What is it about conservative Christians and their inability to simply argue a point on its merits without resorting to hyperbolizing it into the most important thing ever?
In the South Dakota Legislature's continuing obsession with form over substance, Rep. Scott Craig (R-33/Rapid City) declares that a symbolic and hence impotent vote on House Concurrent Resolution 1004 is the most important thing any legislator will do this session:
Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, read from the final lines of the resolution that say the court erred and that ask the court to let states make the decisions on abortion.
“These are your words,” Craig told House members. “This is by far the most significant yes vote any one of us can cast this session” [Bob Mercer, "SD House Wants End to Legal Abortion," Rapid City Journal, 2015.01.29].
Rep. Craig apparently mistakes a stemwinding sermon for real statecraft. No vote on any resolution, even this ponderous 6750-word monster, will exceed in practical import any bill, no matter how small, that changes the law and the rules under which our democratic society functions. Yesterday's speeches and votes on HCR 1004 won't feed any kids, free any oppressed women, or, frankly, stop one abortion or unplanned pregnancy or instance of scandalous premarital sex.
I guess we have to keep reminding legislators of physics: Work is force applied over a distance. Rep. Craig and friends can exert their rhetorical force all day on their culture-war issues, but if they don't move practical results, they aren't getting any work done. Get to work, Legislature.
Sibby bait and more evidence that even bad press raises money for batshit spaghetti.
Probably a good thing someone in the luxury visitors viewing boxes didn't pour beer on this Rapid City legislator and heckle him to go home.
At one time I used to think that our legislators were above the average for intelligence, just the opposite.
Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City Do you really feel this is the best use of your short legislative session to serve the state of South Dakota and especially your constituents in District 33?
Isn't this session considered 2015? I just filled out a survey grading the performance for the 2014 legislative session with the link to the RCJ and it was overwhelmingly an F.
Maybe he should put that up for a initiated measure or referendum in the next election...wait...what?
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
A single mom working 3 minimum wage jobs is trying to figure out how she will be able to afford shock absorbers that she needs to replace after driving on dilapidated roads and still afford food and healthcare for her kids.
Tens of thousands of soon to graduate teachers are deciding that they can scratch South Dakota off of their list of where to work.
Trail King is feeling good that the state is paying for their worker training and recruitment...ain't the free market great...well, at least it's free for them.
Lastly, Joop Bolen is smiling that his bank account is still very healthy and there is no reason to worry about the rules.
Jana,now that would be downright disrespectful and wrong and if South Dakota had Texas wingnuts running things,beer would not be allowed into chambers,just handguns, because someone might throw a beer and guns are just to look at.
Wait a minute, I think I'm finally seeing what the GOP legislature in Pierre is trying to do!
Take a look at 7 of the last 10 posts from our gracious host/blogger, Cory.
With their focus on ineffectual and trivial bills...these guys are making the case to change South Dakota to a bi-annual legislature! Have to admit they are doing a good job of making the case that they don't need to meet every year to do nothing of consequence other than increase the food and alcoholic beverage sales in Pierre.
OT Money Boo Boo drops out of race for Potus. Plus he is listing his unfinished La Jolla car elevator mansion. Prepare for Apocalypse or End times or something.
And the Supremes will laugh their asses off at Craig and fall off their thrones.
How much more time can these Republicans waste? And I mean ALL Republicans
I am opposed to abortion, but this sort of grandstanding tires the hell out of me.
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Right, GOP????
Republican legislators change mind on “Daschle” law
http://my605.com/pierrereview/?p=11714
You all do well to sit down and read what you are criticizing. It's devastating to Roe v wade. And the comments about wasting time and lack of intelligence are based on blindness and ignorance.
Rep. Hickey, we would all do better to spend the next week on the phone to our legislators calling on them to kill SB 166 and strip the anti-democratic elements of SB 69 that no longer help petition reform than to waste our time reading the latest stretched-out but non-binding sermons on why Legislators want to strip women of their bodily autonomy.
The folks stemwinding on this resolution are falling for the GOP trick of blinding us to the practical damage they are doing to the state through bad laws and funding neglect.
Can a Republican state legislature simply give the Supremes a state resolution asking for the repeal of Rose versus Wade?
Wouldn't they have to have to present a very toothy legal case and go through local and federal judicial processes? I can't imagine the Supremes even recognizing HRC 1004
Oh come on, read it. The court has reversed itself 233 times in our history and this is all about the rights of women.
Oh Crap!
That evil Sibson By Proxy is back.
A perfectly good day shot to hell.
Roe is not good law anymore, Planned Parenthood v. Casey controls.
When I worked at the Pierre hospital, the "good Christian" white people that worked there would call the Native American moms coming in to have their babies "Reservation Specials". I'm not kidding. This wasn't directed right at the women, but they were being sarcastic of the complications pregnant Native women sometimes have such as late prenatal care, alcohol, hypertension. All the so-called prolife people who are against insuring the state's poorest but yet say they are pro baby are the hypocrites here. Instead of trying to save those babies, I saw in one instance a medicaid mom discharged just a a day after having a Cesarean. These same 'pubs are against needed Federal tax dollars to put the state's poorest on Medicaid.
So really, the question is - are the 'pubs only pro-life when it comes to nice healthy white babies, or does that include Native American, Muslim, Hispanic, African American and all the other ethnic babies also?
Welp, I think insinuations that being a pro-life republican means you are a racist is where my internet day ends.
Careful with those insinuations: also voting for HCR 1004 were Democrats Julie Bartling, Dennis Feickert, Patrick Kirschman, Ray Ring, and Dean Schrempp.
Joining the nays were Republicans Dan Dryden from Rapid City and Fred Romkema from Spearfish.
