How To Commit Political Suicide: [Archive]

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 08:57 AM

I'm pro-abortion, so even though I disagree with Santorum's point, I fail to see how this is political suicide. Santorum did NOT say, for example, that Obama is "almost remarkable for a black man." He said it's "almost remarkable for a black man to say 'we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

I have made the exact same argument about african-americans who argue against gay marriage. You'd figure that they, of all people, would understand a civil rights struggle.

His comments are fine.

I'm not arguing for or against the content of his comments: content is dwarfed by "optics" in politics anyway. The reality is he just made himself even MORE polarizing, and has made it clear that he's in it to effect the agendas of others, not to win.

How this plays out in terms of his fund-raising will be the ultimate test of course. I think you make a good point about rights, I just think expecting the audience of "america in general" to get it... is crazed.

Al68

Jan21-11, 10:47 AM

I'm not arguing for or against the content of his comments: content is dwarfed by "optics" in politics anyway. The reality is he just made himself even MORE polarizing, and has made it clear that he's in it to effect the agendas of others, not to win.

How this plays out in terms of his fund-raising will be the ultimate test of course. I think you make a good point about rights, I just think expecting the audience of "america in general" to get it... is crazed.Can you point out the specific part of his comments you're referring to? Like Jack21222, I'm pro-choice, but just can't figure out what you're talking about.

lisab

Jan21-11, 11:42 AM

In one case, it is decided, "Those people are not full persons under the Constitution because of their race."

Totally different from deciding when a person is given rights granted in the Constitution.

How are these issues related? It's absurd, a non sequitur.

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 11:53 AM

Can you point out the specific part of his comments you're referring to? Like Jack21222, I'm pro-choice, but just can't figure out what you're talking about.

I can only speak to how the media has reacted to specific portions of his comments. I typed in, "Santorum, controversy" and google gave me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy

Whoops... wrong one. :tongue:

So then...

here is the man in is own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-r8yARUtpc

and here...

The question is -- and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says ‘no,’” Santorum said in a televised interview. “Well if that person -- human life is not a person -- then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/rick-santorum-obama-abortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man.html

Which includes video of what appears to be the remark. Make of it what you will; perhaps I'm not explaining this well.

Personally I agree with Lisab... we're talking about pure equivocation using the race of the president as a lever.

Al68

Jan21-11, 12:14 PM

here is the man in is own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-r8yARUtpc

and here...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/rick-santorum-obama-abortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man.html

Which includes video of what appears to be the remark. Make of it what you will; perhaps I'm not explaining this well.I can see how one might disagree (I do myself) or how the analogy isn't a very good one. But "crazed"? Sounds far less crazy than the crap the left spouts routinely.

But I've been listening to Sirius Left a lot lately (for entertainment mostly), so that probably has my crazy meter out of whack. Very little is crazy compared to those guys.

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 12:20 PM

I can see how one might disagree (I do myself) or how the analogy isn't a very good one. But "crazed"? Sounds far less crazy than the crap the left spouts routinely.

But I've been listening to Sirius Left a lot lately (for entertainment mostly), so that probably has my crazy meter out of whack. Very little is crazy compared to those guys.

Well, I'm not saying that it's a contest, but he's running for the presidency and he's a former senator, not a DJ. Now, compare those comments to what Cohen said about Nazis, and yeah... it's not so crazy.

Of course, as you imply, the correct reaction is to say they're BOTH crazed, and slap the hell out of them to boot.

Al68

Jan21-11, 12:27 PM

Well, I'm not saying that it's a contest, but he's running for the presidency and he's a former senator, not a DJ. Now, compare those comments to what Cohen said about Nazis, and yeah... it's not so crazy.

Of course, as you imply, the correct reaction is to say they're BOTH crazed, and slap the hell out of them to boot.I'd say they're both wrong, but Cohen was wrong in a far more hateful and fraudulent way. Santorum didn't say what he did out of hatred or an attempt to deceive people. He's just plain wrong.

But you're right, everything is relative. If I heard Santorum's comments in the context of sane, rational, and honest political debate in general, it would probably seem crazier than it does in the current political climate.

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 12:31 PM

I'd say they're both wrong, but Cohen was wrong in a far more hateful and fraudulent way. Santorum didn't say what he did out of hatred or an attempt to deceive people. He's just plain wrong.

