| 0 |
Subject: John Ashcroft
Posted by: Seattle Zen
- [119562516] Mon, Jan 08, 18:43
I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this man and the chances of his nomination as AG being ratified by the Senate.
Personally, everything I've heard about the man is very negative. This was GW's worst nomination so far. A man whom is proud of his far right partisanship should not be the Attorney General.
Without going into too much detail, I believe that his vicious attacks regarding Ronnie White's Federal Judicial appointment will come back to haunt the man. I've read quotes from him printed in Southern Partisan magazine that are inflamatory. In the end, I believe GW will retract his nomination and find another. If Kimba Wood can be canned for hiring a nanny without paying the correct taxes and if Lenora Fulani can rejected for some left-of-center law review articles, then I believe Ascroft should be sent home for lying about a good judge's record and for being in my mind, (how do I put this politely?) a knuckle-dragging troglodyte |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 115 | James K Polk
ID: 56528162
Tue, Jan 23, 19:39
|
biliruben, PD -- I love you guys, you know that :) But I can't go with you on posts 110 and 111.
"Taking away a woman's right to choose for herself whether she is or is not able to begin raising a family is not a pragmatic or defensible position."
The anti-abortion side is not going to disagree with you here. Of course you can't tell a woman whether or not she is ready or able to raise a family. But this isn't the crux of the debate. That would be: Is it acceptable that an outcome of this choice might include the killing of a child?
As for the correlation between higher education and pro-choice support, here's yet another theory. Institutions of higher education, for the most part, are the environments in which people first encounter relative morality. What's right for you might not be right for me, but I will respect your opinion ... etc., etc. Before you've been in this environment, your worldview tends to be much more black and white. And when your worldview has fewer shades of grey, IMHO, this simplifies the abortion debate to its most essential question: Do I believe there are circumstances under which it is OK to end the life of a child? Or, if you want to get downright nasty about phrasing: Do I believe that, in order to make one human being's life better, it is OK to kill another human being?
As for this: "Understanding that you may consider something wrong, but realizing that you can't force everyone to think the same way you do by passing a law is a subtlety that may be gained by increased education." I don't think the anti-abortion side is under any illusions that it can change pro-choice minds merely by passing a law. That doesn't have anything to do with education; it has everything to do with the fact that it's not necessarily their ultimate goal to get people to agree with them. They would argue that their goal, in its simplest form, is to save children's lives.
|
| 116 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Wed, Jan 24, 13:11
|
Looks like Johnny's gonna have to wait another
week before he gets his throne:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/24/politics/24ASHC.html
|
| 117 | Perm Dude
ID: 471126619
Wed, Jan 24, 13:43
|
Mr. President, re #115: I see that you didn't quote me, just biliruben! I was simply trying to comment on the relationship between the increase in educational levels and the increase in empathetic levels regarding others' rights. Causal, or co-relational? Probably the former, and not limited to the abortion issue.
Regarding the abortion issue, however, you have simplified the issue to what you would consider to be the "essential" questions, but I have to disagree on that. If you don't believe (as many pro-choicers do) that it is actually a human life or a child, then your questions bring into the issue their own assumptions. Can't be the "essential" questions with assumptions, then, can it?
I'm not trying to argue the pro-choice side here, just saying that both sides are asking and answering different questions, which makes this issue all the more difficult and entrenched.
pd
|
| 118 | Madman
ID: 610552719
Wed, Jan 24, 14:48
|
I actually have to strongly disagree with the notion that education leads to more enlightened decision making on issues that involve morality. I have known a number of less educated folk who instinctively have better morals than I (of course, you could rationally argue that I've been in school so long that I've become stupid. I'm open to that hypothesis).
Abortion is about morality. Therefore, it is about things that are fundamental to the way in which we all live our lives. I don't think being educated helps in any definitive way toward our understanding of this issue. Does studying philosophy give one a feeling of purpose in life?
Don't get me wrong. There are issues that are solely about education and perspective. For example, the choice of COLA's for Social Security. The Dems tried to throw that one in Rep's faces awhile back. I will simply not accept that the masses understood the incredibly subtle arguments for and against a one-time change in the COLA for technical reasons. This doesn't mean that the COLA adjustment was wrong. But that the reasons for it were highly esoteric.
Society and its morals are, by definition, understandable by society. In fact, I think the more highly educated one is, the higher the likelihood that you will build artificial intellectual walls that help protect you/us from understanding the more instinctual elements that undergird our societal fabric. We must study what they subconsciously know.
I will trust the masses for determining broad directions and fundamental societal values. I trust the educated to help us differentiate between good and bad ways of implementing those values. This is why I support our Republic, and fear Democracy. I trust the people to find trustworthy representatives (although sometimes I cringe). But I want the representatives to be educated (or at least rely on educated folk), so that they may make wise and informed decisions on specific issues.
|
| 119 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Wed, Jan 24, 15:37
|
Madman - I am leaning towards agreeing with you
regarding your last paragraph. I also believe we
should leave the nuances of implementation of the
will of the people to those we elect to study and
implement it.
It can be argued that an element morality is
inherent in nearly all the major issues of our time.
Healthcare, education, social security, welfare:
"The moral test of a government is how that
government treats those who are in the dawn of
life - the children; the twilight of life - the
elderly; and the shadows of life - the sick, the
needy and the handicapped."
-Hubert Humphrey
War, military:
The moral implications of whether/when we engage
in military conflict and with whom are obvious.
Drugs, alcohol, smoking,
Taxation, land-use, environment,
Violance, racism, sexism, and on and on....
All issues with strong moral components.
How much or how little we chose to involve the
government such issues is decided on a case by
case basis, balancing the prevailing moral
attitudes with the other components that are also
part of the equation. In the case of abortion, a
key compenent, one with it's own moral compenent,
is civil rights. We need to balance our moral
heart-strings with the realization that "moral
majority" (seems appropriate to dredge up that
term here) may be taking a decision, a
responsibility, a "right" away from a minority
group (women of child-bearing age), when that
decision only directly affects the women, her
fetus, and the people around her who care about her.