As long as Democrats throw themselves on their proverbial swords, defending the indefensible, they will continue to be distracted from the ability to win races in SD.
Less and less people, understanding the advancements in birth control, view abortion as an acceptable for of birth control. Advocating for the right to kill an unborn child is an issue that will continue to disqualify Democratic candidates in the eyes of even those who grudgingly put up with abortion.
Jenny, I would encourage you to research the impact on all of those beautiful red, yellow, black, brown and white baby demographics that have been impacted by abortion.
You will find that females and minorities have taken the brunt of the Left's war on their right to life.
At least we stand for something DD, you on the other hand, stand for nothing. Sad as it is, you all relish your situation.
Fewer and fewer people are taking the GOP seriously.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-republican-congress-meets-reality/385008/
I am proud to stand for the right to life of all those little gifts from God. Standing for their death is nothing anyone should be proud of. As long as those on the Left don't get that, expect more results as last Nov.
Rich women have full reproductive freedom while women at middle and lower income levels experience chilling effects on their rights. South Dakota's repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care is not only mean-spirited, it's discriminatory anti-choice extremism.
You know it man, count on me to stand up for women's rights rather than kicking them and leaving them to stand on their own. You should be proud of yourself for being so cavalier.
What about the 48000 people that have been swept under the bus from the GOP by refusing to give them Medicaid. ? That is very anti-life and anti-poor but you expect nothing less from the GOP.
So give wealthy farmers their welfare subsidy checks but forget about healthcare for the poor. The GOP are really the anti-life ones. There are thousands of innocent babies and children that are in that 48000 number. Hypocrites, for shame on SD GOP - the anti-life party. Earth haters they are, Larry. .
Let them eat cake - the GOP motto for the poor.
I stand for all people, including pregnant women from the Reservation that the Earth Haters chanted "Reservations Specials" at the St Mary's Hospital in Pierre.
The Dems are pro-healthcare and pro-children, pro-education, pro all ethic groups, pro-safe food, pro-clean air and water, pro-woman, pro-peace.
The GOP think Abortions will go away if they pray enough and pass an anti-safe abortion rule. No, just more women will die.
Are the GOP against the day after abortion pill also?
I will put my daughter on the evil birth control pill when she gets into her teen years. I have told her she can marry a woman if she wants, I have told her she can believe in an invisible god in the sky if she wants but she doesn't have to, I have told her Catholicism is an evil church. I love being a parent and doing it my way. :)
Disgusted and Rev. Hickey as well,
What are part of a woman's healthcare is her province and not that of the Republican Party?
My daughter knows she is loved and has a lot more love than I ever did growing up in an unstable Catholic home.
Roger, they truly believe praying abortions away and passing an anti-abortion law will magically make abortions go away. Meanwhile, god is call them to give him more money.
It's amzing how we talk about one another and past each other. It's amazing how we look at the same thing so differently. Jenny, I could say Dems are pro debt, pro death, anti family, pro big govt, anti personal responsibility, anti freedom, anti-women, anti-men, science-deniers (fetology), pro Islamic extremism, and unAmerican.
Of course when all those precious clumps of cells are born,wingnuts love to deny them food,medical care,education-just salivating for the day when their precious little gifts from god are old enough to be mercilessly executed by pro-life wingnut freaking governors!
If those clumps of cells make it to adulthood despite the tender mercies of death penalty advocates,there will always be a misbegotten,unnecessary war some rwnj just has to start to show off 'murrica's military might that can't win guerilla wars no matter how many clumps of god's precious enemy cells they kill with "shock and awe."
both parties have their boxes- keeps them safe
http://youtu.be/XUwUp-D_VV0
As long as people keep havin' sex, them dang abortions will never never go away. Women will die and possibly spread infections from back alley abortions. It's true, people.
"And the comments about wasting time and lack of intelligence are based on blindness and ignorance."
Couldn't disagree with you more Rev. Hickey. Ignorance? Whether you are against abortion or not abortion is legal and to spend valuable legislative time on resolutions is foolish. Just like Rep. Bolin wasting time on a resolution to get rid of the Dept. Of Education just to make a political point. Or last year when a resolution was passed to impeach the President. It's garbage and a waste of time. This state has Republican made problems. Let's get to fixing them.
It's not the Democrats doing this but the Tea Party and moderate Republicans
Eminent Biologist: Religion Should Be Eliminated for the 'Sake of Human Progress'
http://www.alternet.org/belief/eminent-biologist-religion-should-be-eliminated-sake-human-progress
"I am proud to stand for the right to life of all those little gifts from God. Standing for their death is nothing anyone should be proud of. As long as those on the Left don't get that, expect more results as last Nov."
and I'm proud to keep politicians out of the bedroom. A woman's right to an abortion is a choice as personal as it gets. Hopefully she can have the support of her family or minister. To think that abortions will end because a law is overturned is ridiculous. Back will be the back alley abortions and the rich will still be able to get one.
Men will have children in the future. They definitely won't ban abortion whey they start bearing children.
I am also pro debt as that is what builds an economy. If a business wants to build, it goes into debt to finance the project. A state or other kinds of public works, calls them bonds. If you have any kind of savvy whatsoever, you would know that we have what are called Treasury Bonds, these are debt and it is what is known as the engine of capitalism. Good republicans understand the workings of this process and also Democrats all get it. Only the fools on the hill seem to be left out of the loop as they are clueless when it comes to business.
Guys like Rev. Hickey get to use their positions of hating women's choices as their claim to fame. The only party that allows such nonsense is really the republican party. Democrats have tried to weed them out over the years starting with blue dogs. We may not win the race, but we stand up for those that cannot, that is called honor. Now what is really fun for me to see is the unraveling of their identity with regards to the SCOTUS decision coming regarding Obamacare.
