Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32068 times)

ivan · « **Reply #50 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:48:22 AM »

We already have the cages, razor wire and guns. All we need is prisoners!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2006, 12:42:07 PM »

Quote from: ivan

Quote from: Demosthenes
State governments do not have the constitutional authority to govern such things.

But they do anyway. They did before Roe v Wade, and they will after. I live in a state that finds it ok to execute people, and not ok for any two single adults to be married.

Those powers not ennumerated are retained. Outlawing abortion, be it on a state or federal level, violates the rights of the mother -- a being whose rights are NOT in question -- in favour of an entity whose rights are nebulous at best.

No state can violate the rights of individuals. If one does, that is grounds for the federal government to step in and ensure that individual rights are protected.

States do not have the authority to interfere in the reproductive decisions of women. The federal government does not have the authority to interfere in the reproductive decisions of women.

Only the women involved have that authority.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #52 on:** February 01, 2006, 02:59:56 PM »

And I respect that authoritay!

/cartman

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #53 on:** February 01, 2006, 05:25:37 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Quote from: ivan
Quote from: Demosthenes
State governments do not have the constitutional authority to govern such things.

But they do anyway. They did before Roe v Wade, and they will after. I live in a state that finds it ok to execute people, and not ok for any two single adults to be married.

Those powers not ennumerated are retained. Outlawing abortion, be it on a state or federal level, violates the rights of the mother -- a being whose rights are NOT in question -- in favour of an entity whose rights are nebulous at best.

No state can violate the rights of individuals. If one does, that is grounds for the federal government to step in and ensure that individual rights are protected.

States do not have the authority to interfere in the reproductive decisions of women. The federal government does not have the authority to interfere in the reproductive decisions of women.

Only the women involved have that authority.

And I agree, but what about those that say the "child" has a right to live, or that we outlaw infanticide. or that there are other alternitives to abortion.

Phife · « **Reply #54 on:** February 01, 2006, 06:19:56 PM »

I plan on doing some reading tonight and tomorrow on this subject.

But until then, here are my stances:

I hate abortion.

I am for the smart and appropriate use of birth control.

I don't want RvW overturned.

I am for the right to privacy.

When abortions are performed, minor's legal guardians should be informed and non-abusive fathers of the unborn should be informed.

I find it arbitrary that one has no rights inside the womb, inside the vaginal canal, and if all is out but the head, but they do when the head is out of the vagina...

So what label do you want to put on me? Anti-abortion? Pro-life? Pro-choice? Pro-privacy?

Here is what I prefer: Pro-common-sense.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #55 on:** February 01, 2006, 10:12:48 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

Quote from: Demosthenes
Quote from: ivan
Quote from: Demosthenes
State governments do not have the constitutional authority to govern such things.

But they do anyway. They did before Roe v Wade, and they will after. I live in a state that finds it ok to execute people, and not ok for any two single adults to be married.

Those powers not ennumerated are retained. Outlawing abortion, be it on a state or federal level, violates the rights of the mother -- a being whose rights are NOT in question -- in favour of an entity whose rights are nebulous at best.

No state can violate the rights of individuals. If one does, that is grounds for the federal government to step in and ensure that individual rights are protected.

States do not have the authority to interfere in the reproductive decisions of women. The federal government does not have the authority to interfere in the reproductive decisions of women.

Only the women involved have that authority.

And I agree, but what about those that say the "child" has a right to live, or that we outlaw infanticide. or that there are other alternitives to abortion.

As long as it is within the body of the being whose rights are not in question, the rights of the unborn are a matter of individual belief.

To me this issue has always been fairly simple... I've never really understood what the fuss is about. Women are people. People have rights. An unborn child is essentially a "potential person" while it is still "unborn".

Until it is outside the womb, the woman is the one whose body is ultimately the one whose health is on the line is the one who is in charge of the decision as to whether or not to carry the fetus to term. Interfering with that decision is as much a violation of her rights as it would be to interfere with someone's decision to go ahead with an appendectomy, or heart bypass surgery, or hell.... a nosejob.

Do I think a fetus is a person? In my opinion, past a certain point, yes. Once it has a brain, and organs, and limbs and is capable of feeling pain, I think we go from talking about a cluster of cells (a.k.a. an "embryo") to talking about a living human being.

But that's MY viewpoint.

Note that I am not a woman. As such, that viewpoint, that opinion of mine about when a fetus becomes "human" is completely irrelevent. The moment I can carry a child myself is when I can make that opinion matter, and as of this point, that is well beyond medical science.

And I hope it always is.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #56 on:** February 01, 2006, 10:27:54 PM »

Yeah I'm of the "potential person" view too, and so was one of the authors we read, but people didn't seem to buy that.

I suppose they are a bit closed minded...

pbsaurus · « **Reply #57 on:** February 01, 2006, 10:31:07 PM »

So what about this can of worms?

Phife · « **Reply #58 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:20:26 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

Yeah I'm of the "potential person" view too, and so was one of the authors we read, but people didn't seem to buy that.

I suppose they are a bit closed minded...

Why are they closed-minded? Because they won't come to see your point of view as valid? Isn't that the same crime of which you are guilty?

This is not a black and white issue. It is not an us and them issue. Honestly, people who think so are the closed-minded ones.

Abortion is a case-by-case issue. There is not a "right" answer for every situation.

Someone smart once said that people who come to questions with the answer already in their minds are stupid...I tend to agree with that!

