The Battle Begins

[One Brow]

Do you support the state interfering in partial birth abortion to protect innocent life?

Actually, that interference endangers innocent life (the life of the woman) by forcing upon her a sub-optimal procedure, without protecting the life of the fetus in any way (since the abortion happens by other means). It perfectly examplifies the pro-life movement in that regard.

 

[moevillini]

So you wanted me to acknowledge that some who make the decision to have an abortion tried to control their ability to reproduce but failed? Okay you have that acknowledgement.

seems to me you're still assigning "blame" to the woman for having ended up pregnant.

Do you support the state interfering in partial birth abortion to protect innocent life?

whose is the innocent life? I'd rather leave the value judgments out of the discussion of such an open ended question.

And I generally believe the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus or unborn child. I might modify that stance in specific situations however.

 

[PearlWatson]

seems to me you're still assigning "blame" to the woman for having ended up pregnant.

She is a willing participant unless she is raped.

whose is the innocent life? I'd rather leave the value judgments out of the discussion of such an open ended question.

And I generally believe the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus or unborn child. I might modify that stance in specific situations however.

So whether a baby is innocent is a value judgement?

You admitted to fuzzy views after 16-18 weeks so I was seeing if you were willing to clarify. I guess not. Never mind, I was just curious.

 

[PearlWatson]

More like knowledge of the nature of humans. People committed genocides for centuries before there were eugenics.

So what. They committed this genocide because of their eugenic beliefs.

 

[PearlWatson]

B) I do believe that the easy availability of government-backed loans has contributed significantly to education cost-growth.
D) Faculty salary hasn't grown at the rate of tuition. I suspect if tuition was capped through intervention or market forces you'd see significantly less campus construction/renovation, less brand-building expenses, and probably significantly less library cost.

Going back to the Socialized medicine discussion.
The same type of things will/have occurred when government gets involved in health care...or anything for that matter.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think you're exemplifying this at a very basic level, to make an argument that you think is better than it actually is.

It's like you think that by having a public education system where class sizes are 30 compared to 20, that the extra 10 kids will kill all 30.

If a teacher has 30 rather than 20 children to teach the kids in the larger class certainly get less of her personal attention (shared limited resource).

Also any of those 30 who had special/emergency medical conditions wouldn't fare well.

 

[One Brow]

So what. They committed this genocide because of their eugenic beliefs.

The Nazis committed genocide because of their irrational hatred. If eugenics played any role at all, it was as a conventient rationalization, and rationalizations are a dime a dozen.

That's all I have to say on that. Feel free to pipe in with the last word.

 

[One Brow]

D) Faculty salary hasn't grown at the rate of tuition. I suspect if tuition was capped through intervention or market forces you'd see significantly less campus construction/renovation, less brand-building expenses, and probably significantly less library cost.

Going back to the Socialized medicine discussion.
The same type of things will/have occurred when government gets involved in health care...or anything for that matter.

So, we'll have to trade off granting more universal access with the burden of having to pay for extra technologies? What a bleak picture you paint.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Trump/Palin 2012 ticket? Oh please let this happen just for the lulz

Welcome to When Worlds Collide, 2012 GOP edition.

Among the sights Sarah Palin will be hitting as her bus tour goes through New York will be Trump Tower, where she's scheduled to meet with the developer and reality TV show host who recently opted against a 2012 Republican for president, a source familiar with the planning told POLITICO.

It was unclear what the purposes of the meeting will be.

But it comes as Palin has been amping up her public appearances, including an East Coast "One Nation" bus tour that began in Washington D.C. and is currently headed north from Philadelphia.

A Palin spokesman couldn't immediately be reached about the Trump meeting.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55953.html#ixzz1O28KyUgZ

Come on Donald. It's not too late to come back.

 

[moevillini]

seems to me you're still assigning "blame" to the woman for having ended up pregnant.