I don't mind believing in a god until he starts asking for money. LOL!
Owen, Jenny, a child is ripped from the womb limb to limb. It's not in the bedroom. It is not a right to kill another human being and that baby is a separate heart beat, separate DNA, separate life which makes it not the mother's body.
Regardless, if this is the hill you want to kill the Democratic Party on, be my guest. The faux "Republicans" use it to lure Democrats out and beat them up while fooling voters into thinking they are rock-ribbed conservatives. It is an issue that the electorate has less and less patience for as birth control becomes easier and easier to use to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I do have an issue with late term abortions. It's irresponsible for women to wait that long. I'm more of a first trimester woman's own choice kind of woman.
Innocent Soldiers going to war to kill other human beings just to make white men richer is wrong.
A foetus has no civil rights until the third trimester.
What do you mean it's not in the bedroom, DD? Are you talking sex or abortions?
Until that clump of cells can survive outside the Mother's body,it is not a separate anything. The Scotus has decided 24 weeks is minimum time in the oven,but wise old white men decided 20 weeks works better for their war on women and even less time when they have the necessary votes. It is all political-just a game to keep women subservient to old white men.
Once again DD its not for you or I to decide on an abortion. It's a personal decision.
Funny the far right will do anything for an unborn baby but once that child is born tough luck. The Republicans want to cut food stamps, welfare and healthcare for those same children.
And these same invisible god worshippers are against Lesbians and beautiful gay men adopting babies of their own to raise.
If you believe that abortion is murder, you have no choice but to do ANYTHING to stop it. That is why these folks are so dangerous; they actually do believe that abortion is murder.
Those of us who understand that it is unconscionable to force a woman to bear a pregnancy she does not want will never be able to reduce our vigilance, because these people are possessed by a demon, the demon of self-perceived righteousness.
Republicans continually blow their trumpet for small and a less intrusive government, but they really don't want that at all, unless it in some manner affects their righteousness and pocketbook.
I can't think of anything more intrusive than the government's invasion of a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, usually made by a bunch of men.
Did these same men that want to control women stand up and cheer when President Obama called for equal pay for women in his recent State of the Union. No they didn't, head Republican dude Boehner sat on his hands and did not applaud for that call.
You see, Republicans didn't like that because it would hit them where they hurt, the pocketbook.
Fighting for equal pay for women is achievable, fighting women over abortions will never be winnable.
Stand your ground,Disgusted Dakotan. If ever there was a free pass to kill another human being,stand your ground is it. Ask Trayvon Martin.
A fetus is not a child,it is collateral damage. God fearing? republicans use it to their advantage in life as well as politics.
Jenny, I don't care what two consenting adults do (regardless of gender) in the privacy of their home.
Owen, hard Islamists believe the same about women in general. If you and the Left were truly right on this issue, it wouldn't be such a non-start loser for Democrats.
MFI, as long as people like you push Democratic candidates to take such an unenlightened position on unborn children? Continue to expect them to lose ground in SD. Even the disingenuous rinos avoid your position on this issue even when they share your views.
There is tepid support for abortion at best, the majority who support it do so grudgingly. The rabid support for abortion crowd do more to defeat Democratic candidates than any other sect of politics.
And then when a pregnant single woman does decide to raise her baby on her own, the GOP makes it as hard as possible to afford basics like healthcare. If she goes on welfare she's considered a "welfare queen", called a slut if she keeps on popping unplanned babies out. I've heard everything from "she's using the system, "welfare whore" (especially if she has babies from black guys), if she smokes cigarettes she's truly considered evil. I really don't blame women for aborting their babies then going through all the stress society puts on unwedded moms.
Forget routine dental care for poor children in America. They're lucky if they get basic healthcare. Babies born to single moms live in the poorest neighborhoods, poorest schools, highest crime-ridden areas. A lot of the moms have never had a father figure in their life so have low-self esteem and depression is common. Forget about getting the proper mental healthcare that's needed for mental illnesses. The GOP blame the single mom syndrome on the Dems though, but yet our party is the one that fight sfor the basics - a living wage, affordable healthcare, investment in education, affordable housing. The GOP just think hard work will get you out of poverty. No, a living wage and the basics will.
Jenny, who has late term abortions? The only ones that I am aware of have to do with the life of the mother.
You're right, Jerry. I didn't know that there are a lot of restrictions on late term abortions.
here you go DD.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml
There are a lot of reason Democrats lost this time around but abortion isn't one of them.
Do Tea Party care about a baby after it's born? Not really
Women just do not go in for an abortion for the fun of it or as a weight loss program. Women have these with the full knowledge of what they are doing and why they are doing it. They have their reasons and those should be respected by all. That is what Roe v Wade was all about. It is clear that this is no more than a war on women to gain complete control over their bodies and their spirits. As a man, I do not fear a woman for her body nor for her spirit, why are so many among us cowardly? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/07/texas_abortion_ban_after_20_weeks_prenatal_testing_reveals_birth_defects.html
Do we expect a woman, a mother to carry to full term something that is against all that is nature? I think not.
Islamist ruthlessly control women by violence or threats of violence, the legislate women's actions and morals in manner these choose.
Republicans have done the same thing to American women in numerous ways including legislating or attempting to legislate what they do with their bodies
Republicans want to turn the clock back to the 1950's when everything was hunky and dory for white middle class America and men were in control of everybody's live.
Well, guess what DD, times have changed. Women are more empowered than ever and continue to break that glass ceiling.
When a woman makes a healthcare decision, any healthcare decision, she should not have to consult the Republican Party for permission or to ensure she hasn't not broken any of your laws.