Another, similar moral issue involves advanced
directives. Provisions for treatment, or lack
there of, which often means life or death to a
sick or elderly patient. These come in many
forms, living wills, durable power of attorney
(DPA), Do not resuscitate orders (DNR). In
essence, many situations arise where we leave a
powerful moral decision to an individual most able
to weigh all the factors and make that difficult,
yet personal, decision. We still have some debate
in our society about these issues and given that
the issue of suffering is usually tantimount, it
is not identical to abortion, but for the most
part, our society has weighed the evidence, using
reason, experience and yes, education, and decided
that these decisions should be made by the
individual most affected.
Where I am going with this? Heck if I know. If
GW can ramble, I can too. :)
|
| 120 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Wed, Jan 24, 15:41
|
Sheesh, where the rotoguru spellcheck! Bad biliruben.
|
| 121 | James K Polk
ID: 32012715
Wed, Jan 24, 15:50
|
Madman -- what you said in paragraphs 2 and 4 of post 118 was what I was trying to make a charge at in 115, but you said it so much more clearly. Thank you :)
PD -- sorry for lumping you in, I guess I read too much into the "I agree" part in your post 111. Mea culpa :)
And I completely agree with your point on the essential questions in the abortion debate. In fact, I mentioned in a previous post that I think the most fundamental question is when a person believes life begins. I failed to restate that in post 115, but there I was really trying comment on the anti-abortion response to a woman choosing whether she is ready to begin a family.
So, it comes down to this: I think the abortion debate can be simplified, for the most part, to two questions ...
1) At what point do I believe life begins?
2) Are there circumstances under which I believe it is acceptable to end the life of an unborn child? (This question obviously could be made moot depending on your answer to #1.)
I think the interaction between a person's answers to those questions decides where they are on the spectrum of pro-choice vs. anti-abortion. And for there to be any constructive debate on the issue, I think it has to center on these questions. This is why I think it is self-defeating for anti-abortion activists to use graphic pictures of aborted fetuses to try to make a point, and why I think it's just as absurd for pro-choice activists to frame the debate as being entirely about the woman involved.
|
| 122 | ivan
ID: 32032247
Wed, Jan 24, 15:50
|
billiruben - intresting stuff.
i'd argue than in the case of abortion the individual most affected is not the mother.
which of course flips the whole debate, i'm not sure the can be a resoulution to the abortion debate though, it's either murder or liposuction depending on your politics.
|
| 123 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Wed, Jan 24, 16:23
|
Mr. President - sorry to not directly respond to
your dismantling of my post. I just wasn't really
sure what to say. As in the larger debate (if you
can call it that), our differences lie in what we
consider the "crux of the issue." Hard to find a
middle ground there.
I think our interpretations regarding the
correlation are pretty similar, actually. It is
just that I think those shades of grey are
essential, and you seem to have a different
opinion (see 1st paragraph above).
Oh, yeah. I love you too. ;)
|
| 124 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Wed, Jan 24, 16:26
|
Oh yeah. Do you ski, Mr. President? If yes, drop
me a note. I'd like to ask your advice about good
places to teach my girfriend (she's down on
Pullman now) how to snowboard.
|
| 125 | saber34
ID: 100392419
Wed, Jan 24, 20:10
|
re: post #5
Great record I think this guys is me......
Only one I might change is Medicar Drugs..
but I'd have to research that one...
Let me review it again....
Shoot now I need to comment....
1. Drugs:
**I agree with the demand-side, but I think we should still attack the supply
2. Death Penalty:
***Upholding law of the land
*Appeals are a waste of money... How many times *can a murderer prove he murdered someone.
*I'm tired of racism... when groups "label" *themselves it defines the racism... I dislike as *many white people as I do "colored people"
3. Civil Rights:
Against affirmative action.
***Quotas you mean***
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
***Same pay same work no labels***
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.
**Good make your statement by going to jail ever **think of that***
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
**Hate, I hate am I a criminal... Prosecute for **the crime not who the victim was
Comments: They speak for themselves.
4. Defense:
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
**Like anyone else follows it. Lets let China develope while we fall behind, heck we've done that with the whole military**
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons.
**same as above.**
5. Choice:
Opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest.
**I'm a lifer, but it does hurt to see instances as these, but Adoption is available....
6. Environment:
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. **40 years later??? What do we have??
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. **Lets make our country inaccessable, I'm all for charging me to go into the parks....
7. Government Reform:
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.
**Campaign Finance = lets just support the liberals with the media.... Sorry John...Also note Americans don't care about this reform, never makes the top 10 of polls....
8. Health Care:
Voted against penalties on tobacco companies.
*I've seen many commercials, I know they are bad for me, I've read the label... I don't smoke , but I thought they made me smoke... just another take responsiblilty for you actions topics.
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
** ????
Comment: Obviously a tool of industry.
9. Education:
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC.
**yeah... my public funds shouldn't go to promote liberalism.....
Comment: Public funds shouldn't be used to help pay for private schools.
10. Labor:
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage.
***I get paid $10 an hour. I don't do anything worth that much money....
Like I said. Ashcroft is the anti-christ.
*** not yet...****
Anyone ever read revelations?
the anti-christ will have to be a liberal. Thats the only way we'll ever have such great and wonderful things... health care... world peace....etc...
