middlecrat?

There is no legislation that would be able to prevent a woman's right to choose, only legislation that would prevent women from seeking out medical assistance for her choice. — m-theory

You're right that there is no legislation which can prevent women from killing that which is living and growing inside of them, an unborn human, if they're determined enough; just as there is no legislation which can prevent women or anyone else from killing anyone else if they're determined enough. But neither are good things which should be encouraged. It is an unfortunate fact that murders and abortions occur, when in most cases, a better resolution is available.

Just as someone who is contemplating murder should have access to counseling, so should someone contemplating abortion, and that is already the case in the developed world, as far as I'm aware.

You're right that there is no legislation which can prevent women from killing that which is living and growing inside of them, an unborn human, if they're determined enough, just as there is no legislation which can prevent women or anyone else from killing anyone else if they're determined enough. But neither are good things which should be encouraged. It is an unfortunate fact that murders and abortions occur, when in most cases, a better resolution is available. Just as someone who is contemplating murder should have access to counseling, so should someone contemplating abortion, and that is already the case in the developed world, as far as I'm aware. — Sapientia

That is fair enough.
But it is far less difficult to prove that one person has a murdered another in a court than it is to prove that a woman intentionally miscarried.

So when we compare these things we would not say that there is no legislation that will prevent murder because it is less difficult to demonstrate that an intentional killing has taken place.

So even if we agreed that terminating a pregnancy was murder we are left with a far more difficult burden of proof than is the case when this happens to those that have been born.

Also I don't agree that there is necessarily a better resolution in some cases of termination of unwanted pregnancy.
Take the cases where a woman has been raped and it has resulted in pregnancy.
I sternly believe that the woman should have the right to decide if she wants to procreate with a rapists.

And personally, in general, I think that women ought to have that right to decide even if they are not raped and ultimately, as I have pointed out, they do have that right and there is nothing to be done about it in legislative terms.

How DO you label someone like myself who ticks off republicans and democrats alike when politics are discussed? — anonymous66

Intelligent.

(or should I say... "Non-Kool-Aid Drinker")

Meow!

GREG

8-)
Both sides do have good qualities (come to think of it, that phrase in itself may tick off a lot of people).

... just far fewer good qualities than they themselves believe they possess.



Meow!

GREG

I also respect both sides enough to want to be truthful about the problems I see- so, if you're a Republican, I'll tell you the issues I see w/ Republicans, and if you're a Democrat, then I'll tell you the issues I see w/ Democrats.

In my case, politcal parties are like epistemological ideals. I don't hold to any in particular, but I do wish to expose them all for what they are really worth.

Meow!

GREG

But it is far less difficult to prove that one person has a murdered another in a court than it is to prove that a woman intentionally miscarried. So when we compare these things we would not say that there is no legislation that will prevent murder because it is less difficult to demonstrate that an intentional killing has taken place. — m-theory

But that's after the fact: the killing will have already either taken place or not taken place. My point stands: no amount of legislation can prevent someone determined enough from going out and killing another human, whether that's an adult or a baby inside of themselves.

So even if we agreed that terminating a pregnancy was murder we are left with a far more difficult burden of proof than is the case when this happens to those that have been born. — m-theory

My point wasn't that terminating a pregnancy is murder. It isn't murder.

Also I don't agree that there is necessarily a better resolution in some cases of termination of unwanted pregnancy. — m-theory

This is another straw man. What I actually said was that in most cases, a better resolution is available, and I stand by that claim.

Take the cases where a woman has been raped and it has resulted in pregnancy.
I sternly believe that the woman should have the right to decide if she wants to procreate with a rapists.

And personally, in general, I think that women ought to have that right to decide even if they are not raped and ultimately, as I have pointed out, they do have that right and there is nothing to be done about it in legislative terms. — m-theory

Feel free to go over my part in the previous discussion in order to better understand my position. You've made quite a few big assumptions about my position which are in fact incorrect. Yes, there are exceptional circumstances, and yes, in places like the U.K. where I'm from, it is true that up to a point, pregnant women have a legal right to decide to have an abortion (we've even been over the actual wording and stated conditions in the relevant legislation), and I accept that there can be morally acceptable circumstances - although I would emphasise that they are acceptable, but not desirable or ideal.

But that's after the fact: the killing will have already either taken place or not taken place. My point stands: no amount of legislation can prevent someone determined enough from going out and killing another human, whether that's an adult or a baby inside of themselves. — Sapientia

Yes. Legislation can only be reactionary. There is no way to strictly enforce any law. But there is a way to convict a murderer in a court beyond reasonable doubt. The same does not apply when a woman self induces miscarriage. There is virtually no way to prove a miscarriage was intentional if the accused does not admit that it was.

This is another straw man. What I actually said is that in most cases, a better resolution is available, and I stand by that claim. — Sapientia

Sorry I must have misread.

Feel free to go over my part in the previous discussion in order to better understand it. You've made quite a few big assumptions about my position which are in fact incorrect. Yes, there are exceptional circumstances, and yes, in places like the U.K. where I'm from, it is true that up to a point, pregnant women have a legal right to decide to have an abortion (We've even been over the actual wording and stated conditions in the relevant legislation), and I accept that there can be morally acceptable circumstances, although I would emphasise that they are acceptable, but not desirable or ideal. — Sapientia

I did not set out to misrepresent your position. I only sought to lay out my own. If I did, then I apologise again.

Yes. Legislation can only be reactionary. There is no way to strictly enforce any law. But there is a way to convict a murderer in a court beyond reasonable doubt. The same does not apply when a woman self induces miscarriage. There is virtually no way to prove a miscarriage was intentional if the accused does not admit that it was. — m-theory

I agree. I just don't see what it has to do with the point that I made. Seems like a tangent.