True, but not in the larger context of the "pro-life" hysteria. Ask the late Dr. Tiller and others; that's one big "not a game". In practice, rhetoric about Nazis is tossed around by pretty much everyone in American politics these days. Ironic, given the complete divorce from the reality of what Nazism was.

But you're right, everything is relative. If I heard Santorum's comments in the context of sane, rational, and honest political debate in general, it would probably seem crazier than it does in the current political climate.

Yeah... that's the problem... I think we need to stop listening to people who sound like hysterics, but... well... fear sells.

Al68

Jan21-11, 12:49 PM

True, but not in the larger context of the "pro-life" hysteria. Ask the late Dr. Tiller and others; that's one big "not a game".Maybe, but their cause is seemingly hopeless at this time.

And like I have said in other threads, I believe a fetus is a person. But no person has the right to the forced servitude of another, even if that other is the mother. The thing I find strange about the whole abortion issue is that it so often seems to be the exception to the general rule on both sides: Those who are more libertarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion, and those who are more authoritarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion. I've always found that strange.

PhilKravitz

Jan21-11, 01:04 PM

And like I have said in other threads, I believe a fetus is a person. But no person has the right to the forced servitude of another, even if that other is the mother.

I too believe a fetus is a person. If two adults take a action that they know can result in the kidnapping of a human from the land of the unborn (think Plato and the cave) into this world then they have an obligation to meet the needs of the person they created until age 18 (21?, 26?).

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 02:55 PM

Maybe, but their cause is seemingly hopeless at this time.

And like I have said in other threads, I believe a fetus is a person. But no person has the right to the forced servitude of another, even if that other is the mother. The thing I find strange about the whole abortion issue is that it so often seems to be the exception to the general rule on both sides: Those who are more libertarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion, and those who are more authoritarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion. I've always found that strange.

It's a very common event, which means that people have to resolve this happening to the "good people" in their lives. If you know someone well, like and respect them, but they make a choice you disagree with... do you stop liking and respecting them? Make that a pattern and not ONE person, and it's clear: the more social issues touch people personally, the more passionate they are about it, one way or the other.

Some people of course, cut off family over this issue, so it does go the other way too.

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 02:56 PM

I too believe a fetus is a person. If two adults take a action that they know can result in the kidnapping of a human from the land of the unborn (think Plato and the cave) into this world then they have an obligation to meet the needs of the person they created until age 18 (21?, 26?).

Can you explain what you mean... entirely.... but especially the part about the "land of the unborn"? I didn't follow that at all... I hope... because if I did that really doesn't belong here.

PhilKravitz

Jan21-11, 03:10 PM

Can you explain what you mean... entirely.... but especially the part about the "land of the unborn"? I didn't follow that at all... I hope... because if I did that really doesn't belong here.

Fetuses do not come into existence expect by the free will action of two people. People are then responsible for the results of their actions.

Rape a not free will action on the part of one party might be a different case.

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 03:21 PM

Fetuses do not come into existence expect by the free will action of two people. People are then responsible for the results of their actions.

Rape a not free will action on the part of one party might be a different case.

What is the land of the unborn, and what does it have to do with Plato's analogy? I got the first part, although I respectfully disagree with the scope of those responsibilities. As for free will... I'm not aware that was necessary for conception; it's DESIRABLE, but are you saying that in cases of rape... the fetus never comes into existence?

humanino

Jan21-11, 03:31 PM

People are then responsible for the results of their actions.Interesting. So let me imagine that a young couple is using contraceptive methods such as oral pills (quite common) and the young woman gets pregnant nevertheless. It is rather rare, but does happen. Their free will was to prevent the pregnancy, and science failed them. Unfortunately, the young man dies in a dramatic car accident as the events unfold. Now the young women, who might have a bright future if she can pursue her university studies, has to choose between abortion or seriously compromising the grant she received to study in college. What is her responsibility ?

humanino

Jan21-11, 03:34 PM

nismaratwork

Jan21-11, 04:10 PM

About the original post now. You know that I am neither against abortion nor leaning towards Santorum politically. Nevertheless, although awkwardly formulated, his reference is not illogical. His clarification IMHO should be quite enough to prevent further controversy.

