What do we agree on?

[Unrepresented]

Nice try, but I saif what I said... No more, no less.

You implied that pregnancy from rape was preventable.

 

[Grim17]

You implied that pregnancy from rape was preventable.

You quoted me from post #22... Take a look at post #20

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/206244-do-we-agree-2.html#post1063836809

 

[Unrepresented]

You quoted me from post #22... Take a look at post #20

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/206244-do-we-agree-2.html#post1063836809

Occasionally I may not read every post in a thread.

 

[Mithrae]

Every child should have a 'right' as much as possible to a loving and stable home. Bringing a child into the world that you aren't ready for, for whatever reason, is simply cruel.

True...

Glad to hear it. Beyond that all the apologetics for lifestyle choices, or religious dogmas, or lofty abstractions about a woman's "liberty" or a blastocyst's "life" are little more than self-serving sophistry: Intentionally forcing a sub-optimal life onto a child is unnecessary and cruel.

 

[JumpinJack]

Cheese, we all love cheese.

I agree with you on THAT! You got your sharp cheddar cheese, mozzarella part skim cheese (melted), Irish white cheddar that melts in your mouth, KerryGold sweet white cheese. EVERYONE loves cheese!

 

[JumpinJack]

Well, both sides agree that it's OK in certain circumstances to kill people in America, but they just don't agree on what those circumstances are.

The right believes killing as a form of justice is a valid. Example: The death penalty.
The left believes killing out of convenience is valid. Example: Abortion and the Terri Schiavo case.

This is an example of how conservatives further hate and vitriol, by misstating positions.

"The left believes killing out of convenience is valid. Example: Abortion and the Terri Schiavo case" is not a true statement. That's because (1) abortion is not considered killing in our country, either legally, or morally by the majority; a fetus becomes a human being at the point at which it can live outside the womb; abortion past that point is illegal (with a few exceptions in some states...the life or maybe health of the mother, and possibly in instances late term when the fetus won't survive and it aids the mother's health to abort, though I'm not sure that's legal in all states; and (2) Schiavo was not killed, nor did anyone suggest she be killed; what was legally provided in that state was that the medical community stop keeping her body artificially alive, in a vegetative state, and thus allow her to die, as she would have 15 years earlier had it not been for medical intervention. No one killed Terry Schiavo. No one has legally "killed" a fetus in the first trimester.

One reason I'm an independent (which does not mean moderate, as some think; it means I don't belong to a political party), is because I agree with the death penalty AND pro-choice (for first trimester) AND for death with dignity so that people aren't kept artificially alive for months or years on end (unless that person has expressed wishes to the contrary).

 

[Paleocon]

so i posted a poll a while back with i titled basic truths, and they were general concepts that i considered made sense to support no matter what party you were in. As you probably expected, that idea got shot to hell.

So what do we actually agree on. Lets limit the spectrum to republicans and democrats.

Republicans and democrats both agree that the insane ideas of classical liberalism are essentially correct.

 

[JumpinJack]

Yes, we all like cheese but, as a Conservative, I hate gay and atheist cheese. Brie, for example, and that Port Salut crap they make cheese balls out of. Also Feta. It's Greek and we all know what that means!!

Don't insult gays and atheists by associating them with brie cheese, please. Brie smells like dirty feet.

Feta, OTOH, is wonderful in a Greek salad. It has a kick and tastes oh so great, if there's not an overabundance of it in the salad. Never heard of Port Salut.

But my favorite is old fashioned extra sharp yellow cheese. Yum. Next up is sharp white cheese. Double yum.

 

[JumpinJack]

Do you mean big "R" Republicans??

Big "D" or small "d" democrats don't matter, b/c democrats do not believe in the rule of law, property rights, or anyones rights - in that regard, they are the same as big "R" Republicans.

I am a libertarian, but also a republican - as most libertarians are.

So if those are the parameters within which you are going to limit comment - doesn't that smack of "democracy"?, i.e. two wolves (Republicans and Democrats) and a sheep voting on what is for dinner?? The Democrats and Republicans just divvying up the loot and property of others??

