News Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed

[out of whack]

With regard to abortion (and I'm thinking that specific posts on this topic should probably be split into another thread...)

...but anyways, my main question is this: what is considered a person and therefore a member of society. Persons have (or should have) fundamental rights granted by the collection of all persons that form our society. All else is property.

In my opinion, a fertilized egg is clearly no more a human being than an egg and a sperm taken separately, or the cells that carry full human genes in your appendix. The argument that "life begins at conception" is arbitrary; it disregards the fact that both the sperm and the egg are already alive even before they meet. The biochemical process that joins the genetic material contained in both cells is mechanistic. I don't see this as the decisive event.

On the other hand, a newborn baby is clearly a person in my mind and a member of society in spite of its inability to do anything useful at the moment. This judgment appears to be based on my personal and clearly emotional response to a creature that is independently alive and breathing. Also, the obvious: this person now has the potential to become anything, independently of the mother.

The tough part of course is to determine the point between conception and birth when property becomes person. At this time I feel, more than reason, that independence from the womb is the key. This means the ability to breathe and to nurse naturally, without the seemingly endless supply of medical science and equipment now available to support vital life signs where and when they would normally stop. This entails my support for abortion of the non-viable and my opposition for abortion of the viable.

While this principle works for me, legal aspects are a different matter. Since there is no precise and consistent age where independent viability occurs then some kind of average needs to be picked based on best available information. I would yield the floor to medical experts and legislators for this part of the debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Wouldn't this hurt the middle class more than it hurts the rich? For most middle class people like myself, and probably you, our retirement depends entirely on how we invest our money.

That wasn't a fully-developed proposal I gave, just an idea. I would want to target it to people who actually get paid via stocks (options and grants) as opposed to retirement investors. You could easily enact a provision to tax a stock option at the time it is exercised (you'd have to immediatly sell ~25% of your stocks to pay the tax on it). You could also put age restrictions on it. I'd get rid of the estate tax, but then make it so that a young, able-bodied 'old money' type who doesn't work and gets all their spending money from their trust fund would pay income tax on it (yeah, Paris Hilton, I'm talking to you!).

I have a Roth IRA, which is taxed now and not taxed at all later. They are now starting to give people Roth 401ks, which work on the same principle.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Ok, but at one point do you believe the human being comes into existence?

This should answer some other posts as well.

When is the unborn considered human instead of potentially-human? Definitely not before sometime between weeks 26-28 when higher conscious thought becomes psysically possible. I consider a human being a human when these processes turn on, something studies are beginning to suggest doesn't happen until well after birth. Living in the American midwest I'm still waiting in the case of most of my neighbors and relatives.

That last one was a joke. If you didn't realize that it it may be relavent to you.


But that's not the reason I'm pro-choice. If a woman I've never met wants to have an abortion, do I have the right to ask why? Do you have the right to ask why?

My belief is no. Unless I am going to be a male caregiver if not the father I fell I really have no right to force complete strangers to live their lives as I see fit. Neither does anyone else. You can be outraged all you like but I feel that unless you are the biological father or will be the man who will help raise the child I think you have no right to tell any woman wether or not they can have an abortion or not.

It's not a question of the humanity or potential humanity of the child so much as a consideration of how much power I feel I should have over the lives of other people. In my opinion no amount of power is justified unless my liberty or life is at stake, and all I ask in return is the same curtesy. I won't force you to live how I want you to live if in return you do the same.

 

[Contrapositive]

But that's not the reason I'm pro-choice. If a woman I've never met wants to have an abortion, do I have the right to ask why? Do you have the right to ask why?

My belief is no. Unless I am going to be a male caregiver if not the father I fell I really have no right to force complete strangers to live their lives as I see fit.

This isn't like smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own home. You are, in my opinion, killing another human being for your own benefit.

The way you and some others put it, it sounds like you don't want any limits on freedom. Honestly, if you don't have the right to make laws against murder, then what do we have the right to make laws against? But you don't seem like an anarchist. So is it really that you approve of murder, or is it you simply don't think a fetus is a human being? Because I find the latter to be a lot more reasonable than the former, even though I'm pro-life.

 

[out of whack]

So is it really that you approve of murder, or is it you simply don't think a fetus is a human being?