Regardless of whether or not Roe vs Wade is ever repealed or overridden by the Supremes, it will not end abortions, it will only criminalize them.
Can anyone live with the thought of throwing an American woman in prison for making a healthcare decision that is hers to make?
Sounds rather Islamist to me.
Owen, keep telling yourself that as Democrats are sucked into this no win issue.
Jenny, I hate to break your bubble, but giving birth to a child is probably one of the most natural things a woman does. Keep telling yourself that promoting abortion is a civil liberty as you sacrifice the candidacy of Democratic candidates in SD.
Roger, there is nothing more empowering than a woman telling some jacka$$ who doesn't want to father a child, to go to hell that she wants that gift of life that she helped create. Funny how all the people who are for abortion, received the gift of life..
Typical 'Pub - no recognition of the millions of poor children and their moms that live in poverty. What is empowering to me is emotionally supporting single moms and having my taxpayer dollars go to provide the healthcare that's needed and that should be a right in the richest country in the world.
Saying that I'm promoting abortion is like me saying you're promoting poverty.
Menstruating every month is enough naturalness for me.
rep. hickey 17:27-abreviating & numbering your "top ten
list"...that "dems are 1. pd 2. pd 3. af 4. pbg 5. abr 6. aw 7. am 8. sd(f) 9. pie 10. ua."
hmmm. quite a list. jenny's seemed more sincere. she may have been mad. when did you create your list? did you actually sit down and compose it? if so, why? has it been brewing along time?
same with 233 SCOTUS reversals. is that a talking point you read or did you count them? you want Roe and dicta's case reversed too. i understand. this is your big god issue. we have big government, you have big god.
we are quite different from you. no doubt you are clinging to the very same values your ancestors cherished. in the meantime, this big, young, smart-phone clutching populace doesn't much care.
how about citizen's united and its progeny?
do you agree with 55 votes against ACA? do you agree w/ obstruction, suing the president, KXL, shutting down government, birther-ism, fossil fuel denial of warming, war in iran, iraq, syria, north korea, normalization of cuba, putin loving, EB5 cover-up, immigration reform, tax reform favoring the middle class, native american rights, tax the 1% more, restricting voting rights, not standing up to the Koch brothers and ALEC's invasion of SD?
let's discuss. i realize the point you were making.
so at xmas dinner at your house recently, that one democrat seated at the far left end of your table was most, if not all, of those things on your top ten list that are opposite to your desired kind of an american citizen? you are kind of limiting your self by aligning yourself with conservative principles. it is a big world out there.
as dd points out here, we dems agonize...twisting in the red wind, but times are changing.
Fortunately for 'murrica,South Dakota is not the trend setter for laws and it is not the end all for national legislation. Sooner or later,the pendulum will swing back to decent legislators with a smidgen of common sense and then the squealing from rwnjs will be music to 'murrica's ears.
DD-a fetus is a tool to be used by your party to get elected so they can force christian sharia values on everyone. Your party does not give a rat's ass about a fetus once it is born. It has served its purpose for all intents and purposes and your side throws them under the bus at leisure. Your party is the one that pushes abortions so they can keep their low info base riled up and keep your party members in power. All pure politics done by the phoniest christians ever birthed.
I like DD, and I share his disgust at much of South Dakota politics. But on abortion, he is trying to argue us into a unnecessary surrender. Women have a fundamental right to abort a pregnancy. Abortion is a decision that, no matter how much disgust they may feel for the action, legislators do not get to make for any pregnant woman.
CAH, you know my feelings on this subject and you know they are sincere. I am disgusted that it is used to draw out Democrats to be targeted in elections when those claiming to be "Republicans" that support abortion are not.
While I may disagree with those honest Democrats position on this, the faux "Republicans" are the biggest threat.
This is an issue that is used to self defeat Democrats. Look at the ignorant, over the top, rhetoric in this post alone. Championing the death of a child is uninspiring for the vast majority of people who grudgingly accept abortion. It is a noble cause for those who oppose it though and turns them out in droves to support candidates who oppose abortion.
Case in point: Kathy Tyler was not a hard core abortion supporter; however, the issue was used to draw her out and motivate opposition to her even though there was actual "Republicans" that support abortion who didn't receive any attention for their positions that are contrary to SDGOP major platform positions.
CAH, what would you tell a student that had to take a pro position on an issue that has such negative reception, especially when they have other positive points on other issues they could discuss?
Numerous American Indian tribes without reservations in the state, many of whom are sensitive to the reproductive rights of women, own land in South Dakota. Indian Country Today posted a June story of a Lakota woman fighting for full access to health care without the strictures of an oppressive legislature.
Federal law permits tribes owning off-reservation property to adopt economic development strategies on any land that they own: that includes the sovereignty of mobile clinics.
South Dakota women: stand for your rights and push this opportunity!
I'm going to say this just one more time.
Its been three years since I posted this the first time on Madville. Nothing has changed as far as I can tell. Rev. Hickey talkes about separate DNA, yup and half came from the woman your trying to control. The one thing that separates either you, or the father, or anyone else from this situation is called an umbilical cord. That one thing gives the woman complete ownership of whats on the other end.
As a man I have no dog in the fight, I don’t have a uterus, and I wont ever be put into a position of having to face the possibility of needing an abortion. But after some long thought I have decided that to not post would be the same as saying that I agree with the resolution.
Now I wont pretend that I know what goes through a woman’s mind when she decides that she needs an abortion. As a man I can only guess but wont ever actually know. But I do have a wife and a daughter and I do know how they feel about the subject. They have told me that it is almost impossible to describe how they feel in their own words let alone put those words into print so that everyone else can understand. Having said that I’m still going to try to tell you how I think they feel about what is happening in the legislature.