I think the issue is that in the context of his views, political and social alignments... he really can't afford to be "misunderstood" when it comes to these issues. Right or wrong, see Trent Lott.

WhoWee

Jan21-11, 11:13 PM

I think the issue is that in the context of his views, political and social alignments... he really can't afford to be "misunderstood" when it comes to these issues. Right or wrong, see Trent Lott.

How to commit political suicide? I think this is worse:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256199/obama-not-always-fan-upping-debt-ceiling-katrina-trinko
"Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)"

WhoWee

Jan21-11, 11:16 PM

Then:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-signs-law-raising-public-debt-limit-from-124-trillion-to-143-trillion.html

"President Obama Signs Law Raising Public Debt Limit from $12.4 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion
February 12, 2010 3:21 PM

Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

The current national debt is $12.3 trillion. Check out the National Debt Clock, which tells you your share of that -- roughly $40,000 per citizen, $113,000 per taxpayer."

WhoWee

Jan21-11, 11:19 PM

Now:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/02/Obama-aide-urges-debt-ceiling-raise/UPI-57141293985333/

"Obama aide urges debt-ceiling raise
Published: Jan. 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 (UPI) -- One of President Obama's top economic advisers warned Sunday Congress risks a calamity if it refuses to approve raising the national debt ceiling this year.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," Austan Goolsbee said that refusal to raise the debt ceiling would be tantamount to an unprecedented default on the nation's obligations.

"The impact on the economy would be catastrophic," said Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. "I mean, that would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008." "

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 05:31 AM

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 07:58 AM

WhoWee: I don't get it. What does this have to do with Rick Santorum's comments, the subsequent reaction, and the notion of race as a hot-button issue in American politics? It just looks like three debt-related issues... which is not a little off-topic. Maybe I'm missing something?

The topic is how to commit political suicide - correct? You posted a sample of Rick Santorum making a comment that - taken out of context or parsed - might confuse someone?

I then provided an example of someone trying harder to commit political suicide - President Obama. The 3 posts were made to follow in sequence rather than one giant post that everyone dislikes.

The 3 posts show President Obama first speaking against raising the debt ceiling - inferring it bad leadership. The next post talks about him raising the debt ceiling - signing in a closed room - qietly with no fan fare. Last, the third post shows his aid talking about the dire need to raise the debt ceiling now - after President Obama has spent a lot more money.

I thought my point was clear? This is President Obama's "read my lips issue" - do you recall what that fiasco did to the first President Bush? He committed political suicide with only 3 words "read my lips".
Good stuff!
Anothet favorite of mine is "...I am not a crook". LOL

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 09:12 AM

The topic is how to commit political suicide - correct? You posted a sample of Rick Santorum making a comment that - taken out of context or parsed - might confuse someone?

I then provided an example of someone trying harder to commit political suicide - President Obama. The 3 posts were made to follow in sequence rather than one giant post that everyone dislikes.

The 3 posts show President Obama first speaking against raising the debt ceiling - inferring it bad leadership. The next post talks about him raising the debt ceiling - signing in a closed room - qietly with no fan fare. Last, the third post shows his aid talking about the dire need to raise the debt ceiling now - after President Obama has spent a lot more money.

I thought my point was clear? This is President Obama's "read my lips issue" - do you recall what that fiasco did to the first President Bush? He committed political suicide with only 3 words "read my lips".
Good stuff!
Anothet favorite of mine is "...I am not a crook". LOL

No, the title is "How To Commit Political Suicide:"... which is meant to be less-than-literal as my first post and the article make clear. In fact, there is some question as to whether or not this was an intentional way to get publicity and raise funds. After all, his base isn't going to be fazed in the least by what he said, or what it implies.

So, no, while I have no right to tell people what to say after my first post, I CAN at least clarify as the OP, that you've mis-read the subject.

edit: On the substance, "I am not a crook", was really just a great line AFTER Nixon committed political suicide. In fact, literally given that he won the damned presidency. Oh Nixon... he did such good and such naughty things. With Bush... I get it in context, but Obama? I think the best comparison would be, "I did NOT, have sexual relations... with that woman." That HAS to be the gold standard next to Trent Lotts' "We wouldn't have all these problems..." comment. Cheney said plenty, but he's immortal (clearly) and therefore this does NOT apply.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 09:17 AM

"I'm NOT a crook; I earned EVERYTHING I've got!"