I don't mean to speak for others but I doubt that anybody approves of murder. So the answer ought to be in the second part of your question: what do you consider to be a human being? The pro-life/pro-choice disagreement is mainly a debate on where this line should be drawn. Strong pro-lifers may say as soon as a sperm enters an egg. Why? Why not. Strong pro-choicers may say at birth. Why? Why not. A human being is whatever human beings say that it is.

 

[drankin]

And what you mean is that women should have the freedom to decide whether to abort or not. Why did you bring up the issue of freedom of choice at all then. As far as I know, freedom of choice is not a legal right, it's a slogan for selling hamburger sandwiches.

Wendy's comes to mind...

 

[Astronuc]

As far as I know, freedom of choice is not a legal right

Hmmmm. Perhaps most assume that freedom of choice is implicit within life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Or does one only have rights that are explicitly provided by some document or by some majority of others?

 

[Contrapositive]

I don't mean to speak for others but I doubt that anybody approves of murder. So the answer ought to be in the second part of your question: what do you consider to be a human being? The pro-life/pro-choice disagreement is mainly a debate on where this line should be drawn. Strong pro-lifers may say as soon as a sperm enters an egg. Why? Why not. Strong pro-choicers may say at birth. Why? Why not. A human being is whatever human beings say that it is.

Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmmmm. Perhaps most assume that freedom of choice is implicit within life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Quick definitions (liberty)
noun: freedom of choice (Example: "Liberty of opinion")
http://www.onelook.com/?w=liberty&ls=a

 

[out of whack]

So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

Well, if part of your body is "property" and not "person" then you should be free to choose how to handle it instead of having others impose their will upon you.

 

[out of whack]

Or does one only have rights that are explicitly provided by some document or by some majority of others?

In practice I would say that this is often the case. What you think is your obvious right can very well be illegal, if not where you are today then where you may be next week. It's certainly prudent to get rights that are important to you in writing.

 

[Contrapositive]

Well, if part of your body is "property" and not "person" then you should be free to choose how to handle it instead of having others impose their will upon you.

Actually, many of the laws in place today would suggest you do not have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Doing drugs illegally would be an example. But, just a hundred years ago, you basically did have the right to do whatever you wanted with your own body. As much as I hate the idea, I think the constitution and the founding fathers would probably agree with legal abortions.

 

[Evo]

Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

We wouldn't have to if "pro-lifers" would stop trying to tell others that they have to agree to their beliefs. Pro-lifers=no choice, what we say is right!

Wrong.

 

[Hurkyl]

We wouldn't have to if "pro-lifers" would stop trying to tell others that they have to agree to their beliefs. Pro-lifers=no choice, what we say is right!

Wrong.

I don't follow -- because the "pro-lifers" are arguing their case, you feel compelled to bring up an entirely irrelevant point?

 

[out of whack]

Actually, many of the laws in place today would suggest you do not have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Doing drugs illegally would be an example.

True, although the principle at play is to forbid goods that are unduly detrimental to society, not just to dictate how you use your own body. A better example is prostitution, another hot topic where the harm to society is being debated. In the case of abortion, detriment to society is certainly not obvious. Unwanted births are a bigger social problem.

 

[Evo]

I don't follow -- because the "pro-lifers" are arguing their case, you feel compelled to bring up an entirely irrelevant point?

"Pro Choice"? The right of the mother to choose? How is that irrelevant?

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

Because there exist multiple valid arguements for a pro-choice POV. 2 seen in this thread have been "When is does it count as a human being?" and "What about the rights of someone who is definitely a human being?". The main reason I am pro-choice is the second reason. For others, the main reason is the first reason.

As for my opinion on the first reason: No, I don't consider abortion murder. Murder to me implies a capacity for higher conscious thought in the victim which is not only not present in the unborn but physically impossible, as in the nessecary parts don't exist yet, until well into the 7th month of pregnancy. If a human being refuses to use their capacity for higher conscious thought they are equal to lower animals in my mind, but out of respect for that capacity I would stand for them. Show me they are capable of higher conscious thought and I'll consider switching sides, but not before.

But like I said the main reason I'm pro-choice is that I'm not about to butcher the rights of any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner for something that may become a human being eventually, and even then has no guarantee of a positive impact on humanity.

 

[Hurkyl]

"Pro Choice"? The right of the mother to choose? How is that irrelevant?

If someone was arguing that your right to free speech needed to be balanced against the safety of the masses, and so you should not be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... would you consider "Free speech. 'nuff said!" to be a relevant response?