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #59 on:** February 01, 2006, 11:25:46 PM »

Quote from: Phife

Quote from: Crystalmonkey
Yeah I'm of the "potential person" view too, and so was one of the authors we read, but people didn't seem to buy that.

I suppose they are a bit closed minded...

Why are they closed-minded? Because they won't come to see your point of view as valid? Isn't that the same crime of which you are guilty?

This is not a black and white issue. It is not an us and them issue. Honestly, people who think so are the closed-minded ones.

Abortion is a case-by-case issue. There is not a "right" answer for every situation.

Someone smart once said that people who come to questions with the answer already in their minds are stupid...I tend to agree with that!

No I call them closed-minded because they refuse to consider another opinion, and I HAVE considered what they were saying, and I HAVE debated with myself over it.

I CANNOT say the same for them.

Phife · « **Reply #60 on:** February 02, 2006, 12:04:55 AM »

Then you are one of the very few!

And are you 100% positive that they haven't considered the other options? Maybe they have but are convinced of the veracity of their stance?

Would you still call them closed-minded?

My point still stands...closed-mindedness = coming to an issue and knowing what your answer is because you are simply regurgitating party platforms.

I don't do that. And I hope that you don't either!

:wub:

reimero · « **Reply #61 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:38:01 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

So what about this can of worms?

There's no law mandating that a drug store or a store with a pharmacy must stock every drug on the market. Frankly, I'd regard it as a restraint of free trade. There are plenty of pharmacies (including CVS) who DO carry it, so it's not like it's unavailable.

This is different from the so-called "conscience clause" because it's a company establishing a policy on what it will or will not carry. It's simple economics, really. I mean, can I sue Wal-Mart simply because they refuse to carry the uncensored version of the CD I want or the rather violent computer game I want? Of course not. I'll just take my business elsewhere.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #62 on:** February 02, 2006, 11:35:33 AM »

Those of us in suburban/urban areas can always choose to take our business elsewhere, but what about rural areas, where often Walmart is the only merchant within an hours drive? Not that I know there are such places anymore, but Walmart's original strategy was to fill the rural niche and be the one stop shopping place for populations within an hours drive. And since pharmaceuticals are already heavily regulated, the free trade is already encumbered and perfectly legal. So in effect, if a Walmart is the only source in those areas, aren't they exercising monopoly power to achieve their fundamentalist moral crusade?

I'm still undecided on this one.

Stratofortress · « **Reply #63 on:** February 08, 2006, 10:45:36 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Why these same people don't view capital punishement as murder is beyond me.

Capital punishment is not considered murder because it is an act of the government and not an individual. War is similiar. (Or so some have said.)

One might also argue that the convicted murderer has shown society he/she is unable to live as a functional part of society whereas the unborn didn't have the opportunity to show his/her ability/inability.

And/that's/all/I/have/to/say/about/that.

For now.

Stratofortress · « **Reply #64 on:** February 08, 2006, 11:00:31 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Those of us in suburban/urban areas can always choose to take our business elsewhere, but what about rural areas, where often Walmart is the only merchant within an hours drive? Not that I know there are such places anymore, but Walmart's original strategy was to fill the rural niche and be the one stop shopping place for populations within an hours drive. And since pharmaceuticals are already heavily regulated, the free trade is already encumbered and perfectly legal. So in effect, if a Walmart is the only source in those areas, aren't they exercising monopoly power to achieve their fundamentalist moral crusade?

I'm still undecided on this one.

I am aware of rural areas where Wal Mart is the only merchant within an hour's drive; central Pennsylvania. I'm sure there are other areas. I think you have a valid point regarding Wal Mart's status as a monopoly.

ivan · « **Reply #65 on:** February 10, 2006, 04:01:31 PM »

This is how it starts: http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45916

Demosthenes · « **Reply #66 on:** February 10, 2006, 04:15:10 PM »

That's political posturing for their constituents and fundraisers, nothing more. It won't succeed.

Vespertine · « **Reply #67 on:** February 24, 2006, 04:55:44 PM »

Well, we're now on our way to seeing if we can turn women into second class citizens who are, by nature of being women, totally unqualified to make decisions for themselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/

xolik · « **Reply #68 on:** February 24, 2006, 06:08:09 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Well, we're now on our way to seeing if we can turn women into second class citizens who are, by nature of being women, totally unqualified to make decisions for themselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/

Welcome to the Second Class Citizen Club! Here's your card. Mine's pink!

ivan · « **Reply #69 on:** February 24, 2006, 06:21:45 PM »

W00t!

I'M NUMBER ONE! I'M NUMBER ONE!

pbsaurus · « **Reply #70 on:** February 24, 2006, 06:41:21 PM »

I'm number 6

ivan · « **Reply #71 on:** February 24, 2006, 06:47:37 PM »

Damn!

That makes me 7.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #72 on:** February 24, 2006, 09:14:43 PM »

I'm number eggplant.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #73 on:** February 24, 2006, 09:20:57 PM »

Quote from: ivan

Damn!

That makes me 7.

Or twice that.

hackess · « **Reply #74 on:** February 24, 2006, 09:31:20 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Well, we're now on our way to seeing if we can turn women into second class citizens who are, by nature of being women, totally unqualified to make decisions for themselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/

One of my news stations is in Sioux City, IA, and covers SD news. I seethed when I had to edit that story.

*gets out Red Pen of Editorial Wrath*

*reads story*

*inserts <hurr> tag and fixes punctuation, spelling and grammar*

*closes <hurr> tag*

*posts story*

Feh.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Opening a Can of Worms (Read 32068 times)

ivan

ivan

ivan

ivan