It is painfully obvious that Republicans and Democrats have no use for the rule of law - rather you both believe that the power of government should be unaccountably used against others... so you have that in agreement

Of course Democrats believe in the rule of law and property rights. Of the two major parties, it's the Democrats who are more strongly supportive of the rule of law. It's Republicans who think that if you don't like a law, you go around it or under it or over it or shoot it or stomp on it...but you don't follow a law you don't agree with. And you most certainly don't let others follow that law, if you can help it. Example: Legal abortion. If you can't change the law or bomb all the abortion clinics, then you get state Republicans to make the rules for abortion clinics so restrictive that they have to go out of business, and that way, you circumvent the rule of law for other people. But for yourself, you want everything the rule of law allows you to have.

 

[JumpinJack]

My point is quite valid. With the exception of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk, abortion is something that's done out of convenience.

If you really believe abortion in the first trimester is murder, then it would be just as illegal and immoral to "kill" the fetus in the first trimester because of rape or incest. If you believe a two month old fetus is the same as a 16 year old, that would be akin to killing a 16 year old because you found out she was the product of a rape or incest.

As for whether legal abortions are done out of convenience, usually not, but most certainly sometimes (depending on your definition of convenience). But for a legal procedure, it's really none of your business why someone gets that procedure. That's the point. It's none of your business unless it's your body, your fetus. In which case, you get to choose what to do. You have a choice, either way.

But think of it...an unwanted baby by a young, poor mother who can't support it. She will probably be poor the rest of her life. The baby will grow up poor. They both will likely be recipients of government assistance. But the conservatives who don't want her to get an abortion also don't want her to seek assistance. It's a catch-22. If you want to wash your hands of hte baby after birth, then you should wash your hands of interfering with it during the first trimester.

Abortion is not taken lightly by most young women. I also think many young women are coerced into it by boyfriends who don't want to pay child support for 18 years (Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife rather than face 18 years of child support), or by families who don't want to see their daughters' futures ruined. But in any case, it's ultimately her body, her choice. In the first trimester, anyway. Not sure if up to six months is legal these days. I have a problem with it past the first trimester.

 

[Grim17]

This is an example of how conservatives further hate and vitriol, by misstating positions.

I'm sorry if what I said bothers you, but it's how I see things... and there was no hate or vitriol in my words..

"The left believes killing out of convenience is valid. Example: Abortion and the Terri Schiavo case" is not a true statement. That's because (1) abortion is not considered killing in our country, either legally, or morally by the majority; a fetus becomes a human being at the point at which it can live outside the womb; abortion past that point is illegal (with a few exceptions in some states...the life or maybe health of the mother, and possibly in instances late term when the fetus won't survive and it aids the mother's health to abort, though I'm not sure that's legal in all states; and

I'm not someone who believes that the moment the egg is fertilized, it becomes a person, but not too many weeks after that it does. You can hide behind the law, behind judges and even public opinion if you like, but if the baby has eyes, a mouth, hands, feet and a has heartbeat, then that's a tiny person who's growing up and will eventually be born just like all of us were.

Are you familiar with "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004"? It's a federal law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. It defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

So in reality, the baby is considered a human with rights, unless the mother chooses an abortion, then it has no rights. But this is of course an argument that neither of us will win, so I'll move on.

Question 1: Wouldn't you agree that if the sex is consensual, not resulting from rape or incest, and there is no medical reason preventing the woman giving birth, then the choice of abortion is one of convenience? If not, then please explain.

Question 2: Excluding rape, incest, or a rouge doctor inseminating a woman without her knowledge, wouldn't you agree that pregnancy is 100% preventable?

The answer to both questions is "yes", which is the foundation for the following statement:

Excluding rape, incest and where the life of the mother is at risk, in nearly every other instance, abortion is nothing more than a convenient solution for irresponsible behavior. A quick fix for lacking self control and good judgment.