AFAIK, the "pro-lifers" have always been an argument against murder -- you have the right to choose, you just don't have the right to murder.

It's like the popular "pro-choicer" approach is not to participate in the discussion; they, like you, simply want to completely ignore what the pro-lifers are saying, and instead pretend that they are trying to strike freedom of choice from the constitution.


If you think that abortion is not murder then fine, say that. But don't pretend that isn't what the "pro-lifers" are generally arguing. Even the phrase "pro-choice" is a denial to acknowledge what the issue is.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

If someone was arguing that your right to free speech needed to be balanced against the safety of the masses, and so you should not be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... would you consider "Free speech. 'nuff said!" to be a relevant response?


AFAIK, the "pro-lifers" have always been arguing that freedoms need to be balanced against the rights of others. They have never tried to argue that a woman shouldn't have freedom of choice; she just shouldn't have the freedom to murder.

Yes, I would consider that an adequite defense. I'll agree with you that it's rude and not something that should be done, but you have to expressly prove that the guy yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater did so with the express purpose of harming others before I'd even consider legal reprocussions. If he yelled "Fire!" out of a poorly planned piece of performance art for example I would not charge him with anything criminal. You'd be free to file a civil lawsuit, nothing says it doesn't go both ways, but the artist wouldn't see a prison cell if I had anything to say about it. Of course with a name like "Gleeful Nihilism" I bet that's kind of expected.

As for your second paragraph, I'm just going to sit back and laugh. "Women's bodies are considered the property of her husband in the Bible and our religion says a good wife is completely subservant to her husband at all times, but we have never said women are lesser human beings then men." Lol. Good One.

 

[Hurkyl]

Because there exist multiple valid arguements for a pro-choice POV. 2 seen in this thread have been "When is does it count as a human being?" and "What about the rights of someone who is definitely a human being?". The main reason I am pro-choice is the second reason. For others, the main reason is the first reason.
...
But like I said the main reason I'm pro-choice is that I'm not about to butcher the rights of any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner for something that may become a human being eventually, and even then has no guarantee of a positive impact on humanity.

The question has never been about whether "any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner" has rights. The question has always been whether or not "something that may become a human being eventually" has rights.

Incidentally, your statement is odd -- what if the woman wasn't contributing to society in a positive manner?

 

[Astronuc]

In practice I would say that this is often the case. What you think is your obvious right can very well be illegal, if not where you are today then where you may be next week. It's certainly prudent to get rights that are important to you in writing.

However, the authors of the US Constitution maintained that "all men" (if taken literally excludes women) were endowed by certain inalienable rights, whether or not it was written. The only reason to right these rights into law is to 'ensure' these rights, rather than grant them. On the other hand, there were rights like property rights that were granted, and these rights could also be rescinded.

 

[out of whack]

I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. If they succeed, this will infringe on the rights of a woman to choose how to treat her own body. If some other group succeeded in making blood transfusions illegal because their faith says it's wrong, this would also infringe on the rights of others to choose a medical option. We lose the choices available to us when we make them illegal. Pro-choice tries to prevent this loss.

 

[out of whack]

However, the authors of the US Constitution maintained that "all men" (if taken literally excludes women) were endowed by certain inalienable rights, whether or not it was written.

I'm sure this particular group of men believed in these specific rights. A second group of men might have picked a different set of unspoken inalienable rights that they also would put in writing forthwith before a third group of men take them away in favor of their own set.

 

[mheslep]

I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. ...

Thats being a bit cavalier what is or is not human. Could you define further?

 

[out of whack]

Thats being a bit cavalier what is or is not human. Could you define further?

I discussed that already. See post #51. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. If they succeed, this will infringe on the rights of a woman to choose how to treat her own body. If some other group succeeded in making blood transfusions illegal because their faith says it's wrong, this would also infringe on the rights of others to choose a medical option. We lose the choices available to us when we make them illegal. Pro-choice tries to prevent this loss.

The formal objection is that the usual pro-choice argument simply ignores the discussion.

Pro-choicer: "I have rights!"
Pro-lifer: "Yes, you do. But so do others; we have to balance your rights against theirs."
Pro-choicer: "I have rights!"


Some pro-choicers actually join the discussion and argue that the fetus isn't human, or shouldn't have any rights. Or they may argue that the mother's rights are more important than the fetus's rights. These kinds of things are where the heart of the issue lies. Those who put merely argue that women have rights have missed the point entirely.