By the wya I wish the Isralies and Palestinians would just go at it and get it over with for this decade....
|
| 126 | YankeesRule
ID: 299302812
Fri, Jan 26, 15:07
|
u got to do wat u got to do
|
| 127 | hoops boy
ID: 16937178
Fri, Jan 26, 16:38
|
"In the case of abortion, a key compenent, one with it's own moral compenent, is civil rights. We need to balance our moral heart-strings with the realization that "moral majority" (seems appropriate to dredge up that term here) may be taking a decision, a responsibility, a "right" away from a minority group (women of child-bearing age), when that decision only directly affects the women, her fetus, and the people around her who care about her."
The problem with this biliruben is that once again this issue comes back to when you believe the life of a child starts, becuase this has a direct impact on whether you feel the child has a "right to life" which is generally consider one of (if not the) top things gaurenteed to "Americans".
This is why the abortion debate is so circular, because the people on both sides do not agree on the basic assumptions.
(BTW- Thats another circular arguement often presented regarding takeing away a right of a women, but women have no right to an abortion in the context of an abortion debate, thats what were debateing on!)
|
| 128 | Perm Dude
ID: 28059111
Fri, Jan 26, 16:51
|
Well, given saber's rants, I suppose I might as well weigh in with a more moderate view:
1. Drugs
We've got a real problem when those caught with a single reefer cigarette spends more time in jail than a man who beats his wife. If you believe people should be free to smoke cigarettes you should feel the same about alcohol and crack. Just don't make me pay for your habits. Oops! Too late.
2. Death penalty
Why let criminals off easy? Timothy McVie should spend the rest of his life in prison for what he did, not get off easy by dictating a "kill me ASAP" attitude. If it's about retribution then you should be against the death penalty. If it's about justice one mistake screws that theory and we don't know how many we've killed in error.
3. Civil rights
Its about opportunity, not retribution or quotas. Saber, read http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/mb/pol/27.shtml for a more in-depth look at my position. Looks like you've bought the "quota" tag hook line and sinker. Thought you'd be smarter than that.
4. Nuclear Ban/chemical weapons
Let's see here--refuse to accept treaties we negotiated and forced onto others? Can you say: "Barganing position bye bye?"
5. Choice
Rape and incest? The choice is clear.
6. Environment
Ashcroft voted billions for Star Wars technology (in the hopes it would work) but against millions for renewable energy (which does work).
If lumber companies need roads when they pillage our national forests for pennies on the dollar, let them build their own damn roads. It's the cost of business. [it amazes me that conservatives want government off their backs but refuse to cut back on their own pork. The first step is to admit you have a problem, buddy]
7. Campaign finance reform
McCain is no liberal, by any stretch. And I haven't seen your poll citations, saber....
8. Health care
Government has to pay billions to cover the costs of cigarettes. Until Clinton stopped it, government allowed tobacco companies to write off the cost of advertising their products, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Government subsidizes the growing of tobacco. What do you think government is for?
If cigarette smokers kept the costs to themselves there would be no problem here.
Prescription drug costs are rising faster than many users (particularly for the elderly, who take medication more often than the average person) can pay. Truly, many elderly have to choose between food and medicine, which (in the end) causes even more health care problems that have to be paid for by, yup, Medicare.
9 Education
Probably need another thread for this one. I'm of the mind that those who want to send their kids to private schools should do so with their own money. Taxpayers who don't send kids to school (those who's kids have grown, teenagers, retired people, etc) don't have a choice to withhold their taxes from the school system, and that system works because good schools are in the local's best interests.
10. Minimum wage
I've already spelled out my views on Madman's thread.
Antichrist? Probably not, but close. Indeed, a picture on the news recently had a closeup of his head. I took the liberty of blowing it up here for a closer look, as I noticed something on his crown. Very faintly I saw the numbers: 6 6 7. Thisclose.
pd
|
| 129 | Toral
ID: 25062617
Fri, Jan 26, 17:06
|
I didn't really intend to get into an abortion debate here. I've been around long enough to know that anybody who has a position on it isn't going to persuade anybody on the opposite side.
So my general approach to abortion debates is to stay out of them, except for correcting false statements or gross exagerrations. And, when I do speak, I find it more fulfilling to correct misstatements etc. on my *own* side rather than others.
But, after thinking about it for a few days, I can't not respond to PD 117. A pro-choice position supposedly shows a better 'empathetic level regarding others' rights.'
Insofar as empathy is relevant, I think, PD, you have it exactly wrong. The pro-choicer empathizes with the inconvenience, pain, perhaps suffering, of women having to have an abortion: the inconvenience etc. of one who you might know, who can speak, who can declare their suffering and declaim about it.
The pro-life position feels empathy for the fetus/human being who is killed, but has no one to speak for him or her.
If empathy is the standard, pro-choicers ought to retire gracefully from the argument.
|
| 130 | Seattle Zen
ID: 119562516
Fri, Jan 26, 17:13
|
I was a philosophy major in college and remember reading a very famous article or paper by a woman in the 1970's that set up the following scenario (this is a very rough approximation, my memory is fuzzy, if anyone could find this article, I would be happy to read it again):
A woman wakes up one morning and finds that her organs are connected via tubes to an unconscious man who is now reliant upon her for his life, and not just any man, but a world famous pianist. The Doctors tell the woman that this man must stay connected to her for nine months. The woman can remain mobile, the man is on a gurney with wheels, but she feels tired and occasionally nauseous. If the woman removed the tubes, our pianist would die.
This woman is getting support from her husband and immediate family. Hell, after the nine months, our pianist walks home and doesn't need 18 years of emotional and financial support.
The question is, does this woman have the right to remove the tubes? Should she forced to carry this man around for nine months, or is she to be allowed to control the fate of her own body? We know this man is already alive and we know that the world is a better place with him in it, but sorry, most people would agree that our woman here should be allowed to decide if she wants to carry this burden or not.