Blago, Rangle, Clinton, Bush(both)... the only thing that really competes with that, is the image of Dukakis in a tank. I remember seeing that and thinking, "Well, no need to vote this year!"

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 09:32 AM

No, the title is "How To Commit Political Suicide:"... which is meant to be less-than-literal as my first post and the article make clear. In fact, there is some question as to whether or not this was an intentional way to get publicity and raise funds. After all, his base isn't going to be fazed in the least by what he said, or what it implies.

So, no, while I have no right to tell people what to say after my first post, I CAN at least clarify as the OP, that you've mis-read the subject.

edit: On the substance, "I am not a crook", was really just a great line AFTER Nixon committed political suicide. In fact, literally given that he won the damned presidency. Oh Nixon... he did such good and such naughty things. With Bush... I get it in context, but Obama? I think the best comparison would be, "I did NOT, have sexual relations... with that woman." That HAS to be the gold standard next to Trent Lotts' "We wouldn't have all these problems..." comment. Cheney said plenty, but he's immortal (clearly) and therefore this does NOT apply.

You might be wrong regarding intent - but correct as to fund raising results. Personally, I view Santorum as a solid Vice President candidate. The big money raiser in the next cycle will be Palin - for other candidates (again IMO). I expect Daniels to emerge from the very large group of hopefuls. I think the new RNC leadership will embrace him (after eliminating all the leftovers from 2008, the next Bush, and the Southern state hopefuls). I would not rule out Palin's support of the fotmer CEO of Godfather's Pizza (posting from phone - his name escapes me now?) - I like him as much as Daniels.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 09:38 AM

You might be wrong regarding intent - but correct as to fund raising results. Personally, I view Santorum as a solid Vice President candidate. The big money raiser in the next cycle will be Palin - for other candidates (again IMO). I expect Daniels to emerge from the very large group of hopefuls. I think the new RNC leadership will embrace him (after eliminating all the leftovers from 2008, the next Bush, and the Southern state hopefuls). I would not rule out Palin's support of the fotmer CEO of Godfather's Pizza (posting from phone - his name escapes me now?) - I like him as much as Daniels.

I think that after Biden and Palin, Quayle and Admiral Forgetswhereheis... a turtle could be VP. That aside, he COULD add conservative 'bulk' and base to a more moderate republican candidate, but as you say he'd need to bring a lot of money. I think Palin has cooked herself, not because of Giffords and that... person... Olberman (who is GONE btw...! Whee!), but just through over-exposure. Either there isn't that much to her, or she's shown us what she will and that's that. Either way, I think Santorum saw a chance to leapfrog over Palin... although he can't reasonably expect to BEAT her in fundraising. I kind of despise Palin, but she IS a rock-star to some.

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 10:00 AM

I think that after Biden and Palin, Quayle and Admiral Forgetswhereheis... a turtle could be VP. That aside, he COULD add conservative 'bulk' and base to a more moderate republican candidate, but as you say he'd need to bring a lot of money. I think Palin has cooked herself, not because of Giffords and that... person... Olberman (who is GONE btw...! Whee!), but just through over-exposure. Either there isn't that much to her, or she's shown us what she will and that's that. Either way, I think Santorum saw a chance to leapfrog over Palin... although he can't reasonably expect to BEAT her in fundraising. I kind of despise Palin, but she IS a rock-star to some.

Apparently you still believe Palin is a candidate? I see her as being the GIANT target of the Left and equally large money magnet for the Tea Party, Independents, and some loose ends on the edges of the Right - this makes her VERY powerful force - as a non-candidate. If the RNC backs a pragmatic candidate - like Daniels or (the Godfather's Pizza guy) and Palin backs (the RNC guy) in the home stretch - President Obama will find himself in a close race. As long as she isn't too damaging of the RNC frontrunner, Palin can operate under the Tea Party banner until the Republican convention - then unite everyone and push them over the line. This will be a fun election - IMO.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 10:08 AM

Apparently you still believe Palin is a candidate? I see her as being the GIANT target of the Left and equally large money magnet for the Tea Party, Independents, and some loose ends on the edges of the Right - this makes her VERY powerful force - as a non-candidate. If the RNC backs a pragmatic candidate - like Daniels or (the Godfather's Pizza guy) and Palin backs (the RNC guy) in the home stretch - President Obama will find himself in a close race. As long as she isn't too damaging of the RNC frontrunner, Palin can operate under the Tea Party banner until the Republican convention - then unite everyone and push them over the line. This will be a fun election - IMO.