Sorry I must have misread.

I did not set out to misrepresent your position. I only sought to lay out my own. If I did, then I apologise again. — m-theory

No problem.

Gay marriage:Unnecessary. — Harry Hindu

What marriage is necessary? :)

Hi Harry!

That depends. If you tick off Republicans when you talk about social issues and tick off Democrats when you talk about economic issues, like me, then you're a libertarian.

I've never even considered that possibility... I found this on wiki

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies that uphold liberty. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2] Libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of political ideas through modern history.

And it doesn't look especially appealing.

I have to admit I'm better at commenting on what is bad with politics, then I am at suggesting solutions. It just looks like a necessary evil.

Well, the only other option is if you tick off Republicans when talking about economic issues and tick off Democrats when talking about social issues, then you're probably a Nazi.

What isn't appealing about maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice? What issues do you tick off both parties with, anyway?

What isn't appealing about maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice? What issues do you tick off both parties with, anyway? — Harry Hindu

By spotting and pointing out obvious issues. For instance, the Republican party is the party for the wealthy and big business, Democrats don't appear to care much about morality, or personal responsibility

Those are broad strokes, I know.

Well, marriage shouldn't be something the govt. should be defining or legitimizing. It's personal and private.

When Republicans point out the immoral Democrats, I point out the immoral Republicans. I can get general (policies) or specific (individual politicians).

Democrats are as much for the wealthy as Republicans. Being for the wealthy isn't a Republican/Democrat stance anyway. It's a political tactic to help you stay in power by receiving money from all the big donors who don't care who wins the election anyway as all politicians can be bought.

I understand that people see it that way... But, the Democrats do seem to care more about social issues, and the Republicans do seem to care about morality more.

They're all hypocrites, so it's easy to point out the inconsistencies both parties take. The problem is getting voters to realize that both parties are whack and we need an alternative - like the Libertarian Party.

Well, marriage shouldn't be something the govt. should be defining or legitimizing. It's personal and private — Harry Hindu

Historically it was a religious sacrament. I don't know the history of how the government got involved.

like the Libertarian Party — Harry Hindu

>:O

No.

For country census purposes first, I think.

What isn't appealing about maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice? — Harry Hindu

Because libertarianism dismisses the meta-ethical discussion on what freedom means and only deals with negative liberty: e.g. the absence of interference to make choices. However, there is no real freedom if there are no real choices, so a government creating (or even maximising) available choices also increases freedom for its citizens at the expense of taxable income. So sometimes a little limitation on negative liberty can in fact create a lot of positive liberty, namely: choices.

What isn't appealing about maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice? — Harry Hindu

Everything comes at a price. If this is achieved by a reduction of the state, then that can have detrimental consequences. But the devil is in the details.

Choices are tied to the amount of resources one has access to and there isn't an infinite amount of it. In order to increase the resources/choices of one individual means you must take resources/choices from another.

Socialists dismiss the consequences of their "solutions". They think that their intentions are all that matter without realizing the consequences of their good intentions. If Socialists had their way, they'd limit the choices and resources of everyone as there isn't enough to go around to every individual. If every citizen on this planet received an equal amount of resources, they'd only get about $16,000 a year, which just brings those making more than that down, while not lifting the poor at all. This will also limit choices. When your resources are limited, so are your choices. In the effort to make everyone equal, you end up limiting everyone's freedoms.

Until the state has complete control of procreation and the raising of children, we will always have inequality.

Marx on levelling down:

Crude communism is only the culmination of such envy and levelling-down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. How little this abolition of private property represents a genuine appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the whole world of culture and civilization, and the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and wantless individual who has not only not surpassed private property but has not yet even attained to it. The community is only a community of work and of equality of wages paid out by the communal capital, by the community as universal capitalist. The two sides of the relation are raised to a supposed universality; labor as a condition in which everyone is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. — Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

Socialists dismiss the consequences of their "solutions". They think that their intentions are all that matter without realizing the consequences of their good intentions. If Socialists had their way, they'd limit the choices and resources of everyone as there isn't enough to go around to every individual. If every citizen on this planet received an equal amount of resources, they'd only get about $16,000 a year, which just brings those making more than that down, while not lifting the poor at all. This will also limit choices. When your resources are limited, so are your choices. In the effort to make everyone equal, you end up limiting everyone's freedoms. — Harry Hindu

First of all, this has no bearing on what I said as I wasn't discussing income redistribution but taxation in order to create opportunies for choice by the government. That doesn't take away inequality but does maximise freedom in a different way than the absence of interference does. If I don't have any choices the fact that the government won't interfere is meaningless. So you neatly demonstrate that like other libertarians you're simply ignoring the meta-ethical discussion on what freedom (or liberty) really is.

Second of all, the numbers are silly because 16,000 USD is obviously barely enough in the US but more than sufficient in Bangladesh. It's also silly because it's not about just dividing GDP by capita either. If we'd do that just for the US, we'd be left with 55,221 USD per capita, but leaving nothing to reinvest and therefore also unsustainable.

EDIT: Actually, 16,000 USD is more than enough also in the US because it includes people not part of the work force. Poverty line for a family of four is about 25,000 USD. So in reality that family has 2.5 times more than the poverty line in the US. So if we'd reinvest 50% of GDP, they'd still be above the poverty line by 28%.

If we take my example, a family of four would have 8.8 times the poverty line and as a family would make 220,884 USD. If we'd reinvest 50% of GDP, they'd have 4.4 times the poverty line with 110,442 USD. Not bad.

So even a total redistribution wouldn't really be an issue, financially speaking. Just saying.