First lets get something out of the way. It doesn’t matter if you want to call it a piece of tissue, or even a baby, it makes no difference. Possession is nine tenths of the law and in the case of pregnancy it is now and has always been one hundred percent. One way or another the woman is the one that will have to deal with whatever she decides to do, no one else, not Roger Hunt, and not any of the co signers of the resolution. In fact after they pass the resolution they will in all probability just set back and do nothing to help in any way if a baby is actually born.
Roger Hunt is guilty of “mind rape”. He is just as guilty as a man that has been caught in a woman’s bedroom with his pants off and the woman beat up and tied to the bed with his dna all over the place. Several terms come to mind here.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
A condition of compulsory service performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.
Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude. It must be shown that a person held to involuntary servitude was so held for a ‘term.’ It is not necessary, however, that any specific period of time be proved so long as the ‘term’ of the involuntary service was not wholly insubstantial or insignificant.
Now I ask this. Are we willing to do away with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution? Its not just about owning slaves , its about people being able to make life changing decisions about their bodies without interference from someone else. Its called the right of self determination.
Placing roadblocks that a woman has to stop at, and hoops that she has to jump through between her and her doctor is “mind rape” there is no other way to describe it. Roger Hunt is guilty of it, all the cosigners are guilty of conspiracy to commit mind rape as are those that would vote for this resolution in the legislature.
That’s how I think women feel about this. There really isn’t anything a man has to compare with this except being a slave, nothing.
If you were the one getting to make up the rules knowing full well that those rules would never effect you or your body "most of the people in our South Dakota legislature fit that label" you are fine with the rules you have put in place. On the other hand if you were a young woman already traumatized by the situation you find yourself in those rules might just seem insurmountable at the time.
This procedure is something that most women want to keep private. Adding more layers and time seems to take most of the privacy away from them at a time they desire it most.
Here’s an analogy for you. Lets suppose that you had something wrong that caused you to have to go to the doctor. When you walked into his office there was the doctor and three or four good old boys sitting there. While you were being examined these good old boys were making suggestions as to why this happened to you and how you should go about fixing it. Then the next day you were down town and everybody you met knew what had happened in the doctors office. How would that make you feel?
One more thought and then I’m through. What do radical Islam and Roger Hunt, Harold Cassidy, Rep. Jon Hansen, and Leslee "I have had an abortion myself but I want to tell other women what they can do with their own bodies" Unruh have in common? They both seem to want to own and or control a woman’s body.
Trans penal devices all around except for Leslee, she needs serious philological help, she already has money from the federal government. Maybe she just needs to get laid.
Invasion of privacy is just a term until it involves you.
The Blindman
Again the question about what happens to the child AFTER it's born is ignored and unanswered. the pro-life are only pro-life until the child is born. They cut welfare, food stamps and affordable healthcare.
The government has no business telling a woman what to do with her body.
So you is ignorant here?
I also agree with this Mr. Dithmer, humans and Neanderthals bred to form a hybrid, the descendants of which today form the Republican party.
I have right-wing Christian Republican friends who are pro-actively pro-life. I respect that. But, I also have friends that have had abortions and are very pro-choice. I respect that. Not everybody is going to have the same belief system. Just like Gay marriage, no-one is ever going to agree 100% one way or the other. That's why we have our constitutional rights. Instead of trying to get rid of abortion, which will never happen, both sides need to have an open honest respectful dialog and see what can be done to help decrease abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Shaming a person does not work.
Bill,
A couple of comments with regard to your logic:
1) You argue involuntary servitude and then say umbilical cord gives "complete ownership." Being owned is an extreme form of involuntary servitude. This is a form of Kettle logic (a logical fallacy).
2) Implied in your monologue is the woman is the only one who has to deal with the consequences of the decision. Grandparents, the father and the baby all are impacted by this decision. Freely choosing to do something with the inherent and/or potential outcome of creating an obligation to another isn't "involuntary servitude." Legally, one can be held to obligations that grow out of action where the consequences are reasonably likely to occur and such obligations aren't deemed "involuntary servitude." Whether you acknowledgement it or not, pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Failure to know (unless one has reasoning deficiencies) pregnancy may be an outcome of intercourse isn't an excuse. Thus, this argument is the logical fallacy of "false equivalence."
3) You first said you had no dog in this fight (which would imply you should have no position either way) and then invoked your daughter and wife to justify your position. I have three daughters and a wife on the opposite side (less moderate than mine) so does that give my position greater justification? No because both are the logic fallacy "Argumentum ad populam."
4) Your personal distaste for Hunt, Unruh et. al. and then dismissing their position is also a logical fallacy (argumentum ad hominem).
I could argue a couple of other points but they would get me directly into an argument about abortion. These comments are just with regard to your logic and arguments. Whether common ground, compromise or a national consensus will every occur, I don't know. But, it is impossible if the brightest among us (as you are Bill) don't put your best foot forward.
There are nuggets of things inside your commentary which can challenge my position (plus a few I believe augment my position :) )but as you presented them, they are overwhelmed by the logic fallacies.
Until both sides prove up with efforts of offering choices where choices are desired, without extreme burden for pregnant women, most of the talk is just worthless gas.
Like Troy, I am reluctant to get into an argument about abortion, but rather would like to address the resolution itself, which I have read twice but admittedly have not studied in depth, nor am I qualified to do so, being neither a lawyer nor a legislator.
Even so, I see enough seemingly self-contradictory logic in the resolution to state that I don't think it presents an especially coherent set of arguments, rationally speaking. In fact, I am a little confused as to exactly what argument it is the resolution is trying to present.