Oh no, I never saw her as wanting to run, just in it for the money. It is going to be an interesting election... maybe fun, I'll grant that. Name-Jokes aside, Priebus is also a much better choice for the RNC than Steele. I'm not a fan of the RNC, or the DNC, but there's disagreeing, and seeing people's money wasted on strippers.

The GOP has to figure out just what to do with the tea party, and the democrats have to figure out what to do with themselves.

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 10:17 AM

Oh no, I never saw her as wanting to run, just in it for the money. It is going to be an interesting election... maybe fun, I'll grant that. Name-Jokes aside, Priebus is also a much better choice for the RNC than Steele. I'm not a fan of the RNC, or the DNC, but there's disagreeing, and seeing people's money wasted on strippers.

The GOP has to figure out just what to do with the tea party, and the democrats have to figure out what to do with themselves.

Shouldn't the Dems run on their accomplishments? Biden sent an email to supporters last week stipulating 3 million saved or created jobs (LOL). I have a copy but not sure if rules allow it to be posted (???).

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 10:31 AM

Shouldn't the Dems run on their accomplishments? Biden sent an email to supporters last week stipulating 3 million saved or created jobs (LOL). I have a copy but not sure if rules allow it to be posted (???).

Eh... yeah, but what party does that? Good or bad, the democrats are the ones who've been pushing legislation through, which is technically an accomplishment. I'm not sure what the Republicans have to offer except a legacy of criticism and inaction.

For me, Boehner's comments (and every other member, D, R, and I) after meeting with Hu Jintao, which lacked ANY MENTION of China's practice of rigging its currency says it all: Both sides thrive on image, and both have "true believers"... mostly though, it's just a way to get elected. The passions and beliefs of the people don't seem to translate into legislation by either party, and the Tea Party is just the GOP sans merci.

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 10:45 AM

Eh... yeah, but what party does that? Good or bad, the democrats are the ones who've been pushing legislation through, which is technically an accomplishment. I'm not sure what the Republicans have to offer except a legacy of criticism and inaction.

For me, Boehner's comments (and every other member, D, R, and I) after meeting with Hu Jintao, which lacked ANY MENTION of China's practice of rigging its currency says it all: Both sides thrive on image, and both have "true believers"... mostly though, it's just a way to get elected. The passions and beliefs of the people don't seem to translate into legislation by either party, and the Tea Party is just the GOP sans merci.

Personally, I don't thin anyone (including Reid or Boehner) should be commenting on China during a State visit. Further, I don't think anyone except President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton should be talking directly to the Chinese leader.

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 11:06 AM

I was 100% sure that this thread was about Sarah Palin.

9fQ_Zl5eZnw

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 11:20 AM

I was 100% sure that this thread was about Sarah Palin.

9fQ_Zl5eZnw

Why?

However, a good thread topic might be a comparison of Palin to Obe Wan Kenobe?

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 11:25 AM

Personally, I don't thin anyone (including Reid or Boehner) should be commenting on China during a State visit. Further, I don't think anyone except President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton should be talking directly to the Chinese leader.

Agreed.

Oh, and if I had to guess wildly, I'd say this is DA's wink-and-a-nudge way of responding to your Obama comments. I could be wrong, but I think it's meant semi-playfully, semi-annoyed... again, I could be completely wrong.

DA: Naughty! Two wrongs do NOT make a right! It's funny... but not right.

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 11:38 AM

However, a good thread topic might be a comparison of Palin to Obe Wan Kenobe?

I’m with you all the way bro.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/sith-dark-obi-wan-kenobi.jpg

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 11:39 AM

DA: Naughty! Two wrongs do NOT make a right! It's funny... but not right.