She is a willing participant unless she is raped.

you make it seem as though pregnancy is something a woman is "guilty" of - - holy cow, you and I are on entirely different planets as far as that idea is concerned...

maybe if the state had the right to sterilize every man who impregnated a woman who did not wish to become pregnant (whatever birth control method they may have attempted to use, if any) than I could see allowing the state to have the right to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes

but I doubt that's going to happen...

might be a good science fiction type book however, I'll bet Margaret Atwood could make a good story out of it.

whose is the innocent life? I'd rather leave the value judgments out of the discussion of such an open ended question.

And I generally believe the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus or unborn child. I might modify that stance in specific situations however.

So whether a baby is innocent is a value judgement?

You admitted to fuzzy views after 16-18 weeks so I was seeing if you were willing to clarify. I guess not. Never mind, I was just curious.

honestly, I don't see this as a matter of innocence or guilt period...

and I don't consider a 12, 16 or 20 week fetus to be a human life exactly - - quite honestly, I'm not sure at what point in its development I'd consider it to be a human life with rights that would supersede the rights of the woman carrying it


(my statement you quoted about 16-18 weeks was a typo, I'd meant to say 26-28 weeks - - and at that point in a pregnancy, I'd consider additional restrictions on terminating a pregnancy. There are circumstances, such as if the mother's health is seriously endangered by continuing a pregnancy, that I would support a late-term abortion. So I can't really give a "one size fits all" answer because I think it still depends on specific circumstances.)

 

[PearlWatson]

you make it seem as though pregnancy is something a woman is "guilty" of - - holy cow, you and I are on entirely different planets as far as that idea is concerned...

maybe if the state had the right to sterilize every man who impregnated a woman who did not wish to become pregnant (whatever birth control method they may have attempted to use, if any) than I could see allowing the state to have the right to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes

It seems that "guilt" is your view of pregnancy. Obama expressed this viewpoint when he said his girls shouldn't be punished with a baby if they got pregnant. He acted like babies are some kind of punishment from Allah that has to be eliminated because of the inconvenience. I don't view babies or pregnancy that way.

I view the ability to create life as a sacred power/privilege. It is the ultimate irresponsibility to take this power lightly.

If a chick wants to have casual sex with guys she doesn't want to have children with then she should pick an infertile/sterilized guy or get sterilized herself. It ain't up to the state to protect a chick from the consequences of her choice.

honestly, I don't see this as a matter of innocence or guilt period...

and I don't consider a 12, 16 or 20 week fetus to be a human life exactly - - quite honestly, I'm not sure at what point in its development I'd consider it to be a human life with rights that would supersede the rights of the woman carrying it

(my statement you quoted about 16-18 weeks was a typo, I'd meant to say 26-28 weeks - - and at that point in a pregnancy, I'd consider additional restrictions on terminating a pregnancy. There are circumstances, such as if the mother's health is seriously endangered by continuing a pregnancy, that I would support a late-term abortion. So I can't really give a "one size fits all" answer because I think it still depends on specific circumstances.)

The least a chick can do is make up their bloody mind about killing their unborn child before it starts kicking in the womb.

A baby can breath on its own outside the womb @ around 19 weeks, so abortion at that point is simply infanticide. It has to come out one way or the other if there are issues with mom's health, so it should be allowed to come out in one piece at that point. (That is where the state has stepped in with partial birth abortion ban).

 

[moevillini]

I view the ability to create life as a sacred power/privilege. It is the ultimate irresponsibility to take this power lightly.

If a chick wants to have casual sex with guys she doesn't want to have children with then she should pick an infertile/sterilized guy or get sterilized herself. It ain't up to the state to protect a chick from the consequences of her choice....

...A baby can breath on its own outside the womb @ around 19 weeks, so abortion at that point is simply infanticide. It has to come out one way or the other if there are issues with mom's health, so it should be allowed to come out in one piece at that point. (That is where the state has stepped in with partial birth abortion ban).

if that's your view, then you've got it all backwards - - since abortion is legal, it is up to the man to either get a vasectomy or keep his ****** in his pants, if he doesn't want to risk impregnating a woman who might choose to terminate the pregnancy.

If the man can't abide the choice the woman might make, he has no business having a sexual relationship with her. Under present law, I don't see how anyone can argue that point.