So let me hazard a guess. In essence this resolution is a proposed letter from the lawmakers of South Dakota advising the Supreme Court of the United States of America that it is their opinion that the Roe v Wade decision was made in error and that South Dakota (and by extension South Dakotans) would like to have the decision reversed so that South Dakota could make its own laws without having to conform to this Federal Court decision.
In other words, I see the resolution as primarily a states rights (as opposed to a human rights) argument. And maybe it is. Maybe states should decide on this issue the way they do on capital punishment. That wouldn't be my preference, but I can see how it would be a State lawmaker's preference.
Given all that, and since there is nothing legally binding on any South Dakotan individually, I suppose such a resolution is the unique prerogative of the SD legislature to make.
In any case, agree with them or not, I don't suppose there is much any citizen can do about their making it except what Cory has done here by expressing his hope that the SD legislature, having thus expressed itself, will move on to other, perhaps more immediately pressing business.
Because I doubt the SCOTUS, after all the decisions it has rendered based on Roe, is suddenly going to decide, based on this document, that the abortion issue should no longer be a concern of the Federal Court.
Troy, you are full of shit. You say " logical fallacy " then dont say exactly what you mean stop that. If I wanted talking points thats what I would ask for.
If you want to argue fallacy get with the program and give reasons for your side of the debate or shut the hell up.
"Grandparents, the father and the baby all are impacted by this decision." Nope the woman is the only one that would be taking the risk no mater what she chooses to do, nobody else will ever be put in that perticular posistion.
"Whether you acknowledgement it or not, pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Failure to know (unless one has reasoning deficiencies) pregnancy may be an outcome of intercourse."
I have never said otherwise whats your point, and dont just say this bs about what you feel give real reasons.
"I have three daughters and a wife on the opposite side (less moderate than mine) so does that give my position greater justification?"
Nope neither you or your wife or daughters, or me or my wife or my daughter have any baring what so ever in another womans right to choose. Thats where we are having the problem, I want the woman to have complete control of her body. You seem to want part ownership of the womans body, without any of the responsibility for the outcome. Again thats pure moralistic bullshit.
Lets get after it. I want an in depth explication of your fallacy reasonings from my post. Anything else is just words without a meaning. So bring that triple digit IQ on out here and lets see something new.
I fight for all women. It doesnt mater who, what, or where they are. I dont mince words, i talk plain enough to be understood by everyone. If this is so important to you talk to your wife and daughters, but stay the hell out from between my wife and daughters legs.
By the way, if you think I'm bad dont mess with either one of them because they would crush you like a house fly.
The Blindman
Bill,
This major issue has almost become something that can be talked about in polite society. BOTH sides are so dismissive of ANYTHING the other side has to say. Both sides even go so far as a person on the other side can't talk about other issues with any credibility and they make broad generalizations of the others character/concern on a host of issues.
Because the other side is being rude is not an excuse for being rude back. In fact, it is a call to do the opposite.
Most of the time when I talk about abortion, my goal isn't to change another's mind but only to allow the other side to understand MY rationale, MY motives vs. others who might hold the same position for wholly different rationales or motives (rationales and motives I might actually disagree with). And, at the same time get greater understanding of the other side. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, I seldom get to have that conversation.
Too often they don't even care to understand a deeply held position of their neighbor which is contrary to the ideals of a peaceful society.
Exactly, Bills.
Troy's church is responsible for most of the heinous crimes committed for 2000 years and he has the temerity to espouse the virtues of a stupid piece of literature designed to raise money for its authors.
Hypocritheocrisy and christians go together like blood and bullets.
Zactkly what orfice you gonna come home and run fur, Lar?
Okay, Troy, politely then, let's take this proclamation from the text of the resolution the SD House wants to send to the SCOTUS. I've copied and pasted it so we can look at it verbatim:
"The right and duty to preserve life cannot co-exist with a right or duty to destroy it."
Do you suppose they really mean that? Because it would appear to argue against all forms of capital punishment as well as any justification for war where people are killed either intentionally or collaterally.
And assuming that they do indeed mean it, do you think there is any chance the SCOTUS will agree with them and rule accordingly?
Or conversely, if they don't really mean it, why would they put such a statement in there?
Troy,you have made your rationale perfectly clear-you don't want to have an abortion. Fine. Don't have one. See how easy this stuff is when you keep your morals out of other people's business?
You're steaming under your collar. Go over to the alternative universe and blow it off. You sound way more combative and dismissive over there. Over there-that sounds like a nice battle song.
mfi: +1
Bill,
I will wholly agree that statement seems to argue against capital punishment.
I don't think it argues against war engaged under the principle of Just War theory.
Mike,
My morals also are such that I support a police department that will protect you from being killed by your wife, as justified as she might be do so and her morals might think it licit. Virtually every single law you support is an imposition of your morals on your neighbors. And, that argument so often used is logically and intellectually the absolute weakest in the pro-abortion arsenal.
By the way, opposition to abortion isn't a rationale. It is a position. Kind of a key thing to be able to distinguish for intelligent conversation.
PS Bill
Considering it appears to articulate that capital punishment is as unjust as abortion, I hope they mean it. But, I really can't get in their head on if they mean it or why they said it (same with what SCOTUS will do). Just measuring the words themselves. :)
Troy, even in the instance of a just war, the argument is false in that it therefore becomes self-contradictory.
Bill Dithmer,
I missed your post earlier. Discussion of issues between competing sides is a form of argumentation using logic and rhetoric. The definition of a logical fallacy is the use of faulty logic and rhetoric which makes the argument invalid or unsound and thus legitimate to disregard the argument. I presume you make your argument to change minds. Use of logic fallacies is ineffective.
I specifically listed some fallacies in your argument. Look them up.