And some comments specific to what you said:

Do you consider this different (in a relevant way) from it being illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? To murder an adult? To own a slave?

"Infringe" is not the word I would have used in any of those examples -- if you are using "infringe" that liberally, then the negative connotation usually associated with the word doesn't apply.

 

[Evo]

If you think that abortion is not murder then fine, say that. But don't pretend that isn't what the "pro-lifers" are generally arguing. Even the phrase "pro-choice" is a denial to acknowledge what the issue is.

Of course I don't consider it murder. I'm pro-choice and I've heard plenty of rhetoric from "pro-lifers" (I work in an office of born again christians and actually, I can't remember a single one bringing up murder specifically. They bring up things like "if you have sex, then you should suffer the consequences". That God doesn't allow premarital sex, blah, blah, blah. It's about the fact that it goes against their moral and religious beliefs. They would allow the mother to be murdered to save a fetus that might not even live, such as in the case of when the unborn fetus is putting the mother's life in jeopardy. I'm not saying all are that bad, but a lot are.

And it is simply a choice to abort an embryo or non-viable fetus as far as I am concerned. And I'm for protecting that choice.

What really angers me is that they want to force all these women to have unwanted children, but they don't do anything about responsibility for that unwanted child. What do they think is going to happen to all of these unwanted children if abortion becomes illegal? And do they really think that making it illegal is going to stop abortion? It means the rich can afford to have it done privately and the poor will suffer at the hands of back alley abortonists.

 

[out of whack]

Do you consider this different (in a relevant way) from it being illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or to murder one's father, or to own a slave?

Yeah...
1. The yelling thing has a negative impact on a bunch of people.
2. The killing thing has a negative impact on your father.
3. The slave thing has a negative impact on the slave.

These are all people. They are all protected against such abuse. Again, it goes to the definition of "people", as I was talking about in post #51.

"Infringe" is not the word I would have used

You can replace it with "go against" if you don't like my wording.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

The question has never been about whether "any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner" has rights. The question has always been whether or not "something that may become a human being eventually" has rights.

Incidentally, your statement is odd -- what if the woman wasn't contributing to society in a positive manner?

It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away. I grant it may never have been about that to you, and from your posts I am willing to believe that and I applaud you, but look around you man. If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

And I said "Any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner". It will probably seem like tricky semantics but just one is enough. Granted I'm of the opinion that the people who are genuinely contributing to huamnity in a truly positive manner are countable on one hand, but that makes them all the more important to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...a pile of cells...".

Good one.

 

[Cyrus]

It is a "pile of cells", nothing more. I am pro abortion all the way up to 18 years of age.

 

[BobG]

It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away. I grant it may never have been about that to you, and from your posts I am willing to believe that and I applaud you, but look around you man. If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

And I said "Any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner". It will probably seem like tricky semantics but just one is enough. Granted I'm of the opinion that the people who are genuinely contributing to huamnity in a truly positive manner are countable on one hand, but that makes them all the more important to me.

Your position is that rights can only exist for one pile of cells? Either the adult pile of cells or the infant pile of cells. I think it's more about conflicting rights. Having to carry someone around in your body is a major imposition on a woman's rights, but doesn't have as big an impact on her rights as abortion has on a fetus. Forcing a boater to tow a stranded boat back to shore even if the tow will take so long the boater has to cancel his fishing trip is an imposition on the boater's rights, but it is international maritime law (although losing a day of fishing is obviously not on a par with pregnancy - and nations have definitely pushed to edge of maritime law and beyond when the stranded boat is full of refugees that no one particularly wants).

It really is two issues: when does a person officially become human and have some rights and how do you handle the conflict between two people's rights when they're in opposition to each other.

By the way, if you think that out of 6.6 billion people, only a million or less are contributing positively, you have a pretty dim view of humanity.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it's more about conflicting rights.

That is part of it. The other part is what rights or recognition society gives to a fetus, which basically comes down to the question "when does a human being become a human being".

Having to carry someone around in your body is a major imposition on a woman's rights, . . .

not to mention the imposition on a woman's health and safety.

Abstinence or celibacy would seem to be an optimal solution to abortion problem, but does anyone wish to have their personal sexuality regulated by some government institution?

 

[Hurkyl]

It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away.

The discussion has never been about that because (essentially) everyone already agrees with that.

One of the points disagreed upon is

If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

which is an entirely different question.

