View Topic

I could have worded my point better.  Let me attempt to explain my reasoning.

Bodily autonomy says that it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to let her body to be used for the development of a fetus.  A fetus is a different person from the mother, so her autonomy does not include anything that is not her own body.  Therefore, because the child and mother are not the same person, a paradox is created.  If a mother has the right to decide whether or not to allow the use of her body in this way, she simultaneously lacks the right to harm the fetus without its consent.  Ergo, the fetus cannot be harmed.  D you at least see where I'm coming from?

Now to address several other issues, just to clarify my feelings on this matter.  I believe that men need to be held more accountable for ensuring that contraception is being used during sex. Additionally, contraception should be more readily available and advocated.  As you've already learned, I oppose abortion in all instances except life of the mother.  At the same time, I believe that there needs to be greater support for those mothers who do not wish to carry the child to term.  Any health costs incurred as a result of carrying the child to term (NOT general costs of pregnancy) should be covered.  And the entire American foster and adoption system needs an overhaul, there's no question about that.

I could have worded my point better.  Let me attempt to explain my reasoning.

Bodily autonomy says that it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to let her body to be used for the development of a fetus.  A fetus is a different person from the mother, so her autonomy does not include anything that is not her own body.  Therefore, because the child and mother are not the same person, a paradox is created.  If a mother has the right to decide whether or not to allow the use of her body in this way, she simultaneously lacks the right to harm the fetus without its consent.  Ergo, the fetus cannot be harmed.  D you at least see where I'm coming from?

Now to address several other issues, just to clarify my feelings on this matter.  I believe that men need to be held more accountable for ensuring that contraception is being used during sex. Additionally, contraception should be more readily available and advocated.  As you've already learned, I oppose abortion in all instances except life of the mother.  At the same time, I believe that there needs to be greater support for those mothers who do not wish to carry the child to term.  Any health costs incurred as a result of carrying the child to term (NOT general costs of pregnancy) should be covered.  And the entire American foster and adoption system needs an overhaul, there's no question about that.

I see your theoretical argument, but I don't agree with it. But I respect that you have your own opinion and that it's unlikely that I have the ability nor time to change it to mine.
I agree with your other points though. I'd like to add in that I also believe Sex Education classes should be better taught or taught at all to further some of those goals and just in general.

Colberius, I know the president makes the call on the Justices, which is why I refuse to let any Republican in power if I can do anything about it at all.

Also, actually, a fetus is not a person. You're only considered a living person as long as you have brain activity (hence why we do CPR when your heart stops and you're only pronounced dead after it's impossible to revive you and your brain has shut down entirely), and fetuses don't have brain activity until around 12 weeks, which is after when more than 90% of abortions are performed anyway. Abortions done later than that are pretty rare, and usually done in instances where the pregnant person has access issues that make earlier ones impossible, are clinically depressed and/or are on drugs, or are domestic violence victims, all of which provide reasonable exception (especially given how limited abortion access still is :/). So.

There's no paradox insofar as human rights to bodily autonomy are concerned.

I should also note that forcing people to bear children is a (disgustingly common) form of abuse known as reproductive coercion, and ensuring that abuse victims have no way to recover from that form of violence is unacceptable to me. Also, outlawing abortions doesn't stop abortions; it just stops safe abortions. That also puts people at risk.

You'll note I'm using "people" here; I know at least one trans man, personally, who has been threatened with sexual violence and forced reproduction to "prove [he's] really a woman". I can only hope that it was an isolated incident, but the point still stands that this is another angle that must be considered, and one that your suggested measures don't cover.

Which leads me back to the topic of party loyalty and why I'm not so much pro-Democrat as I am anti-Republican. I mean, which party is responsible for abstinence-only sex ed and restricting access to contraceptives? (To add to that, we could talk about voter suppression and all the other fun racist things the party is known for, but I think my point has been made well enough.)

I was reading an article about Ben Carson and his brilliant idea of how he would survive a mass shooting!  Just rush the gunman, cause that always works, right? Seriously, Ben Carson reminds me of the kind of guy that would yell "EVERYONE RUSH THE GUNMAN!" as he ran to the exit. God help us all if he becomes the next president.

Brave Sir Carson ran away. Bravely ran away, away. When danger reared its ugly head, Brave Sir Carson turned and fled, Yes, brave Sir Carson turned about and gallantly he chickened out, Bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Sir Carson!