(2) Schiavo was not killed, nor did anyone suggest she be killed; what was legally provided in that state was that the medical community stop keeping her body artificially alive, in a vegetative state, and thus allow her to die, as she would have 15 years earlier had it not been for medical intervention. No one killed Terry Schiavo.

She certainly was killed. Her feeding tubes were deliberately removed from her for the expressed purpose of starving her to death. A death that didn't have happen because she had parents willing to care for her. Since there was no living will, nobody knows if it was her wish to die.

Maybe you're memory is a little foggy on that case. Her husband sued her doctor for for $20 million for not treating her potassium imbalance which lead to her condition. That was 6 years before filing to have her feeding tube removed... Here are some facts for you:

a) Neither before or during that lawsuit, did he ever mention her wishes to die if being kept alive artificially.
b) He argued during the lawsuit that he wanted the $20 million so he could care for her for the rest of his life. He told the jury he was studying nursing to be better able to care fo her.
c) According to court transcripts, he said: “I feel wonderful. She’s my life and I would’t trade her for the world... I believe in my wedding vows. … I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that.”
d)He won $1.3 million in the lawsuit. $700k was ordered to a trust fund for Terri's medical treatment and rehabilitation.
e) Michael never pursued any more therapy or rehabilitation treatment for her, moved her to nursing homes until he struck a deal with a Hospice and less than a year later, he put a DNR order on her hospice chart to not save her if she stopped breathing.
f) Sometime during the next 5+ years, until 1998 when he filed to have her killed, is when Michael first mentioned to anyone about Terri's wishes to have the plug pulled.
G) He also had a live-in girlfriend and 2 kids with her.

The point is, this was not cut and dry. Why didn't he get a divorce to marry his "real" wife? Could it be the rehab money would have been cut off, which if she died, he would receive?

Not knowing what she truly wanted, you would think people would air on the side of life, not death. Since she never said in a living will she wanted to die, why would anyone from the public support killing her? Do I hear "convenience" anyone?

 

[LagerHead]

This is an example of how conservatives further hate and vitriol, by misstating positions.

"The left believes killing out of convenience is valid. Example: Abortion and the Terri Schiavo case" is not a true statement. That's because (1) abortion is not considered killing in our country, either legally, or morally by the majority; a fetus becomes a human being at the point at which it can live outside the womb; abortion past that point is illegal (with a few exceptions in some states...the life or maybe health of the mother, and possibly in instances late term when the fetus won't survive and it aids the mother's health to abort, though I'm not sure that's legal in all states; and (2) Schiavo was not killed, nor did anyone suggest she be killed; what was legally provided in that state was that the medical community stop keeping her body artificially alive, in a vegetative state, and thus allow her to die, as she would have 15 years earlier had it not been for medical intervention. No one killed Terry Schiavo. No one has legally "killed" a fetus in the first trimester.

One reason I'm an independent (which does not mean moderate, as some think; it means I don't belong to a political party), is because I agree with the death penalty AND pro-choice (for first trimester) AND for death with dignity so that people aren't kept artificially alive for months or years on end (unless that person has expressed wishes to the contrary).

I'm glad you pointed out how that is a uniquely conservative trait. It makes the rest of your argument so much easier to swallow. :roll:

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Of course Democrats believe in the rule of law and property rights. Of the two major parties, it's the Democrats who are more strongly supportive of the rule of law. It's Republicans who think that if you don't like a law, you go around it or under it or over it or shoot it or stomp on it...but you don't follow a law you don't agree with. And you most certainly don't let others follow that law, if you can help it. Example: Legal abortion. If you can't change the law or bomb all the abortion clinics, then you get state Republicans to make the rules for abortion clinics so restrictive that they have to go out of business, and that way, you circumvent the rule of law for other people. But for yourself, you want everything the rule of law allows you to have.

This from the party with a president would up and decided to stop defending the laws on the book, like the Defense of Marriage Act (or choose when he will and when he wont enforce immigration law). And by the way, almost everything you said about abortions, can be applied to democrats when talking about 2A and Gun Rights...