 

[out of whack]

Hurkyl: I tried to respond to your PM a few times without success. It's alright though, I think the main points we wanted to make have been made already. But tell me if you wanted me to directly address a specific section and I will.

 

[mheslep]

It is a "pile of cells", nothing more. I am pro abortion all the way up to 18 years of age.

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/soylent_green/sounds/soylent_green_people.wav"

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Your position is that rights can only exist for one pile of cells? Either the adult pile of cells or the infant pile of cells. . . .


. . .By the way, if you think that out of 6.6 billion people, only a million or less are contributing positively, you have a pretty dim view of humanity.

No, I mean a blastocyst is literally a pile of cells. The adult at least has some interanal logic to the arrangement of their cells but a blastocyst/zygote is a gooey ball of organic mush that just so happens to have the ability to possibly become a human being one day if everyting lines up just right, and it doesn't more often then it does. To give something full human rights when what makes us human is not only not present but physically impossible for it to have, at the expense of someone who has actually could be gloriusly human, stickes me as a bad parody.


As for my views on humanity, yes. Most of us- and I include myself in this- are greedy, prejudical, self-deluded, stupid apes who spend their days clawing and raping their way to the top of a the pile of **** they've turned into just so they can do it again tomarrow.

But at least the joke that is life has one of those uplifting punchlines. Scattered throughout the species are the human beings that make it all worth it. The ones who really dream and think, who refuse to let petty prejudices fears and prejudices make their decisions for them. The ones who make the world better just by existing. These are the people that are gloriously human, and the funniest part is they are so rare and will look so normal that you miss them if you blink. And I'll be damned if one of them suffers because one of you have a near-sexual fixation of a formless blob.

 

[BobG]

No, I mean a blastocyst is literally a pile of cells. The adult at least has some interanal logic to the arrangement of their cells but a blastocyst/zygote is a gooey ball of organic mush that just so happens to have the ability to possibly become a human being one day if everyting lines up just right, and it doesn't more often then it does. To give something full human rights when what makes us human is not only not present but physically impossible for it to have, at the expense of someone who has actually could be gloriusly human, stickes me as a bad parody.


As for my views on humanity, yes. Most of us- and I include myself in this- are greedy, prejudical, self-deluded, stupid apes who spend their days clawing and raping their way to the top of a the pile of **** they've turned into just so they can do it again tomarrow.

But at least the joke that is life has one of those uplifting punchlines. Scattered throughout the species are the human beings that make it all worth it. The ones who really dream and think, who refuse to let petty prejudices fears and prejudices make their decisions for them. The ones who make the world better just by existing. These are the people that are gloriously human, and the funniest part is they are so rare and will look so normal that you miss them if you blink. And I'll be damned if one of them suffers because one of you have a near-sexual fixation of a formless blob.

That's a pretty good argument about why very early term abortions should be legal - which is why at least part of the argument has to focus on when a fetus turns into a human.

(And actually looking at most abortion laws, I'd change my answer saying I prefer stricter abortion laws. It would depend on the particular laws in a given state. Most are already pretty strict and I'd probably favor slightly less strict laws in some cases, such as serious defects that will prevent the fetus from ever developing into a productive adult, for example. Most are probably in a reasonable ball park, requiring some adjustments one way or the other. My prevalent attitude tends to be against abortion with exceptions requiring justification.)

 

[Evo]

I wonder, how many of the few that want abortions to be illegal are women that might someday be in a situation where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I wonder if they were faced with carrying an unwanted child to term if they might not change their minds.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wonder, how many of the few that want abortions to be illegal are women that might someday be in a situation where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I wonder if they were faced with carrying an unwanted child to term if they might not change their minds.

Quite true.

Though I'm not sure that it's in everybody's best interest to promote opinion-by-personal-experience. In that sense "how would you feel if you were..." is a form of ad hominem fallacy. It means those who will never be in that sitch can dismiss the argument outright is non-applicable.

What we really want is an argument that holds up in objective circumstances (such as one that those who never can or will have face that decision can support).

But I think you're right. I'll bet 90% of the pro-lifers either can't or don't plan to be in a sitch where they might be faced with that choice.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Sure. Do you really expect that after freely admitting (boasting, even?) that you embrace Nietzsche's or Hobb's morality that one would then believe you give a damn about protecting anything other than yourself?