This was the only 'solution', because the original is worse. Sorry.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 11:40 AM

This was the only 'solution', because the original is worse. Sorry.

It's OK, I really like the "Evil Ben" picture.

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 11:42 AM

:biggrin:

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 11:47 AM

Oh nismar, I forgot to say – You do read my mind buddy! :wink:

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 11:49 AM

:biggrin:

Not the way I recall Obe Wan - more of a good guy struck down by the agents of the dark side only to rise again as part of the force (for good) behind the scenes helping our young heros to counter the evil empires of the world. LOL

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 11:52 AM

Not the way I recall Obe Wan - more of a good guy struck down by the agents of the dark side only to rise again as part of the force (for good) behind the scenes helping our young heros to counter the evil empires of the world. LOL

He DOES make a really EVIL looking sith though, doesn't he? Yeek.

lisab

Jan22-11, 12:37 PM

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 12:38 PM

He DOES make a really EVIL looking sith though, doesn't he? Yeek.

I'm really glad you approve of my comparison of Palin to Obe Wan - may the force be with her to combat the evil socialist agenda. LOL (sorry - just having fun)

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 12:51 PM

I'm really glad you approve of my comparison of Palin to Obe Wan - may the force be with her to combat the evil socialist agenda. LOL (sorry - just having fun)

I know, and Lisab too. I think at some point, as much as we often disagree on the issues... that catharsis is needed.

Lisab: I wasn't aware that Clinton knew how to put his lightsaber away? :wink: That said, I'm just green with envy that you thought of that! Great comeback.

Al68

Jan22-11, 03:41 PM

Interesting. So let me imagine that a young couple is using contraceptive methods such as oral pills (quite common) and the young woman gets pregnant nevertheless. It is rather rare, but does happen. Their free will was to prevent the pregnancy, and science failed them.That would seem more like their own ignorance failing them, if they thought there wasn't a significant chance of creating a fetus.

The failure of the contraceptive didn't create the fetus. "Failure to prevent" is different from "causing" as a matter of simple logic. The couple's choice to have sex caused the pregnancy.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 03:44 PM

That would seem more like their own ignorance failing them, if they thought there wasn't a significant chance of creating a fetus.

The failure of the contraceptive didn't create the fetus. "Failure to prevent" is different from "causing" as a matter of simple logic. The couple's choice to have sex caused the pregnancy.

Right, because they depended on a, as humanino said, science. Science failed them in one area, but in another, it can help again (yes I'm talking about abortion).

Al68

Jan22-11, 04:17 PM

Right, because they depended on a, as humanino said, science. Science failed them in one area, but in another, it can help again (yes I'm talking about abortion).Science told them they could get pregnant while using the contraceptive. Their ignorance of science failed them, not science itself, if they thought they couldn't get pregnant.

Can I blame science if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette, since science says putting only one round in the revolver (instead of six) reduces my chances of getting shot? If I get shot, is it because science failed me?

WhoWee

Jan22-11, 04:40 PM

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 04:57 PM

Science told them they could get pregnant while using the contraceptive. Their ignorance of science failed them, not science itself, if they thought they couldn't get pregnant.

Can I blame science if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette, since science says putting only one round in the revolver (instead of six) reduces my chances of getting shot? If I get shot, is it because science failed me?

I don't know... I suppose if resurrection were an option you'd have said something relevant to the discussion. The fact is that contraceptives, while sold with warnings, are often expected and intended to be absolute. When that fails, there are other means that people can avail themselves of, either chemical or procedural.

The only case I see you making here is that you don't like abortion. We both know that the crux of marketing lies in exploiting human weakness, such as those one WhoWee points out. In the classic, "You have three doors, behind one of which is a prize! You open door #1, and it's empty, but you now have a chance to switch your choice, or stay... what do you do?" turns out that plenty of people stay, or switch for all fo the wrong reasons. You switch, and your odds increase... period, but are you saying that our population control should be predicated on a working knowledge of math and statistics?

Lets get people literate first... which by the way, will be easier if they stay in school instead of carrying a child to term.