So, Mr. Pres., even if you believe that a oocyte is "life", you can certainly still be pro-choice. And finally, who really gives a sh*t what men think about this issue, we don't have to carry the babies, we should be left out of the policy argument all together.
|
| 131 | Perm Dude
ID: 28059111
Fri, Jan 26, 17:18
|
Toral,
Thanks for your note. I did not want to argue the pro-choice side (and said so in my post). Indeed, the part of these debates I dislike most is feeling like I have to strongly argue just one side or another when I'm usually in the middle!
I'd have to say, again, that the empathetic levels seem to rise with education, and that it is not limited to this issue. Don't let the starkness of the abortion debate overshadow the relationship in other issues! It's unfortunately that my point is being made in an abortion thread, but I stand by my points.
pd
|
| 132 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Fri, Jan 26, 17:29
|
667. Giggle, chortle, guffaw.
|
| 133 | Toral
ID: 25062617
Fri, Jan 26, 18:29
|
I understand that support for "globalism" rises steadily with education and income. Seattle Zen,
biliruben ... throw away your placards and stop opposing. You must not empathize with others'
rights (?) and must be wrong.
|
| 134 | Seattle Zen
ID: 119562516
Fri, Jan 26, 18:37
|
Toral
Put down the martini and explain that last post.
|
| 135 | Mark L
ID: 4444938
Fri, Jan 26, 18:49
|
Seattle Zen - you're referencing Judith Jarvis Thomson's article "A Defense Of Abortion." I question the validity of her analogy. The hypothetical involves a person being "hooked up" without any voluntary action on his or her part. Not true for the vast majority of pregnancies. The pregnancy might not have been intended (even not desired) but IMO there is still a difference between the two situations where the sexual acts were volitional.
|
| 136 | James K Polk
ID: 355352418
Fri, Jan 26, 18:50
|
Seattle Zen -- the inherent difference in the anecdote you cite and an actual pregnancy is the fact that, in your story, the woman "just woke up" with this life suddenly in her hands. In a pregnancy (obviously notwithstanding cases of rape and incest), the woman does not "just wake up" pregnant. She has to participate in the creation of that life, and that's a very important difference, IMHO. The difference between the burden of responsibility through no fault of your own, and the burden of responsibility based on your own actions. That's why I don't find the anecdote to be anywhere near a compelling argument for abortion rights.
But I would agree with you that yes, you can believe life begins at conception and still be pro-choice. That leads to some ugly conclusions, however.
|
| 137 | Toral
ID: 25062617
Fri, Jan 26, 18:53
|
Seattle Zen...I can't give you figures, but I believe that support for NAFTA, international trade agreements, 'global capitalism' -- support rises with education and income. It is the poor stupid people who statistically tend to be opposed to these things (and I say that, as Broadway Danny Rose said, with all due respect.)
(I am dubious about globalism too.)
Do you or bili really want to endorse a position that suggests that these elites must be right?
(BTW, SZ, the article you mentioned is perhaps the most famous pro-abortion philosophical article ever written. There are whole books just debating that article. I myself would take a hard line: 1) the person is morally wrong to remove the tubes; 2) society has a perfect right to enact a law making the removal of the tubes a criminal offence.)
Wish I could join you in your anti-globalist demos...I don't like it either.
Toral
|
| 138 | biliruben
ID: 140551217
Fri, Jan 26, 19:45
|
I am not really sure what you mean by globalism,
toral, or whether I have expressed much of an
opinion regarding globalism on these boards. I
think I am still forming opinions about globalism.
I do know that there have been some nasty things
done throughout history in the name of nationalism
(are they opposites, I wonder?), and that our
world is getting way too small to think in terms
of only one nation's interests anymore. We are
pretty much all interconnected.
Then again, the impunity with which multi-national
corps subject their will on
unsuspecting/defensless societies can be a bit
disturbing, to say the least, so if that's what
you are calling globalism...
|
| 139 | Madman
ID: 610552719
Fri, Jan 26, 23:22
|
Toral You bring up an issue (trade and education) that I considered using as an example in my post 118.
To repeat the gist of it -- with respect to morality and basic definitions of humanity, all have equally valid and supportable opinions.
Since "globalism" only tangentially is related to these issues (and, indeed, these tangents are of an extremely complicated nature), I would tend to agree that there is a high degree of likelihood that more education makes one more capable of understanding the complicated ramifications of the issues.
Just thought I'd point this potential stance out. You seem to be of the opinion that education is meaningless in any policy debate? Whereas biliruben has posited the reverse -- education leads to greater accuracy of positions? I'm suggesting a middle ground that results in positions neither of you two are (I'm guessing) particularly comfortable with, but to which I am perhaps more inclined (for reasons including this notion of when I trust the educated) ;-). This is not to say I don't have caveats with my support for globalism, of course.
-------------------
One point just for fun on the Seattle Zen story. There is also a distinction between cutting the life-support lines thereby letting someone die versus killing the pianist out-right so that the life-support lines may be more comfortably removed. . . My empathies in the abortion debate are pretty amorphous. But it is ironically exactly this sort of story that pushes me toward the pro-life camp. The thought that it would be moral to cavalierly terminate a living human being's life, solely for the purpose of more conveniently removing dependency status is a position that I find abhorrent. The reason my overall position in this debate remains illy-defined relates to the difficulty of defining the beginning of a human life. But if you yield on that argument, I cannot be with you.
|
| 140 | Toral
ID: 25062617
Sat, Jan 27, 05:12
|
Madman 139: yes, education is irrelevant in a policy debate. What is relevant is arguments. Educated people may very well make better arguments about means to a desirable end. But even that is not always true. Educated people may prevail in their arguments about means, even where their arguments are fanciful.
Consider the approach of "the educated" to the problem of poor inner-city housing, (ghetto housing, to be blunt) in the 60s and 70s. The consensus of the educated elite (at least the liberal part of it) was that it was best to engage in "slum clearance". Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent to rip down existing neighbourhoods, and force the residents into "Public housing projects". Big apartment buildings with all the amenities, etc.