You missed the whole point. The whole damn point went right over your head. I didn't embrace ****, I don't admit anything that can touch Nietzsche with a stick. I hate feeling this way, I hate being such a black hearted cynic all the ****ing time, I WANT TO BE WRONG. The only thing this view has going for it is that as far as I can tell it's the truth. But there's the one person in a million who blows right past my cynicism and they are worth the price I paid for admission on this ****ty ride the rest of the human race has set up.

And really, if you're willing to write off and demonize a fellow human being because of a way something they wrote can be interpretted, regardless of what they actually ment, then what does that say about you?

 

[kach22i]

I'll take a map.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Quite true.

Though I'm not sure that it's in everybody's best interest to promote opinion-by-personal-experience. In that sense "how would you feel if you were..." is a form of ad hominem fallacy. It means those who will never be in that sitch can dismiss the argument outright is non-applicable.

What we really want is an argument that holds up in objective circumstances (such as one that those who never can or will have face that decision can support).

But I think you're right. I'll bet 90% of the pro-lifers either can't or don't plan to be in a sitch where they might be faced with that choice.

There's a joke in my circle of friends.

Please keep that joke within your circle of friends

The best part is I've only seen one exception to this rule, and even then it's only if she doesn't talk because she's a home-school fundie that I probably couldn't stand to be in the same room with for more then a couple minutes anyway. That 20 year old who's leading a campaign to force Colorado to have fertilized eggs full human status. If she gets the 76,000 signitures she needs on her petition there's a good chance I'll became an hero but I freely admit that I would hit that.


(Sorry for the double post, I thought the natures of the posts were so different that it warrented it.)

 

[Alfi]

"You are, in my opinion, killing another human being for your own benefit."Ah ?? - is that not just a broad definition of the purpose of the military?

baby killing from 40,000 feet sort of thing.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, if I ever get caught robbing a bank, I'd want the robbing of banks to be legalized, too, but that isn't a good argument for doing so.

For the record, I said yes to:

Making abortion illegal - If you've been here for more than a year or so, then you know in incredible depth why I feel this way.

Strong environmental protection laws - Tops on the agenda would be doing something about agricultural runoff into floodplains and rivers, tougher mandates regarding green building in the general plans of cities, restoration and protection of coastal wetlands, and a required commitment for all water districts to put in place strong agency policies that curb water demand, especially in agricultural districts, as metropolitan districts have actually already been doing a pretty good job of this.

Mostly unregulated imports and trades - Lower the domestic corporate tax to reduce the incentive for offshoring and eliminate all protective tariffs, especially sugar tariffs.

Elimination of the national debt - This needs to be qualified because Ivan is right that deficit spending isn't always a bad thing. It needs to be more carefully used, though. Using it as part of a stimulus package is one thing, or to fund infrastructure improvements, basic research, and other things that make the economy stronger in the long term, but when "interest on the national debt" is one of the largest line-items on the federal budget, that isn't a good thing. You risk running a permanent deficit and going bankrupt a la Orange County in the 90s.

That was all. I'd certainly support massive tax code overhauls, but the above statements are far too general to know what I'm supporting in this case.

 

[Art]

Be simpler just to give all women (or men if feasible) of child bearing age a birth control implant so that pregnancy becomes an opt in rather than an opt out issue, that would decrease the number of abortions dramatically

 

[wildman]

Yes, quite vague, but that never stopped me before. I support the following:

Abortion made illegal
Amnesty for illegal aliens
Strong environmental protection laws
Mostly unregulated imports and trade
Throw out the existing tax structure
Increase taxes on the rich

Interesting combination. You obviously are an independent thinker...

 

[Poop-Loops]

For me it was

Environmental protection -- Global Warming or not, protecting the environment is important. I like my air with nitrogen and oxygen, not smog and car farts, okay?

Getting rid of the national debt -- I assume this meant taking steps to paying back what we owe to other countries. I really hate interest rates, unless they're in my favor. Here they are not, so we need to focus on getting rid of this.

Throw out existing tax structure -- a layperson cannot possibly understand the current tax system to its fullest, and neither can most accountants. It is FUBAR. Get rid of it and start over.

Increase tax on the rich -- Reaganomics don't work, sorry. Rich people are just as stupid as poor people. Instead of investing, they buy an expensive car and total it. You might as well give poor people money for food instead of giving rich people money to buy a bigger boat. And if you don't want to give it directly to poor people, then extend scholarships, student loans, and military benefits/salaries. Surely we can all agree to that?