Al68

Jan22-11, 05:05 PM

I don't know... I suppose if resurrection were an option you'd have said something relevant to the discussion. The fact is that contraceptives, while sold with warnings, are often expected and intended to be absolute.So it's not "relevant" that that intention is unfulfilled and the expectation false according to science? When the claim was they were "failed by science"? It makes no sense to ignore science in favor of a false expectation then blame the result on science.

Expecting contraception to be absolute is ignorance.The only case I see you making here is that you don't like abortion.Why would I need to make that case? You can't just take my word for it? I hate abortion. I think it's despicable in the case of consensual sex.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, and using force to prevent abortion is wrong. There really is no contradiction there.

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 05:15 PM

Oh! You mean Bill Clinton, right?

:tongue2:

Laser Touché! :biggrin: http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-8819.gif :biggrin:

DevilsAvocado

Jan22-11, 05:17 PM

nismar, it looks like the smartypants are getting close to the "final solution", introduced by the "not witch" from Delaware - Christine O'Donnell:
Let’s forbid sex!!

This solution is elegant and simple; no unborn Americans will never ever have their constitutional rights violated again. Thank god.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 05:35 PM

So it's not "relevant" that that intention is unfulfilled and the expectation false according to science? When the claim was they were "failed by science"? It makes no sense to ignore science in favor of a false expectation then blame the result on science.

Expecting contraception to be absolute is ignorance.Why would I need to make that case? You can't just take my word for it? I hate abortion. I think it's despicable in the case of consensual sex.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, and using force to prevent abortion is wrong. There really is no contradiction there.

I understand, and don't think I'm not appreciative that you were up front when you first posted. I'm saying that the case you're making is just in support of your dislike, not in support of WHY it should be disliked. That is another debate however, and really I don't want to step on your beliefs when it comes to lives.

I'm not saying that you should expect absolute contraception, but I am saying that contraception is a positive human invention, and when it fails other means are available. It IS a failure of science and engineering, even if it's inevitable to some degree, but you're right that it's not a LIE.

Unfortunately I think DA is right: the consistent argument to make given your beliefs would be to abstain from sex if possible, unless you're able and willing to accept all possible consequences, including a child. I just don't believe that's possible, and frankly... I don't envy how you must feel. I don't think we can go any further in this vein, in this thread... and I don't know that we should in another thread. I'm OK backing down on this honestly, in an academic setting.

Al68

Jan22-11, 05:55 PM

I'm saying that the case you're making is just in support of your dislike, not in support of WHY it should be disliked.I was making the case that contraception is not perfect, so a choice to have sex is a choice to assume some risk of getting pregnant.

That's true regardless of whether I like or dislike abortion. And it's true regardless of what view someone uses that fact to support. Contraception isn't "absolute".I'm not saying that you should expect absolute contraception....I was responding to your statement that it was "often" expected to be absolute. Maybe I misinterpreted you.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 06:00 PM

I was making the case that contraception is not perfect, so a choice to have sex is a choice to assume some risk of getting pregnant.

That's true regardless of whether I like or dislike abortion. And it's true regardless of what view someone uses that fact to support. Contraception isn't "absolute".

I agree with your premise, and the conclusion that contraception isn't absolute. I do however see a difference in the intent of a couple who's condom fails, and one who just doesn't care, or... other things I can't say here. I don't see it in quite as absolute terms I guess, but the endpoint you describe does exist, I can't deny it.

What to do about it however?

You're one of the VERY few people on or offline who's come right out in presence and said, "I'm pro-choice, and anti-abortion", then proceeds to make a perfectly logical case. I'm more interested in your views then people who just ignore any moral angle, or those who fixate on it. So many people seem unable to weigh anything, but the rights they believe the fetus has, but you do and despite hating what it entails... support the right to freedom.

I guess I want to understand how you manage to do that, when so many others seem unable to do anything except cling to the poles of this issue. You don't need to respond if you don't want, I'm just very curious. You do realize that your view, while not totally unique, is still pretty rare?

Al68

Jan22-11, 06:16 PM

You're one of the VERY few people on or offline who's come right out in presence and said, "I'm pro-choice, and anti-abortion", then proceeds to make a perfectly logical case. I'm more interested in your views then people who just ignore any moral angle, or those who fixate on it. So many people seem unable to weigh anything, but the rights they believe the fetus has, but you do and despite hating what it entails... support the right to freedom.