 

[JumpinJack]

This from the party with a president would up and decided to stop defending the laws on the book, like the Defense of Marriage Act (or choose when he will and when he wont enforce immigration law). And by the way, almost everything you said about abortions, can be applied to democrats when talking about 2A and Gun Rights...

About gun rights....not true. Democrats are not trying to abolish ownership of guns by individual citizens. They...and others...think there should be gun controls of various sorts. So do Republicans, by the way. The difference is in what controls they believe in.

There is a screening for convicted felons buying guns at certain establishments, for example. That is gun control. There is a wait period in some states at certain kinds of establishments. That is gun control. That is very different from anti-abortion groups who want to abolish all abortions, some even when the health of the mother is at risk. I have noticed this difference in stance by the two major parties. The Republicans are far more controlling of others' behavior, even if it's legal and most citizens approve of the law. The Republicans will do anything to skirt the law, to go against the law of the land and the majority of the citizens. It's shocking sometimes, really. The Democrats, OTOH, seem to operate within the law more often.

As for DOMA, that is not quite the same thing. It really doesn't affect you, does it (unless you're gay)? Not like closing an abortion clinic or passing a gun control law, both of which directly affect what citizens can do.

I see that as a huge difference. No one supported DOMA much any more, and it didn't really affect non-gay citizens in any way, preventing them from doing something legal. The gay rights thing is here. It's inevitable. Good or bad, that is the situation. Time for Republicans to get over it. Of all the horrible things in the world, gay people getting married & getting hired for jobs is not one of them.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

About gun rights....not true. Democrats are not trying to abolish ownership of guns by individual citizens. They...and others...think there should be gun controls of various sorts. So do Republicans, by the way. The difference is in what controls they believe in.

There is a screening for convicted felons buying guns at certain establishments, for example. That is gun control. There is a wait period in some states at certain kinds of establishments. That is gun control. That is very different from anti-abortion groups who want to abolish all abortions, some even when the health of the mother is at risk. I have noticed this difference in stance by the two major parties. The Republicans are far more controlling of others' behavior, even if it's legal and most citizens approve of the law. The Republicans will do anything to skirt the law, to go against the law of the land and the majority of the citizens. It's shocking sometimes, really. The Democrats, OTOH, seem to operate within the law more often.

As for DOMA, that is not quite the same thing. It really doesn't affect you, does it (unless you're gay)? Not like closing an abortion clinic or passing a gun control law, both of which directly affect what citizens can do.

I see that as a huge difference. No one supported DOMA much any more, and it didn't really affect non-gay citizens in any way, preventing them from doing something legal. The gay rights thing is here. It's inevitable. Good or bad, that is the situation. Time for Republicans to get over it. Of all the horrible things in the world, gay people getting married & getting hired for jobs is not one of them.

First off, my point about about DOMA was only that Obama was choosing (or has chosen, it's been awhile for that) not to follow the laws on the books and defend them. I get him being opposed to it, and if that's the case, then change the law. But we can't have a President of any political leaning deciding which laws on the books he will and will not follow (or enforce/defend). It's important to have that continuity of governance between parties, or else nothing can even get done.

As far as Gun Control goes, I think you are underestimating the lengths some want to go. For many liberals, they wouldn't be happy until we went the route of UK and banned handguns in households. They may not explicitly say that, but it is implied because 1) they bring up UK gun statistics a lot so apparently you think they are doing something that we should and 2) the vast majority of gun deaths in this country are from handguns so if you actually wanted to tackle it (and think getting rid of legal guns will do it) then that's what you would go after. And by the way, they did try this some years ago in Chicago I believe, but of course the Supreme Court struck it down.

Also, there isn't as much unanimity on the Abortion front, really from either parties. Yes you have the crowd that says "life begins at conception", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the beginning and end to Republican views on the matter.