I approve of the Monty Python joke, North.  British comedy is the best! 

I only regret that I have but one like to give for this! 

On a more serious note, Ben Carson scares the crap out of me.  The fact that the man is so hateful and so stupid and still considered a viable candidate for arguably the most important political office in the world is absurd.  I mean, the guy practically wants to wage war against all Muslims, because they aren't Christian.  Also, he thinks that the Holocaust would have been harder if the Jews had guns.  Declaring that they could have somehow held off the Nazis with one or two personal firearms is utterly absurd.

Don't worry, they're Republicans. I don't see them nominating a black person for president.

I approve of the Monty Python joke, North.  British comedy is the best! 

I only regret that I have but one like to give for this! 

On a more serious note, Ben Carson scares the crap out of me.  The fact that the man is so hateful and so stupid and still considered a viable candidate for arguably the most important political office in the world is absurd.  I mean, the guy practically wants to wage war against all Muslims, because they aren't Christian.  Also, he thinks that the Holocaust would have been harder if the Jews had guns.  Declaring that they could have somehow held off the Nazis with one or two personal firearms is utterly absurd.

Hehe, thought you might like that one, SirRobin.

And I agree. Donald Trump (so long as he never gets within 30 feet of the presidency) amuses me. Ben Carson is just crazy and that is scary.

Did anyone catch the Democratic debate? I skipped the Republican debates because none of the candidates have interested me at all, but as someone who came into this supporting Sanders and feeling ambivalent to Clinton, I wanted to watch them directly debate each other. I think it was a fascinating debate that was overall good for most of the candidates...my thoughts about each one, in case anyone else watched:

Hillary Clinton
Overall I thought she was poised, animated, and enthusiastic, and that alone will probably be to her advantage. I thought she did best on foreign policy...she certainly seemed like someone that had been Secretary of State, and should she win the nomination her views will probably be most in line with independent voters. On the downside, I don't think she handled the accusation that she'll say anything to get elected well and she played the gender card too often...a brief mention that she'd be the first woman president is fine, but when asked how her Administration would be different from Obama's I don't think they meant the difference in their policies, not their genders.

Bernie Sanders
Overall I thought he more than held his own and definitely had the best line of the night. As someone who is running as much on his own character and integrity as the issues, defending his chief rival for the nomination to her obvious appreciation probably helps him. He also ably defended against an accusation that he 'abandoned Hispanics at the alter' by not supporting the immigration reform bill in 2007. He less ably handled an accusation that he voted to give gun manufacturers legal immunity from lawsuits, and that's an area he's probably going to need to work on.

Martin O'Malley
As the main also ran invited as a seat warmer, I thought he did a decent job...he introduced himself and was able to tout his accomplishments as Mayor of Balitmore and Governor of Maryland, and he got to mention his plan for green energy by 2050 a dozen times. Also got in a subtle dig at the DNC Chairwoman over the number of debates, who he's been feuding with on the issue. He probably did the best he could given the circumstances, and the obvious fact that he and some others were invited mostly as seat-warmers who were given little time.

Jim Webb
He's someone that gets things done and complains about not getting as much time (true enough). I think he mentioned China and the South China Sea...I got nothing else.

Lincoln Chafee
Did...did he really say that he voted to repeal major banking regulations without knowing what he was voting on? And...did he really try to justify it by saying 94 others voted for it?

Overall, I'm still most enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders...I think we need politician that not only say nice things, but stand behind them and actually take action by them, but I'm a little less ambivalent about Hillary if she ends up getting the nomination.

I don't think I like the debate's formatting tbh. Basically, they said whenever someone said your name you get time. It really naturally favors the frontrunners, because their names get mentioned more. Adds a popularity contest minigame into the debate that I don't care for.

Hillary was obviously the most well accomplished, prepared, and polished debater, I would say. She had a certain grace and poise that only comes with practice. Which makes sense, former secretary of state and all. She answered the questions so loudly and fluidly that you sort of forgot the parts of the question she didn't answer, though that got called out a few times.

So, Hillary, I think had the fewest fuck-ups?

Bernie got a little flummoxed a few times, but he definitely held his own. If he really is passionate and sincere, then it shines through. I liked how he shut down the 'Hilary's Emails' conversation, in Cooper's face I might add. Overall, well practiced, well spoken, I like this guy.