I guess I want to understand how you manage to do that, when so many others seem unable to do anything except cling to the poles of this issue. You don't need to respond if you don't want, I'm just very curious. You do realize that your view, while not totally unique, is still pretty rare?Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion. And I think most do think that a fetus has rights, but not a right to the forced servitude of its mother for 9 months. They just don't come out and say it that way. I think very few people would consider themselves "pro-abortion".

As an example, it's considered murder for anyone to purposely kill a fetus if it's not the will of the mother. Because the fetus does have the right to live if it requires no forced servitude. And knowingly murdering a pregnant woman is two counts of murder.

And many, including me, oppose those laws that prohibit nurses and doctors from giving medical care, or any care, including feeding, to a live infant, outside its mother's body, that survives an attempted abortion.

Al68

Jan22-11, 06:44 PM

I saw a question on a profile test recently that asked if the odds were better with 1 round in a 6 round revolver or 1 round in a 12 round automatic clip. They said most people missed the question.Depends on how it's set up. A common method for eliminating a tendency to flinch is to have a partner load a clip with mostly duds, so that the target shooter can easily notice a flinch, and correct it.

I assume that wasn't the intent of that question, but that's what came to my mind in that context, since I've used that method myself.

nismaratwork

Jan22-11, 06:46 PM

Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion. And I think most do think that a fetus has rights, but not a right to the forced servitude of its mother for 9 months. They just don't come out and say it that way. I think very few people would consider themselves "pro-abortion".

As an example, it's considered murder for anyone to purposely kill a fetus if it's not the will of the mother. Because the fetus does have the right to live if it requires no forced servitude. And knowingly murdering a pregnant woman is two counts of murder.

And many, including me, oppose those laws that prohibit nurses and doctors from giving medical care, or any care including feeding, to a live infant, outside its mother's body, that survives an attempted abortion.

I agree that the laws contain inconsistencies, but in the context of a crime, the logic seems to hold as far as the law goes.

mugaliens

Jan22-11, 11:47 PM

Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion.

When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.

For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...

(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me

nismaratwork

Jan23-11, 04:11 AM

When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.

For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...

(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me

That's unusual, but infantile amnesia is NOT absolute, nor are concepts of where memories begin, and where the details we add from hearing recollections begins to mix with real memories. If your memory is highly detailed, then you can rest assured that it has at least been modified greatly over time. If it's mostly a blind memory of sense impressions... then yeah, it could be real.

If you saw a face... well... research DOES seem to indicate that babies can recognize basic facial features... probably. They definitely focus on the face, but how much they can see? Certainly on the way out of the birthing canal, you're in no position, figuratively or literally, to be observing your doctor. In fact, as a baby it would just be pitch black until... uh... the end... and I mean your head is OUT. Now, you could be mixing memories of the SAME event, and grafting details together centered around the vivid memory of actually being born.

So... who knows? The point is that you believe, at least partly based on a strong personal experience, that at least as of 9 months a child is thinking, observing, and forming memories. Does it matter that it's based on what may or may not be a memory of an actual event? The point is that you're sufficiently moved by the notion that you're willing to generalize your experience to a fetus that is at least 3 months less developed.

I guess the big question there would be: Rick Santorum is dialing that reasoning back to the a blastocyst... which does NOT think or feel. If they do, then we are all MONSTERS for what we do to the microbiological world... and so be it. To me, positing that blastocysts, embryos, and the early-term fetus are all equal or even similar... isn't reasonable. That to me, requires religion, or a belief in something like "primary perception"... or so much emotional 'stuff', that the issue isn't clear.

The irony, is that Al68 (conservative), myself (I don't know, but more liberal), you (truly independent AFAIK) probably all agree that given the evolution of medicine... late-term abortions present a troubling dilemma. The standard, "That is viable," has changed since the laws were made! The irony then, is that the issue has become so polarized, and a group that is "anti-abortion" within the larger "pro-life" group has become VERY influential. Now, the battle is just to kill the relevant statutes, and on the other side, to leave them be so they're not lost.

We need a way to re-work our laws to account for evolving medicine without re-opening the whole debate each time. That's my belief at least, because we're never going to get ANYWHERE the way we're going. (not we in this forum, "we the people")