid a further derail.
You're arguing against things that will not affect you directly. In other words, you care about other people as well as yourself.
As to enlightened self interest, thats the entire point of a government. The question is how MUCH government is in any persons self interest. Libertarians either don't buy self interest or think that said self interest is with a very minimal government.
I've seen what happens when countries have laisez faire governments. Its not pretty for most people. I think Ron Paul is deluded about what would happen, and most other politicians are simply lying to rile up the tea party when they talk about shrinking government (they'll simply shrink the part of government the rich don't like)
|
|
I don't think government should restrict people from making adult decisions, and I don't think they should help people for making foolish ones.
I think if people really need help (events out of their control, a la Katrina and the like), that's a function government can fill. But if people decide to f*&$ their own lives up, f+@~ 'em.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the reason I am pretty gung ho about gay marriage being legal is that I think it would help a lot of kids. It would be hard to keep legally married people from adopting, I think, and most of the gay people I know would make awesome parents.
I don't really give a crap if abortion is legal or not, I can't get one, so I have zero stake in that law. It doesn't affect me at all. I just don't think we should get all rosy and call it a "good" decision, when good decision making would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.
I highly doubt broken rubbers or bad BC pills are the cause of a vast majority of unwanted pregnancies. Being too lazy to go get free rubbers or being too stupid to use a whit of sense is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@HD
I think it's only fair to preach personal responsibility and demand that people live with the consequences of their actions when they are well informed.
Someone can only make a decision about preventing pregnancy if they are EDUCATED about the methods of doing so.
As someone who has been in a long-term relationship for going on 8 years now, we have had one or two pregnancy scares. And that's all the while using hormonal birth control properly, among other methods. They are imperfect. Even tubal ligation and vasectomy are imperfect.
The way I see it, 90% of the Republican rhetoric about "freedom to choose" and "personal responsibility" is completely cynical because they know that people are uneducated. Heck they try as hard as they can to make sure of that. They know that, when given more choice, they'll continually make the wrong choices to the detriment of themselves and the aid of corporations who line their pockets.
As stimulating as this chat is, can we create another thread to chat about abortion politics so this thread doesn't get shut down?
Thanks!
|
|
@HD
I think it's only fair to preach personal responsibility and demand that people live with the consequences of their actions when they are well informed.Someone can only make a decision about preventing pregnancy if they are EDUCATED about the methods of doing so.
As someone who has been in a long-term relationship for going on 8 years now, we have had one or two pregnancy scares. And that's all the while using hormonal birth control properly, among other methods. They are imperfect. Even tubal ligation and vasectomy are imperfect.
The way I see it, 90% of the Republican rhetoric about "freedom to choose" and "personal responsibility" is completely cynical because they know that people are uneducated. Heck they try as hard as they can to make sure of that. They know that, when given more choice, they'll continually make the wrong choices to the detriment of themselves and the aid of corporations who line their pockets.
Dude, if someone doesn't know where babies come from, I don't know what to say. And, I think you're confusing "uneducated" with "stupid". I went to the same crappy inner city schools most poor kids go to. I grew up in a severely broken home with an addict absentee father. I grew up dirt poor. That had nothing to do with me knowing or not knowing how people get pregnant.
The biggest problem isn't even teens having sex with each other, it's scumbag predatory men:
According to the conservative lobbying organization Family Research Council, studies in the US indicate that age discrepancy between the teenage girls and the men who impregnate them is an important contributing factor. Teenage girls in relationships with older boys, and in particular with adult men, are more likely to become pregnant than teenage girls in relationships with boys their own age. They are also more likely to carry the baby to term rather than have an abortion. A review of California's 1990 vital statistics found that men older than high school age fathered 77% of all births to high school-aged girls (ages 16–18), and 51% of births to junior high school-aged girls (15 and younger). Men over age 25 fathered twice as many children of teenage mothers than boys under age 18, and men over age 20 fathered five times as many children of junior high school-aged girls as did junior high school-aged boys. A 1992 Washington state study of 535 adolescent mothers found that 62% of the mothers had a history of being raped or sexual molested by men whose ages averaged 27 years. This study found that, compared with nonabused mothers, abused adolescent mothers initiated sex earlier, had sex with much older partners, and engaged in riskier, more frequent, and promiscuous sex. Studies by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics found that about two-thirds of children born to teenage girls in the United States are fathered by adult men age 20 or older.[58]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blah blah blah. I wish my tax dollars were going to birth control services for the poor. It would make me feel better than knowing my taxes go to kill brown people worldwide.
Or not....
Hey, BT, so I was reading Gore Vidal's Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated and he dates the dawning of the American police state from Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Effective Kill You Dead legislation. (EDIT: although he makes mentions of a bunch of stuff in the 50s/60s.) Just thought you'd like to know there at least one leftie on your side!
Dude, if someone doesn't know where babies come from, I don't know what to say. And, I think you're confusing "uneducated" with "stupid". I went to the same crappy inner city schools most poor kids go to. I grew up in a severely broken home with an addict absentee father. I grew up dirt poor. That had nothing to do with me knowing or not knowing how people get pregnant.
The biggest problem isn't even teens having sex with each other, it's scumbag predatory men:
** spoiler omitted **...
This comment is just all over the place.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I thought anyone didn't know where babies come from. I was talking about education about how to prevent pregnancy. When you are prevented from teaching anything other than abstinence, that doesn't exactly do that.Telling teenagers not to have sex is like telling zebras not to be so stripey.