O' Malley, might stick around for another debate probably. He smiles a lot. Didn't see much of him because of the rules.

The guy who was the only candidate who was a Mayor, a Senator, and a Governor? I kinda felt a little sorry for him, he looked so sad like he was about to cry the entire time  . Maybe he'll go back to being a Republican after the primaries.

Webb. Oh, Jimmy Webb. I love Jimmy Webb. He only got to talk for like 5 minutes, because of the rules, but he sure made them count with tidbits to the effect of "I am not getting enough ttime!!!", "I need more time!", and "The enemy I am most proud of making is the guy who threw a grenade at me in 'nam. I plastered the inside of his bunker with bloody pieces of him".

Gotta say, someone else summed up my views on the whole thing already in a much more eloquent fashion: "Hillary wants the presidency. Bernie wants CHANGE."

And tbh Hillary seemed stuck on three generic kinds of responses; "I'm a woman", "[distracting talk with relatively little substance]", or "Yeah, what Bernie said".

The other three were, as stated, seat-warmers, and honestly O'Malley's record as "tough on crime" Mayor of Baltimore (that some of y'all may remember as that place with one of the most corrupt police forces in the nation), well...I don't think that did him any favors.

I could have worded my point better.  Let me attempt to explain my reasoning.

Bodily autonomy says that it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to let her body to be used for the development of a fetus.  A fetus is a different person from the mother, so her autonomy does not include anything that is not her own body.  Therefore, because the child and mother are not the same person, a paradox is created.  If a mother has the right to decide whether or not to allow the use of her body in this way, she simultaneously lacks the right to harm the fetus without its consent.  Ergo, the fetus cannot be harmed.  D you at least see where I'm coming from?

Now to address several other issues, just to clarify my feelings on this matter.  I believe that men need to be held more accountable for ensuring that contraception is being used during sex. Additionally, contraception should be more readily available and advocated.  As you've already learned, I oppose abortion in all instances except life of the mother.  At the same time, I believe that there needs to be greater support for those mothers who do not wish to carry the child to term.  Any health costs incurred as a result of carrying the child to term (NOT general costs of pregnancy) should be covered.  And the entire American foster and adoption system needs an overhaul, there's no question about that.

Oooooo is there an abortion debate going on?
Or did we try to shut that down?

I think the paradox mentioned can be resolved by adding that a fetus requires the use of its mother's digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and pretty much every other vital system in order to sustain its vital life functions. Even if the mother does not have the right to harm the fetus, they do have the right to withdraw or deny consent to the use of their bodily resources. The fact that this will kill the fetus is not, with all due respect to the sanctity of human life, the mother's responsibility.

You may not force me to give you blood, even if doing so would cost me nothing and save your life. You may not force a woman to donate their body to a fetus, which can cost them their life.

On a side note, a deceased citizen of the USA who is not an organ donor may not have their organs used post-mortem, even if it would save one life or many. Outlawing abortion would give mothers fewer rights to bodily autonomy than a corpse.

 

Hopefully this is not too inflammatory.. 

Did anyone catch the Democratic debate? I skipped the Republican debates because none of the candidates have interested me at all, but as someone who came into this supporting Sanders and feeling ambivalent to Clinton, I wanted to watch them directly debate each other. I think it was a fascinating debate that was overall good for most of the candidates...my thoughts about each one, in case anyone else watched:

Hillary Clinton
Overall I thought she was poised, animated, and enthusiastic, and that alone will probably be to her advantage. I thought she did best on foreign policy...she certainly seemed like someone that had been Secretary of State, and should she win the nomination her views will probably be most in line with independent voters. On the downside, I don't think she handled the accusation that she'll say anything to get elected well and she played the gender card too often...a brief mention that she'd be the first woman president is fine, but when asked how her Administration would be different from Obama's I don't think they meant the difference in their policies, not their genders.

Bernie Sanders
Overall I thought he more than held his own and definitely had the best line of the night. As someone who is running as much on his own character and integrity as the issues, defending his chief rival for the nomination to her obvious appreciation probably helps him. He also ably defended against an accusation that he 'abandoned Hispanics at the alter' by not supporting the immigration reform bill in 2007. He less ably handled an accusation that he voted to give gun manufacturers legal immunity from lawsuits, and that's an area he's probably going to need to work on.