Absolutely nothing I said was pro-abortion or anti-abortion with regard to your arguments for I specifically avoided the subject matter. Nor did I criticize your character or integrity. I only exposed they contain logic fallacies in your arguments.
I am sorry you took my comments so personally and they made you respond so viscerally.
Pro civil rights, anti civil rights for a routine medical procedure: religion is a contagion. World War 1 was not a just war making WW2 just as unjust. Augustine of Hippo did not have a clue: justice for just us christians, right, white folk?
Troy is over at DWC whining that people don't use real names because PP deletes comments from readers who call them out for being hypocrites. Justice for just us reeks of paternalism and white supremacy .
Troy,save your rationalizing for healthcare for the poor. You can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,baffle 'em with bullshit.
Bill D, the example I gave to Troy is a demonstration of 'Kettle logic.' (And yeah, I had to look it up too.) Don't offer a set of arguments that might end up contradicting each other. Just zero in on the best one and go with it.
In the case of the umbilical cord, first consider that to your opponent, separate DNA means separate person, and that there are two people involved, one on either end of the cord.
If you are arguing that the mother owns the child because of the umbilical cord and then arguing against involuntary servitude, you are working at cross purposes, since, at least as far as your opponent is concerned, there's no way of looking at it where one person doesn't end up owning the other.
Your argument gets even weaker when you consider that in fact, the umbilical cord has the same DNA as the fetus, not the mother. Hence you could just as well be arguing that the child owns the mother as vice versa.
That's why it's 'kettle' logic. Too many ways your reasoning can work against itself.
A better argument perhaps would be almost the opposite of what you stated. Just because something or someone attaches itself to you doesn't mean it owns you and can command you to be at their service involuntarily.
This is something quite a few husbands and wives (and other friends and relatives) sometimes have trouble understanding, come to think of it. ;-)
Right or wrong, I meant exactly what I said.
The Blindman
I think it was Roger who said this:
"Islamists ruthlessly control women by violence or threats of violence, the legislate women's actions and morals in manner these choose.
Republicans have done the same thing to American women in numerous ways including legislating or attempting to legislate what they do with their bodies."
Substitute "Christianists" for Islamists and you get the same thing.
As long as that fetus is in woman's uterus, it is not a separate human being. Therefore, it cannot be a slave.
As Blindman said so eloquently, controlling another human being is the definition of slavery.
I'm still waiting for responses from the pro control crowd on the question of control of male sexuality.
Sterilization or castration for rapists, deadbeat dads, child molesters? Thorough, extensive, invasive examination of sexual organs of males who have or may impregnate a woman? Criminal incarceration of warmongers, CEOs of dangerous work that results in deaths?
If we're going to be pro life, let's get serious about it! A fetus is not more valuable than a 22 year old woman who is serving in one of Darth Cheney's oil wars. (The argument about war is a separate issue and not the point, merely an example.)
I'm a Radical Ultra Pro Lifer. I'm for the best life possible for adult women, little girls, little boys, soldiers, brown skinned people, homeless people, even men and wealthy people!
Alas, another female finally joins with Jenny to give her opinion, thanks Deb.
Sadly it is men on this blog and in most public discussions, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress that dominate not only the discussions, but the legislation on what women can and can't do with their bodies.
There is not a male on this blog that describe for us what a woman goes through when she makes the agonizing decision to abort a fetus.
I have read all of Jenny's comments and have given more serious consideration to them than anyone else that has posted. Troy and DD have you read what Jenny has had to say?
Deb is right, men would not even attempt to legislate men's body parts for any reason, men write the rape laws that make it difficult to prosecute rape cases.
put the fly swatter outside and dump it. there.
let the gas out too. over to sibby online with the both of you!
love is pretty much a prerequisite for the "package" to mature into its own person. j. lennon
oh, to the dead, flat fly. ownership of infant. involuntary servitude of mother. GOP has no ownership.
Here's a deal I'll keep with anyone who wants to control my body:
I get equal control of your body.
Deb,
That is all every one of those babies are asking for nine months. In fact, they trust you 100% to do just that.
Seriously, can a fetus ask for 9 months, must be some kind of new technology.
You're going to let me control your body Troy? That's means I decide if, when and how you will reproduce. I might require very invasive medical examinations and religious propaganda as part of the deal.
We might both be a little bit beyond that time, but I'll settle for your son or grandson. The SD leg and courts have already taken control of my progeny's reproduction.
So do we have a deal?
No one has dictated when or how you can reproduce.
Ignore the fact that the original feminists were militantly opposed to abortion. Ignore the fact that abortion has killed inordinate amounts of the people Democrats claim to represent (female babies, minorities). This is an issue that loses Democrats races in SD because people see through the BS and understand it is not championing a right but the death of an innocent child.
No matter the ignorant rhetoric, most of those who grudgingly believe abortion should be allowed only accept rape, incest, and medical danger to mother as acceptable situations to kill an unborn child.
As this bill and post proved once again, it remains that easy for them to bait Democrats into coming out and making statements that the average voter will not associate with and which actually drive them away from your party.
As long as you attack and alienate moderates who side with you on many issues, like "Troy," on this issue? Expect to keep driving them away from your Democratic candidates.
Democrats, don't listen to the earth haters; keep running as GOP-lite and lose: the platform affirms women's rights and upholds civil liberties.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/midterm-election-lessons-_b_6278392.html
Anyone believing an embryo is an "unborn child" is delusional.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm
So DD, do you believe that talking about the single moms and their children that live in poverty is "ignorant rhetoric"?
Do you really believe that abortions will stop if they are outlawed?
Do you think that single moms that are on welfare are just "using the system" as so many in your party claim?
