Liberals: Personhood Starts With Paul Ryan’s Jizz

[MichaeltheGreat]

QFT

Let's not forget the hypocrisy of many anti-choice people who talk about how life is sacred, but then couldn't care less about the baby after it's born.

David Frum made a good point a while back about how support services, etc., were more effective in reducing the number of abortions, but I really can't fault pro-lifers for what you cite. It is entirely a different philosophical argument as to the role of the state or society vis-a-vis the role of the parents in the raising, economic well-being, health, education, etc. of the baby after it's born. There's not give a damn, then there's give a damn, but it's not the state's role to intervene unless x, y or z occurs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

"Here's my question. Why are so many liberals lazy and stupid?"

Free love and smoking dope?

[MrFun]

David Frum made a good point a while back about how support services, etc., were more effective in reducing the number of abortions, but I really can't fault pro-lifers for what you cite. It is entirely a different philosophical argument as to the role of the state or society vis-a-vis the role of the parents in the raising, economic well-being, health, education, etc. of the baby after it's born. There's not give a damn, then there's give a damn, but it's not the state's role to intervene unless x, y or z occurs.

I disagree. If pro-life people insist that life is sacred, then it doesn't make sense to draw a line to life being sacred only until after birth.

"Force an impoverished woman to carry a baby to full term, but screw the new mother and child and deny them any government assistance."

[snoopy369]

John, I think the point that you (and ~40% of Americans) are missing is acknowledging that ~40% of Americans have a different viewpoint [~20% don't give a ****], and acknowledging their right to disagree with your viewpoint - and that their viewpoint could be valid. It's not reasonable in political discourse to hold to one absolute viewpoint and deny that there are other valid viewpoints. You must acknowledge other valid viewpoints prior to engaging in political discourse; if you don't, you aren't engaging in political discourse. (See: US House of Representatives )

Once you say "OK, so there are two valid viewpoints. Abortion at any point from conception to birth is wrong, and Abortion is not wrong before some reasonable point [birth, a few months prior to birth, whatever]. What is the politically reasonable solution here?" I think you come to an obvious conclusion: let people decide for themselves, and regulate it to ensure there is some thought process and some sanity (ie, no late-term abortions). That's pretty reasonable, IMO, and consistent with most of our other laws: let people make up their own **** mind. Alcohol is evil? OK, if you want to not drink, don't drink [see: Snoopy]. If you want other people not to drink, move to Utah (err, wait...) It's also pretty consistent with religious and political freedom, which is what this country was founded upon. In theory...

[snoopy369]

I'd note that pro-choice people need to read the above and learn the exact same lesson from it, by the way. Both sides misbehave similarly there, IMO.

[DinoDoc]

You genuinely think most pro-choice people are big fans of late term abortions?

Well as an example of that point, Canada has no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I disagree. If pro-life people insist that life is sacred, then it doesn't make sense to draw a line to life being sacred only until after birth.

"Force an impoverished woman to carry a baby to full term, but screw the new mother and child and deny them any government assistance."

If they're denied all government assistance. There's also a valid point or two about individual responsibility, the extent of the welfare state, and a few dozen other things. I see women (I know a couple of people who's daughter did this - luckily my daughter has a lot more sense and brains) who just decide they want a kid - in their late teens or early 20s, no real job skills, no stable relationship, just some sperm donor who's "hot" because he has tats and a 'tude, and they don't give a **** - someone else, often their parents, will do a lot of the work, then there's government services for this, that and the other. That's one extreme of the spectrum, but there is a spectrum. It's not all poor impoverished victims and big bad Republican wolves. The problem with liberals and conservatives both (and I'm neither) is that they often spend more time caricaturing the opposing view and spinning their own than they spend actually looking in depth at how to solve an issue.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well as an example of that point, Canada has no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed.

Were we talking about Canada? Or perhaps one could counter straw-man and compare the GOP social conservative view on abortion with, say, the Taleban's? One good 'stan deserves another.

[Elok]

[DinoDoc]

Were we talking about Canada?

I was responding to a question from a guy in the UK on an international board. Be less boring next time, MtG. Given the hue and cry over attempts to restrict late term abortions in the US, it's a fair bet that alot of the American pro-choice movement supports late term terminations as well.