Martin O'Malley
As the main also ran invited as a seat warmer, I thought he did a decent job...he introduced himself and was able to tout his accomplishments as Mayor of Balitmore and Governor of Maryland, and he got to mention his plan for green energy by 2050 a dozen times. Also got in a subtle dig at the DNC Chairwoman over the number of debates, who he's been feuding with on the issue. He probably did the best he could given the circumstances, and the obvious fact that he and some others were invited mostly as seat-warmers who were given little time.

Jim Webb
He's someone that gets things done and complains about not getting as much time (true enough). I think he mentioned China and the South China Sea...I got nothing else.

Lincoln Chafee
Did...did he really say that he voted to repeal major banking regulations without knowing what he was voting on? And...did he really try to justify it by saying 94 others voted for it?

Overall, I'm still most enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders...I think we need politician that not only say nice things, but stand behind them and actually take action by them, but I'm a little less ambivalent about Hillary if she ends up getting the nomination.

Spolier alert, man! I was going to watch that :]

I think the paradox mentioned can be resolved by adding that a fetus requires the use of its mother's digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and pretty much every other vital system in order to sustain its vital life functions. Even if the mother does not have the right to harm the fetus, they do have the right to withdraw or deny consent to the use of their bodily resources. The fact that this will kill the fetus is not, with all due respect to the sanctity of human life, the mother's responsibility.

You may not force me to give you blood, even if doing so would cost me nothing and save your life. You may not force a woman to donate their body to a fetus, which can cost them their life.

On a side note, a deceased citizen of the USA who is not an organ donor may not have their organs used post-mortem, even if it would save one life or many. Outlawing abortion would give mothers fewer rights to bodily autonomy than a corpse.

 

Hopefully this is not too inflammatory.. 

Not too inflammatory for me, at least.   

However, it also doesn't resolve anything for me.  In my opinion, when a person makes a decision which directly results in the death of another person, and they were aware of the consequences, that's murder.  (You may not agree with my definition of person, but you have to admit that the fetus isn't part of the mother, so it's at least not the same person.)  For clarification, I don't mean possible consequences, like the mother maybe missing out on a better job or having health issues because she couldn't get an abortion, but guaranteed consequences, like the fetus dying as a result of an abortion.

Also, you make a very valid point about organ donation, but I believe that post-mortem organ donation should be compulsory.  So that's merely another issue that I think could be corrected. 

Not too inflammatory for me, at least.   

However, it also doesn't resolve anything for me.  In my opinion, when a person makes a decision which directly results in the death of another person, and they were aware of the consequences, that's murder.  (You may not agree with my definition of person, but you have to admit that the fetus isn't part of the mother, so it's at least not the same person.)  For clarification, I don't mean possible consequences, like the mother maybe missing out on a better job or having health issues because she couldn't get an abortion, but guaranteed consequences, like the fetus dying as a result of an abortion.

Also, you make a very valid point about organ donation, but I believe that post-mortem organ donation should be compulsory.  So that's merely another issue that I think could be corrected. 

Sorry, I think this is where we part ways in terms of opinion. When I'm evaluating risks to myself, I have every right to account for possible risks to my life and welfare. I have every right to the control of my person and my organs.

If you wake up tomorrow with your blood being transfused for 9 months to a person you don't know so they can live at the cost of your quality of life, you have the right to pull the plug even if it will kill them. If you don't agree with that, then as I said, we have parted ways in terms of opinion.

But if we could carry this on in another topic or by PM that would probably be better, since this topic is "US Presidential Election: The Electoral College and Party Loyalty".

I agree on the debate format...I mean, those three don't have a chance in hell at the nomination and they were there only to fill the stage, but if you're going to invite them you should at least try to make sure they're part of the debate too. And the rules where someone mentioned can respond...of course this is going to be to Hillary's advantage, cause she's the front-runner and everyone's going to be out to contrast themselves with her. That being said, I felt of the three only Martin O'Malley utilized the time he had well, and I don't think that'll be enough long-term.

But with Hillary's friend as the Chairwoman of the DNC, we're lucky to be getting debates at all. It's obvious that the Democratic party leadership feels the need to protect Hillary from debates as much as possible.