The results of this experiment by the educated are well known, I believe. The "projects", populated by people forced from their communities, absent the forcible guidance applied by ordinary citizens taking care of their street life, became literal Hellholes. The big one in St. Louis (Prue-something?) was eventually emptied of people and literally blown up -- destroyed, dynamited, just like the Kingdome --by the government after its failure became evident. Rates of murder, rape, drug use, non-parented families, lack of support for kids' education by parents -- any civilized index you want, have been much worse in the "projects" than in the poor communities that were destroyed to make way for them. To add a baseball note, if a fan chooses to walk from downtown Chicago to Wrigley Field, all is well -- except for a small part of the walk in which travellers are warned not, under any conditions, to stray 2 blocks to the west. Because if you do, you will run into a liberal "project" where, it is said, random gunfire is not unknown, and even Cops dare not enter except in teams with full body armor.
Actually, I should be blunter...it is an important part of the conservative project these last 40 years or so to realize that highly educated people make great mistakes about means. The "law of unintended consequences" may come to mind. Or we may think of Robert McNamara and the Vietnam war...or the Great Society welfare programmes that destroyed marriage as an institution among the black poor...or the affirmative action programmes that caused people to wonder of any minority person professional, "is he a really qualified professional, or an AA person that got by on a freebie."
Yes, there are highly technical issues such as the ones you have mentioned in your posts where one should defer to experts. Unfortunately, experts in policy positions don't seem to understand where the real boundaries of their expertise lie. Surprise! They are ordinary human beings who will
implement their agendas wherever they have power to do so, even if the matters are outside their expertise.
Buckley's aphorism puts it best: "I would rather be governed by the first 100 people listed in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University."
Toral
|
| 141 | Madman
ID: 610552719
Sat, Jan 27, 09:18
|
Toral 140 needs to go in the Guru-archives. Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
I don't think I sufficiently clarified or limited the extent to which I trust educated folk. It all comes down to this:
If the issue hinges on knowledge, I trust the educated folk. If the issue hinges on judgement, I trust the masses.
The art and bias, of course, comes into play when I have to infer what the judgement of the masses would be if they had sufficient knowledge . . .
For two practical examples I already mentioned. With the COLA debate, the counter-arguments for the adjustments dealt with taking money away from seniors. This did happen. However, it was done in an effort, in my opinion, to more accurately reflect the previously established reasoned judgement that the Soc. Sec. payments should increase to adjust for the cost of living and no more. Therefore, the populist argument was null-and-void, IMO, since it didn't address the educated reason for instituting the adjustment.
Similarly with respect to globalism. There are certain pieces of it that are almost universally accepted in educated circles as implementing the mandate of economic growth and capitalism and such, even though the masses may not understand or appreciate this. Obviously, there are other pieces in which there is no consensus whatsoever, but that's another story . . .
|
| 142 | Seattle Zen
ID: 56027123
Sat, Jan 27, 17:13
|
Thank you, Mark L, for reminding me of the author and title of that article. And thank both you and the Pres. for your responces in posts 135 and 136 because I believe it reveals motives that have not yet been exposed in this thread. You both said that the difference between Thomson's example and a woman's pregancy is that she willingly had sex where the woman who wakes up with the pianist attached to her was involuntarily burdoned.
It's called the "original sin" argument. "You had sex, little girl! You must pay the price! You will suffer the social stigma! No easy out for you, for an abortion 'for your convience' is wrong!" Now if a big bad man raped you and you got pregnant, well, then, that's not your fault, I'll allow you to end that pregnancy.
It is all a load of crap! Paternalistic is too kind of a term. A woman's body is hers and hers alone and a bunch of conservative, narrow-minded men are not going to disuade any woman from controlling her destiny. To resent women who choose to end pregnancies they do not want to bring to term is misogyny at its worst.
|
| 143 | steve houpt
ID: 5811592615
Sat, Jan 27, 17:53
|
How about this? - if she decides to have the baby, (the man has no say, it's HER body), she is responsible for all financial support. She could have had an abortion. She let him have sex, he's not responsible.
Can't have it both ways, can you?
Some opinions from the other side:
By vesting all reproductive responsibility in the woman, a pro-choice male creates a situation in which men can easily rationalize their irresponsibility toward women who choose not to abort.
As Daniel Callahan puts it, ``If legal abortion has given women more choice, it has also given men more choice as well. They now have a potent new weapon in the old business of manipulating and abandoning women.`` Given that 80 percent of all abortions are sough by single women (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute) the advent of reproductive rights has created a situation in
which a man can coerce a woman to have an abortion by denying his responsibility towards her, or even abandoning her when she gets pregnant and ``chooses`` to carry the pregnancy to term.
According to feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon, ``Sexual liberation in this sense does not free women, it frees male sexual aggression. The availability of abortion thus removes the one remaining legitimized reason that women had for refusing sex besides the headache.``
Studies have also demonstrated that male coercion and pressure play a sizable role in many women`s abortion decisions.
By Kathleen Howley
I am going to try to say this without sounding like a man-hating feminist. Here goes.
There are few things in life more disgusting than men who, when discussing abortion, use the phrase: "I can't tell a woman what to do with her body."
It's like a password. It's usually pronounced with a self-satisfied smile. They're saying, "I'm cool. I'm a supportive kinda guy. I'm sensitive to the needs of women."
------ x--------- x----------
I'm not saying ALL men (or anyone here), but I'm sure some supporters think that way. And not just women of today. - steve h
------- x---------- x---------
In a July, 1869, article in "The Revolution," the feminist newspaper edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the latter -- of the U.S. one-dollar coin fame-- wrote:
"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime."