[Jon Miller]

John, I think the point that you (and ~40% of Americans) are missing is acknowledging that ~40% of Americans have a different viewpoint [~20% don't give a ****], and acknowledging their right to disagree with your viewpoint - and that their viewpoint could be valid. It's not reasonable in political discourse to hold to one absolute viewpoint and deny that there are other valid viewpoints. You must acknowledge other valid viewpoints prior to engaging in political discourse; if you don't, you aren't engaging in political discourse. (See: US House of Representatives )

Once you say "OK, so there are two valid viewpoints. Abortion at any point from conception to birth is wrong, and Abortion is not wrong before some reasonable point [birth, a few months prior to birth, whatever]. What is the politically reasonable solution here?" I think you come to an obvious conclusion: let people decide for themselves, and regulate it to ensure there is some thought process and some sanity (ie, no late-term abortions). That's pretty reasonable, IMO, and consistent with most of our other laws: let people make up their own **** mind. Alcohol is evil? OK, if you want to not drink, don't drink [see: Snoopy]. If you want other people not to drink, move to Utah (err, wait...) It's also pretty consistent with religious and political freedom, which is what this country was founded upon. In theory...

So we should just allow people to decide for themselves if killing someone who is 5 is murder, or killing someone who is over 65...

There is a big difference between not drinking alcohol (or drinking alcohol) or restricting other freedoms of the sort and killing someone (which removes all future freedoms/etc). It shouldn't even be comparable (not that I consider 'restricting freedom' to be the obvious moral good to judge ethics based on).

Basically, I Think your position is monstrous.

JM

[Jon Miller]

By monstrous I mean obviously evil, unlike those who think that babies are not people before the age of 0/5/etc.

JM

[snoopy369]

So we should just allow people to decide for themselves if killing someone who is 5 is murder, or killing someone who is over 65...

There is a big difference between not drinking alcohol (or drinking alcohol) or restricting other freedoms of the sort and killing someone (which removes all future freedoms/etc). It shouldn't even be comparable (not that I consider 'restricting freedom' to be the obvious moral good to judge ethics based on).

Basically, I Think your position is monstrous.

JM

Jon - the problem is that you're not comparing two things that are alike here. I'm saying that about half of the country thinks you're wrong; that's probably a big enough sample size to suggest that both sides are not unreasonable positions. Half of the country does not think that killing people over 65 is alright, after all. It has _absolutely nothing_ to do with the ethics or morality of the position itself, because (obviously) there is no agreement as to the ethics of the situation - if everyone agreed that embryos were full persons, we would likely not be having the debate. It has everything to do with having a rational political discussion in an adult fashion, rather than having our nation's airwaves turned into Poly OT, which is basically what has happened.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So we should just allow people to decide for themselves if killing someone who is 5 is murder, or killing someone who is over 65...

In other words, you have an opinion with no particular underlying factual basis, other than it's your opinion, and you're either fundamentally intellectually incapable in failing to distinguish an actual born human being from a (potentially microscopic) non-sentient embryo that is biologically dependent on being hosted inside a woman's uterus, or you're fundamentally intellectually dishonest by grossly distorting the positions of others?

There is a big difference between not drinking alcohol (or drinking alcohol) or restricting other freedoms of the sort and killing someone (which removes all future freedoms/etc). It shouldn't even be comparable (not that I consider 'restricting freedom' to be the obvious moral good to judge ethics based on).

Basically, I Think your position is monstrous.

Of course, you miss the whole point. As to if, when and whether "someone" is actually killed.

[MrFun]

If they're denied all government assistance. There's also a valid point or two about individual responsibility, the extent of the welfare state, and a few dozen other things. I see women (I know a couple of people who's daughter did this - luckily my daughter has a lot more sense and brains) who just decide they want a kid - in their late teens or early 20s, no real job skills, no stable relationship, just some sperm donor who's "hot" because he has tats and a 'tude, and they don't give a **** - someone else, often their parents, will do a lot of the work, then there's government services for this, that and the other. That's one extreme of the spectrum, but there is a spectrum. It's not all poor impoverished victims and big bad Republican wolves. The problem with liberals and conservatives both (and I'm neither) is that they often spend more time caricaturing the opposing view and spinning their own than they spend actually looking in depth at how to solve an issue.

Good points.

However, for record, I was not saying that the reality is that poor new mothers are denied all government assistance. I'm just saying that it seems to be the hypocritical opinion/thought of many anti-choice people to stop valuing a person's life after that person is born.