CNN Poll: Wide divide over abortion

"Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to say that abortion should always be illegal. But only a minority of the rank-and-file members of both parties take an extreme position on the issue, with just 31% of Republicans calling for a complete ban on abortion and just 32% of Democrats saying that abortion should be legal in all circumstances."

This, by the way, despite that fact that the vast majority of all Americans believe "life begins at conception". In truth, most Republicans (like Americans) believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. You have some that believe it should be after the fetus implants into the uterus, and even some more that wait until after the first trimester. Just as we the 2A and gun rights, there is a lot of grey area within the party...

 

[JumpinJack]

First off, my point about about DOMA was only that Obama was choosing (or has chosen, it's been awhile for that) not to follow the laws on the books and defend them. I get him being opposed to it, and if that's the case, then change the law. But we can't have a President of any political leaning deciding which laws on the books he will and will not follow (or enforce/defend). It's important to have that continuity of governance between parties, or else nothing can even get done.

As far as Gun Control goes, I think you are underestimating the lengths some want to go. For many liberals, they wouldn't be happy until we went the route of UK and banned handguns in households. They may not explicitly say that, but it is implied because 1) they bring up UK gun statistics a lot so apparently you think they are doing something that we should and 2) the vast majority of gun deaths in this country are from handguns so if you actually wanted to tackle it (and think getting rid of legal guns will do it) then that's what you would go after. And by the way, they did try this some years ago in Chicago I believe, but of course the Supreme Court struck it down.

Also, there isn't as much unanimity on the Abortion front, really from either parties. Yes you have the crowd that says "life begins at conception", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the beginning and end to Republican views on the matter.

CNN Poll: Wide divide over abortion



This, by the way, despite that fact that the vast majority of all Americans believe "life begins at conception". In truth, most Republicans (like Americans) believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. You have some that believe it should be after the fetus implants into the uterus, and even some more that wait until after the first trimester. Just as we the 2A and gun rights, there is a lot of grey area within the party...

Yes, I'm aware there's a wacko left who wants to get rid of all guns. But you and I know that's not a serious threat and will never happen, and is a view held by few people. It's mainly what I consider common sense things. Assault weapons - no reason to have those in the household. That's what have been used to shoot the faces off of countless people in recent years. Those are legal. Should be illegal. I didn't always think that way. But we have to weigh the rights of owing that PARTICULAR KIND of weapon with the rights of the other citizens not to have their faces shot off in a movie theater.

The law is clear on abortion. A fetus becomes a human being when it can live outside the womb. That is also common sense. These days, with medical advances, that is becoming earlier and earlier. It used to be six months. Now, a fetus can live, with assistance, at a much younger gestation period. But not within the first trimester, so that's where I draw the line in my mind. I'm not sure where the law draws the line these days, and if it differs by state. And of course, if the mother's life is at risk (which is rare), the mother's life takes precedence IF she chooses that to be the case.

Abortion is legal. That is settled law. That's what I mean by Republicans just not accepting the law and trying to circumvent it, when unsuccessful at getting the law changed. Most people in teh country agree with the law, but even if they didn't, there is someone else's right involved here. The woman's. She has a say over the control of her own body, up to a point.

I don't think that most people believe that "life begins at conception." But even if they did, the point is not when life begins. A plant is "life." So is a mosquito, a dog, a kitten, an amoeba. The point is...when does a fetus become a human being, with rights of its own? Most people do NOT think a 3 month old fetus is a human being with rights. Mississippi or Alabama, I forget which (but a very conservative state) just voted a proposed law down in the last year or two...that "personhood" begins at birth. They said, emphatically, NO.

Republicans always seem to be trying to reach into other people's bodies, brains, beds, or whatever. They just can't live by the rule that you choose to do what is best for you....it's not your business what others think is best for them. Someone else's womb, someone's mate, someone else's vegetative state. Like a group of little old lady busybodies. The far left wackos are wacko indeed, but generally don't try to control other people's behavior. They are more about freedom to do what they want to do.