---------- x----------- x--------
A little harsh, but obviously this argument is nothing new. - steve h
|
| 144 | James K Polk
ID: 4211362123
Sat, Jan 27, 19:14
|
Seattle Zen -- You sell the anti-abortion side way, way short by referring to it as a bunch of conservative, narrow-minded men. There are plenty of women and plenty of non-conservatives who find abortion to be abhorrent, and they by no means have a monopoly on narrow-mindedness.
That's because narrow-mindedness is exactly what leads people to present the abortion debate as being entirely about the woman involved. I'm sorry. It's not.
As for the "original sin" argument, you can certainly make it sound paternalistic and mean by phrasing it the way you did. But there are many, many people who believe in the principle of taking responsibility for your actions. In fact, we all subscribe to that theory every day, under the laws that we all are forced to obey. You get drunk, you drive, you kill someone, you go to jail. Sure, you did not decide to kill someone, but it was a direct consequence of a choice you made. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but just like people know that there are risks to drinking and driving, people know that pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex.
Back to the "paternalistic and mean" thing: There are plenty of anti-abortion believers who provide services, support, even lodging and medical help, for women who suddenly are facing a pregnancy they weren't expecting and don't know how to deal with. They do not harass the women, they treat them with respect and encourage them. Is this misogyny, just because they believe the women shouldn't abort those children?
And on that note, it wouldn't be hard to argue that women who abort their own children display misanthropy at its worst.
You don't seem to be arguing that life begins at some point after conception, so stripped down to its essence, Seattle Zen, what you are arguing is that if a pregnant woman decides her life would be better if the baby were killed, she should have that option. So where do you draw the line? Should we limit that right just to pregnant women, or should we all have the option of killing people in order to improve our quality of life?
|
| 145 | Seattle Zen
ID: 5411501617
Sat, Jan 27, 21:55
|
Source:
What I get from your post is that not only should women have to suffer the consequences of having sex, but that men should too. Abortion makes it easy for men to avoid the responsibility of raising a child because there is no child.
I must ask both you and the Pres. a question: Do you believe that birth control is a good thing or a bad thing. I have a sneaking suspition that you both think it is morally wrong. The tenor of both of the above posts ring of "personal responsibilty"
But there are many, many people who believe in the principle of taking responsibility for your actions James K. Polk.
This is an old, outdated Christian, hell, even pre-Christian notion that sex is sin. Sure, in order to have a society 10,000 years ago, women needed a man to provide while she gave birth then raised their children. Man wanted to know that the child they raised was his, so woman was forbidden from having sex with other men. Likewise, pre-marital sex was forbidden, the man must commit to provide for the woman or the whole of our species would go kaput. The urge for sex is strong, so the onus on breaking the rules had to be equally strong. Women were cast out if the were proven to be "whores", but remember, if no one took responsibility for caring for the women and infants, we wouldn't survive.
Well, guess what, we now have birth control. We can have sex without fear of impregnating the woman, and THAT IS FANTASTIC! Not only that, but women can have children and survive in our society without a man providing and that, too, is FANTASTIC. Where before if men and women had sex, it almost always led to dire consequences, now it does not have to.
And guess what, there are some people who resent that this is the state of affairs. They liked society that cracked the whip and kept order. They liked the fact that sex had consequences and that our society exacted huge tolls upon women who broke the social taboos. These people are clinging to a past that was harsh because it had to be, but they fail to recognize the freedom and liberation that these scientific advances have brought us. Our society is no longer at risk of falling apart if consenting people have sex, and lots of sex, with lots of people, because now it is orgasims were are having, not kids.
Mr. Pres, I don't believe there is "life" until "viability", myself, but I will argue that abortion is defensible even if you believe life is at conception. I simply draw the line that anyone who has an organism living inside her, or heaven forbid, a pianist living via life-support next to you, only you can choose if you want to continue supporting that life or not.
Source: Loved the quote from Catherine MacKinnon. She's a peach :)
|
| 146 | James K Polk
ID: 4211362123
Sat, Jan 27, 22:59
|
I have absolutely no problem with birth control. I'm all for it. I use it! :)
And I'm not quite sure how my posts have suggested that I might be against birth control, or that I think "sex is sin." I think no such thing. Sex is great! But sex can have consequences, pregnancy being among them, and anyone engaging in sex knows the risks. Heck, it's like if you go skydiving, you use a parachute. You expect it to work, and almost all of the time, it does. But if it doesn't, there are consequences that were set into motion when you jumped out of the plane. And you have accepted the possibility of that outcome when you jump. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't skydive, or that skydiving is somehow morally wrong, or that I would tell other people not to jump out of airplanes if that's how they get their kicks. Just know the risks and be prepared to deal with them.
It is at this point where our philosophies diverge. And it's where I have a question for you, Seattle Zen. What is wrong with the idea of personal responsibility? Simply taking responsibility for the potential outcomes of the choices you make does not equate with saying those choices were morally wrong in the first place. This is what you seem to suggest.
If, as you said, abortion is defensible even if life begins at conception, because "only you can choose if you want to continue supporting that life or not," I have another question for you. How do you feel about parents who have children, then abandon their children to die, or who kill them outright? Is it the right of those parents to decide they no longer want to support those lives? If life does begin at conception, this is a natural extension of your argument, because a 2-year-old child is just as dependent on an adult for survival as is a 2-week-old fetus.
|
| 147 | steve houpt
ID: 5811592615
Sat, Jan 27, 23:28
|
That's what you get for sneaking suspicions. Believe birth control is a great thing. Sex is great.
This is nothing to do with birth control, Christianity, pre-marital sex or thinking sex is sin. Where are you coming from? Where did those thoughts come from? And what does personal responsibility in your life have to do with anything to do with that? Do you just like to take responsibilty for things in your life when it suits you?
So, if you forgot the birth control, you don't want the responsibility because you don't believe in personal resposibility, and in order to not have any responsibity, arguing abortion is a womans right makes your beliefs feasible.