As to your stuff about predatory men. Consider that the average age disparity between couples is about 4, men being the older. Women are generally attracted to older men and men to younger women, for a plethora of reasons. The magical barrier of age 18 doesn't make the man a predator and the woman a victim, nor is there an objective age disparity that is unacceptable. So a 21 year old man and a 17 year old woman is about average, as is an 18 year old and a 14 year old.
Also, I'd take anything from the FRC with a grain of salt.
I actually agree with Cranewings on this one. As Ive said before, I disagree with Paul on alot of issues, however, I agree with him on so much more than any other (major) presidential candidate.
Wow. Okay. Let's break this down.
When we're talking about sex education we're talking about training. It's not a matter of having heard about "rubbers" as you so quaintly put it, it's about learning comprehensive sexual health, including how to USE them where to GET them, other alternatives like the pill or the ring, etc. If you genuinely think that education has no place mucking up the minds of adolescents who, clearly, already have a perfect view of how the world works, you're nuts. This was in response to you talking about people living with their decisions, and me saying that it's only fair to expect that when they are aware of all their choices.
The rest of this seems to be a typical tactic for you, change the terms around and continue the argument. To the second point: no, turning 18 doesn't make one person a predator and another a victim. Two teens age 17 having sex is victimless. But WAIT my goodness, midnight has struck and the woman has turned 18 years old. Now, magically, she is a mature, free-thinking adult, and that boy is a rape victim. Give me a break.
Furthermore, the law does not dictate morality. If so, my hypothetical couple (21m and 17f) is not criminal or immoral in any state that I'm aware. You should know better than to equate illegal with criminal. If you're going to go on a tear about how, oh these kids don't need no sex education, they know enough to live with their decisions...you can't cry foul when a 16 year old hooks up with a 19 year because they should BOTH know what's up.
As to your final "quip" I hate to even dignify it with a response, it's such a vile accusation. For the record, my first girlfriend was 16 when I was 18. I guess I'm just another rapist to you.
Looks like Paul is ahead of n00t, now. If Romney and Frothy drop out, Paul could win! That's encouraging, if you like Paul.
The funny thing about abstinence is, it's 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. So, why wouldn't you advise kids of the only 100% effective choice?
The way I see it, 90% of the Republican rhetoric about "freedom to choose" and "personal responsibility" is completely cynical because they know that people are uneducated. Heck they try as hard as they can to make sure of that. They know that, when given more choice, they'll continually make the wrong choices to the detriment of themselves and the aid of corporations who line their pockets.
I LOL'd really hard at this, thank you!
...yes because single mother voters are notorious for voting Republican.Republicans need to keep their constituents stupid and on the dole to get voters, and to get that EPT lobby money.
Oh, wait...
The funny thing about abstinence is, it's 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. So, why wouldn't you advise kids of the only 100% effective choice?
The funny thing about education is, abstinence-only education is about as far from 100% effective as a efficacy rate get. It also bears pointing out that sex ed about other forms of birth control don't forbid mention of abstinence.
Sorry BT...
I will cease and desist with the abrotion sprechen.
The way I see it, 90% of the Republican rhetoric about "freedom to choose" and "personal responsibility" is completely cynical because they know that people are uneducated. Heck they try as hard as they can to make sure of that. They know that, when given more choice, they'll continually make the wrong choices to the detriment of themselves and the aid of corporations who line their pockets.
I LOL'd really hard at this, thank you!
...yes because single mother voters are notorious for voting Republican.
Republicans need to keep their constituents stupid and on the dole to get voters, and to get that EPT lobby money.Oh, wait...
I'm have no freaking clue how you got your conclusion from my statement.
I'm talking about things like "school choice" which is really just code for "let's make a program for funneling public money into churches".| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has ever said that we shouldn't advise kids to be abstinent. Every sex education program I've ever heard of has stressed abstinence as the best choice.
The problem is stopping there and not going on to how to protect yourself if you do choose to have sex.
Because, while abstinence is 100% effective, abstinence education programs are much less effective.Pregnancy (and STD) rates are much higher when kids aren't taught about birth control.
This.
@kryzbyn-For the record, you know what else is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy? Oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation. Of course there are other factors, like STDs, in the mix.What we're attacking is abstinence ONLY sex education, which is a mockery of the words sex, education, and any combination thereof. It's about as effective as "Just Say No" was for curbing illicit drug use.
Well, biologically, at conception, you have a developing human being. The abortion debate can discuss all of the moral and philosophical points they want, but the debate is pretty much retarded when idiots start tossing around "it's just a blastoid" and crap like that. Biology is biology.The biology doesn't help you directly. This is an ought/value question: What do you consider to be the basis for human rights? Once you've decided if that's a unique genetic human code, brain function, or the ability to survive on their own etc THEN biology can help you decide.
More often than not people will get the answer they want first and then backtrack it to the underlying logic that gives the answer they want.
I don't think humans have rights. I think they have different degrees of privilege. "Rights" are meaningless, they can't protect you from anything. Only the social contract and the willingness of others to honor your perceived rights can do that.
And, considering the piss poor job we've done protecting anyone's "rights" on this planet over the years, including here (see: the two SC decisions I cited above), I laugh at people who go on about them. Frankly, your rights are two pounds or less of pressure from being completely irrelevant.
i don't think human's have "rights" either, but doesn't that undermine, like, everything you've ever said around here? Aren't all your arguments predicated upon the idea that people are being wronged by the government? If they have no rights, then that's really confusing.