I have a 'sneaking supicion' that it's not just abortion. You want to do whatever you want, whenever you want and you don't care what anyone thinks and you don't want anyone to try and tell you what you can and cannot do. You don't want to be held responsible for anything unless it's OK with you.
|
| 148 | steve houpt
ID: 5811592615
Sat, Jan 27, 23:36
|
Why do people assume that if you make any pro life statement you are part of some Christian right organization? Or does it just make it easier to attack the points that way.
I can't even remember the last time I went to church except for someone that had passed away or someone getting married and that's where the services were.
|
| 149 | Seattle Zen
ID: 5411501617
Sun, Jan 28, 01:02
|
"Personal Responsibility" is such a loaded term, along the lines of "Family values".
A woman has sex using birth control - a woman jumps out of a plane with a parachute.
A woman gets pregnant - a woman's chute doesn't work.
A woman says, "I'm getting an abortion" - a woman says "I'm pulling the cord on my emergency chute"
Mr. Upright says, "You made your choices, you must take 'personal responsibility' for them. No abortion for you, and GET YOUR HAND OFF THAT CORD, MISSY!"
Source:
You want to do whatever you want, whenever you want and you don't care what anyone thinks and you don't want anyone to try and tell you what you can and cannot do.
This isn't about me or men, ask Sean Kemp.
I don't like telling other people what they should or should not do (except that they should pay 50% of their net worth in taxes ;)). Conservatives exist for the opportunity to tell everyone what their "personal responsibility" is. If they don't like it, build more prisons.
|
| 150 | James K Polk
ID: 4211362123
Sun, Jan 28, 01:45
|
First off -- the abortion debate isn't strictly about conservatives vs. liberals. There are both types on both sides of this issue.
Secondly -- you're sure picking and choosing the points you respond to. Rather than tackle direct questions, you've taken my analogy, admittedly not a perfect one, and made a comparison between pulling an emergency chute and aborting an unwanted pregnancy. Pulling an emergency chute cord, which negatively impacts no one, is VERY different from having an abortion, which negatively impacts the child, or fetus if you prefer. Not a good comparison at all.
If you're so against this idea of foisting "personal responsibility" onto other people, then what would you do with the drunken driver who kills someone in an accident? Choices led to consequences, but certainly those consequences were unintended. And don't think that I'm trying to somehow imply sex is immoral or should be illegal or anything of the sort, because I'm not. Just like I'm not arguing that the alcohol that got the driver drunk the first place should be illegal. I'm just arguing that sometimes we make choices for ourselves that do affect other people's lives. So how far are you willing to take this "don't tell others what to do" philosophy?
More specifically related to the abortion debate, how would you answer the questions I posed at the end of post #146? I'm really curious about that.
|
| 151 | Seattle Zen
ID: 56027123
Sun, Jan 28, 12:31
|
Mr. Pres.
If the 2 year old doesn't sleep through the night and isn't potty trained... Just kidding.
Two year olds are obviously "viable" as they are living outside of their mother. My argument naturally ends at viability.
I know that you generally are a liberal, Mr. Pres, and it pains you to be lumped in with conservatives, but in this instance, you are holding a conservative and, in my mind, antiquated position. You proclaim that you are not implying sex is immoral, but comparing it to drunken driving, which is morally reprehensable, is just such an implication. I believe that most anti-abortionists populate the "teach abstenence and only abstenence" lobby - "sex outside of marriage is wrong" which is a ridicuolously antiquated notion as I explained above.
What I meant by "I don't like telling people what they should and shouldn't do" is two fold. First, literally, I don't enjoy being a moral scold. Secondly, I do not have all the answers, nor do I hold myself out to be the fountain of all that is rightous and good. I dislike people who do, from Catherine MacKinnon to Pat Robertson. I stand by my "orginial sin" argument and it is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that therefore I do not believe in "personal responsibility" at all. Just like I believe in Family Values, just not yours, or Steve's or ...
Mr. Pres, many people (my sister included)think that killing animals is akin to murder. I still eat meat. Many people think abortion is murder. Oh, well.
|
| 152 | steve houpt
ID: 5811592615
Sun, Jan 28, 14:58
|
Seattle Zen - "a bunch of conservative, narrow-minded men are not going to disuade any woman from controlling her destiny. To resent women who choose to end pregnancies they do not want to bring to term is misogyny at its worst."
"This is an old, outdated Christian, hell, even pre-Christian notion that sex is sin. Sure, in order to have a society 10,000 years ago, women needed a man to provide while she gave birth then raised their children."
Maybe the reason I have 'scoffed' at some of your arguments is how you make your argument. I have never in this thread called anyone that believes in abortion any type of fanatical left. Athiest. It is political because a small portion of the democratic party (the most vocal women (NOW, etc) pro lifer groups) give major dollars to the democratic party and a small portion of the republican party (the most vocal pro choice groups - Christian coalition) give major dollars to the republican party.
But the argument is not republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, Christian or non Christian. Arguments that attack others personal beliefs not based strictly on the subject annoy me the way the possible government involvement annoys you.
I've never said I didn't respect you beliefs. I have brought counter arguments to statements that don't address the 'real' subject IMHO, just attack some of the messengers as......
When this started, I was basically neutral. It was the law. May not have liked it, but figured it was a no win argument (it probably isn't). And if the law was changed again or modified, that's the way the system works. Was not going to fight either way. I'll still leave that to the groups that think it's worth all their energy and time to fight for it or against it.
I have to agree with Perm Dudes comments in P#80: "Actually, the pro-choice side is ill-served by idiots like Cantwell (as the pro-life side is ill-served by dittoheads). For example, the pro-choice side has been talking about "safe and legal" abortions for years, but I've seen very little work on making them safer (and the lack of doctors who perform abortions in some areas of the country make pro-choice advocates even less picky about who's doing the work). Doesn't keep them from bringing out the coathangers at every rally, however. The pro-life side would have you believe that those getting abortions are selfish sex-seekers who are using abortion as a form of birth control (at a few hundred dollars each, this seems to be a bit more than a pack of Trojans), and they seem more interested in scaring teens about the hazards of sex than educating them as to its proper place.
Note: I don't know or really care to know all the people on either side by name. Have no clue who Catherine MacKinnon is. Does it mean she's from Georgia because she's a peach? PD - Take it Cantrell is the Sen from Wash?
If I'm writing my Senators or Representatives, it might be on education, not abortion. I'll leave that to the experts on both sides at spinning. They have to do something for a living. :)
And to all, have Happy Super Bowl Sunday.
|
| 153 | Myboyjack
ID: 4443038
Tue, Feb 06, 10:03
|
Sorry to bring this thread up to the top for no good reason; I was just wondering if anyone knew why it was that Ashcroft hasn't managed to single-handedly revoke Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, yet. :)
|
| 154 | Perm Dude
ID: 28059111
Tue, Feb 06, 10:13
|
He wanted to get rid of Roe v Wade right away, but (Thank God) the departing Clintonians stole all the W's.
;)
pd
|
| 155 | Myboyjack
ID: 4443038
Tue, Feb 06, 10:25
|
LOL, Fred. BTW, Stop drafting all my players!
|
| 156 | Lutefisker
ID: 351182513
Tue, Feb 06, 22:52
|
Seattle Zen says:
"Well, guess what, we now have birth control. We can have sex without fear of impregnating the woman, and THAT IS FANTASTIC! Not only that, but women can have children and survive in our society without a man providing and that, too, is FANTASTIC. Where before if men and women had sex, it almost always led to dire consequences, now it does not have to."
Seattle Zen: Men not being involved in the raising of their children has led to dire consequences. Crime rates among children of one parent in their life are higher. Education test scores and graduation rates are lower.
Of course... we blame the man for not sticking around... but then... I don't know... when you have women who have had the attitude that men are not needed... is it any surprise...
As for equality... this does not presently exist when a woman can legally "abort" her responsibility to raise a child but a man can not legally "abort" his responsibility of raising a child if the woman choses to have that child.
|
| 157 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Sun, Mar 24, 2002, 02:55
|
myboyjack 153 The reason that Ashcroft hasn't been able to over-turn Roe v. Wade yet is that he's been too busy trying to track down and now prosecute the guy who sent hoax anthrax letters to abortion clinics.
Once he gets done protecting the abortion clinics, I'm sure he'll turn around and try to shut them down. Don't worry. :)
|
| 158 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 13:19
|
BeliefNet asks: Why Didn't Ashcroft-the-Christian Stop The Torture?
[thanks to Guru for restoring this thread]
|
| 159 | Boxman
ID: 3821468
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:05
|
For the same reason Nancy Pelosi-The-Catholic is for abortion?
|
| 160 | Perm Dude
ID: 23343612
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:16
|
So Pelosi prevented the Christians in the Bush Adminsitration from following their conscience?
|
| 161 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:29
|
Putting aside the irrelevance (and illogic) of a 'i-dont-have-to-answer-to-that-because-they-do-it-too' response to post 158, the obvious difference between Pelosi and Ashcroft is that even the political opposition never questioned the sincerity of Ashcroft's religious faith, even if some blasted some his particular brand of Christianity.
|
| 162 | Boxman
ID: 3821468
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:23
|
that even the political opposition never questioned the sincerity of Ashcroft's religious faith, even if some blasted some his particular brand of Christianity.
Please google "Ashcroft true Christian" or "Ashcroft sincere Christian" and let me know if you want to keep at it.
|
| 163 | Perm Dude
ID: 23343612
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:25
|
So you are saying that Ashcroft isn't a "true" Christian?
What would a "true" or "sincere" Christian have done?
|
| 164 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 09:58
|
Boxman, the google searches you suggest, which you seem to believe sufficiently challenge me because they return no results, are not the least bit applicable as measures for the public perception of the sincerity of Ashcroft's religious faith.
This is either a somewhat embarrassing revelation that you really don't understand how google searches work or one of the more threadbare strawman arguments these boards have seen (and these boards have seen some pretty sorry scarecrows, let me tell you).
For example, while I don't know what you think of the faith of famous religious leaders and politicians with the following names, none of the following searches return any results, either:
"Reagan sincere Christian"
"Santorum sincere Christian"
"Benedict sincere Christian"
"John Paul sincere Christian"
"Dobson sincere Christian"
"Donohue sincere Christian"
"Falwell sincere Christian"
"Robertson sincere Christian"
"Graham sincere Christian"
Surely you wouldn't argue that none of the religious leaders and pols with those names are regarded as sincere in their faith? For the record, some of these names do return a handful of results when 'sincere' is replaced with 'true', as in your other suggestion. But if you plug them in yourself, you'll see that the instances are obviously too few and/or too incidental to suggest any legitimate trends.
Further, the following google searches also return a handful of results:
"Obama true Christian"
"Giuliani true Christian"
"Carter true Christian"
"Clinton true Christian"
As I believe you know, all of those pols support Roe V Wade, so hopefully I've sufficiently dashed the notion that receiving any (no returns) returns for such searches is not an indicator of the validity of the search (at least one with such phrasing structure).
And really this is all a pretty useless tangent, anyway. The point of post 158 is that I found it terribly interesting that a prominent Christian media outlet (highly regarded among the religious right, as far as I know, and if you had bothered to read the article, you'd note that they accept Ashcroft's religious devotion as a given) turned the focus on one of their own and asked the hard questions. This is something that is all too rare on the political right and I applaud BeliefNet for sticking to their values, even if it comes years after they might have had an opportunity to help prevent or stop torture committed by publicly avowed Christians in the name of morality.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|