What about the thousands of SD babies and children that are being refused Medicaid because your GOP governor refuses federal money? Their mothers chose not to abort them but yet your party refuses to provide the right to proper healthcare?
So the average SD voter really does not associate with these children?
DD-are girls under the age of consent allowed to reproduce voluntarily? I didn't think so. Once a minor gets knocked up,which party is it makes that young girl jump through hoops to get an abortion? And if she can't convince the right people,including her parent/guardian she may be forced to reproduce against her will. Yeah,but mfi,you didn't have a specific name on any of them people so you can't say any one particular person is dictating how and when that girl reproduces and your scaring away moderates like Troy. Furthermore, if only one Dem voted with wingnuts to pass draconian laws,we get to claim solid bi-partisan support.
Yeah,yeah. I've heard all this before and I still don't believe you,DD et al.
Jenny is right. Outlawing all abortions tomorrow will not mean the end of abortions. I'll add a corollary, outlawing abortions will increase the incidence of late term abortions as women who want an abortion will have a harder time finding someone to preform the procedure and coming up with the cold hard cash to pay for the now illegal and more expensive procedure. A second corollary: more women will die from botched abortions.
I might believe the Republican Party cared about kids if they would expand Medicaid so that more low income people and their families had insurance coverage.
Does title 19 not exist for babies in SD as Jenny states, Nick..?
DD makes some good points, not the least of which is that this issue doesn't have to be a partisan one.
Indeed, if you think about it in terms of reach and power of government the usual roles are completely reversed with the supposed 'conservatives' arguing for extreme governmental bodily control over people's reproductive systems and an extremely liberal, bordering on mystical, interpretation of what constitutes personhood and citizenry.
Likewise supposed 'liberals' find themselves arguing against big government and the freedom of religious expression.
And mysteriously, as the practice of abortion becomes less and less ubiquitous, the rhetoric on both sides gets even more and more heated and more irrational.
In short, it's a no-win issue on both sides. DD's just looking at one side of it. But then, that's how this issue always goes, right? :-)
BF-wingnuts are free to practice-or not-any religion they wish as long as it is kept out of and away from my gubmint.
What could be more rational than telling someone that abhors abortion,especially ones they have no personal involvement in,to not have an abortion? Most people will agree guys can't,don't and won't have one,so why do they feel it is their right to tell any woman at all that the constitution doesn't apply to them and then make irrational decisions for said women?
@Bill, if this was a partisan issue for me? I would be encouraging every Democrat out there to continue aborting their progeny. Maybe that's how we should be looking at this as the inordinate demographics of abortions are from the sections of society Democrats claim to protect and get their support from.
@MFI, Aborting a baby is the most unnatural thing for a woman. It goes against everything they are hard-wired to do. One of the biggest motivational factors for them to get an abortion? Boyfriends/husbands/father's of the baby that don't want the responsibility. Plenty horror stories of women being forced into getting abortions.
My point in all of this? Aside from baiting the die-hard abortion rights sect and getting them to help stir up the die-hard abortion opponents like me? Which skylines Democratic candidates to be targeted? The whole discussion is academic as pro-lifers are able to make tiny adjustments to our laws to thwart abortions.
Most Democratic candidates have identical positions on the issue as moderate Republicans (they abhor it and accept it only in cases of rape, incest, life of mother); however, the moderates know that in order to defeat the Democrat? All they have to do is put them in a position where the hard Left will make statements like they do on here and put pressure on their own candidates to the point they shoot themselves in the foot (like poor Kathy Tyler).
Concern troll:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
Mike there are a lot of things that would be more rational than that. Telling someone who abhors abortion not to have one is kind of like telling someone who doesn't like lutefisk not to eat it. It doesn't help anyone understand why lutefisk is considered by some to be a food fit for human consumption. ;-)
"Aborting a baby is the most unnatural thing for a woman. It goes against everything they are hard-wired to do."
DD, can I assume you are a woman? Seems to me that is the only way you could even be remotely qualified to make that statement.
http://www.plaintalk.net/local_news/article_32cbca42-a58c-11e4-b7bf-f7fb80f44a3d.html
"The story of the peacock flower is a microcosm of a larger history of abortifacients: knowledge passed from woman to woman, often outside the boundaries of traditional medical discourses and, therefore, forever confined to a moral realm of danger and superstition. But despite hundreds of years of legal and religious repression, the abortifacient endured, proving that the desire for reproductive freedom is not nearly as modern as some argue."
http://jezebel.com/the-history-of-abortifacients-1658993381
DD, I'm going to assume from your last post that you are one of the 20% or so of Americans who are opposed to apposed to abortion in all instances with no exceptions.
Further, again based on what you have written, it would appear that you are opposed to any and all forms of birth control as well, is that correct?
I don't want to argue with you about your positions, I just want to be clear on what they are. Thanks.
If 'Pubs are truly pro-life and want to support mothers and their progeny, they would fully support Medicaid expansion. Pubs would support a living wage, Headstart, affordable childcare, mandatory maternity/paternity leave, allowing gays to adopt, investment towards education, affordable mental healthcare services, more counselors in the schools
Trust us dems, we want you pubs in the worst way to be pro-life!
If concern for abortion was real and there was a heartfelt desire to reduce the number of abortions our leaders would support fact based sex education and widely available free contraception.
Reread my statement Les, "I might believe the Republican Party cared about kids if they would expand Medicaid so that more low income people and their families had insurance coverage."
"low income people and their families"
The GOP doesn't care about low income families, they would prefer to demonize them like Gov.DD does when he talks about "able bodied" adults. Never mind that those able bodied adults that the Madicaid expansion would cover are the working poor stuck in the low wage jobs the Republican Party promotes.
Above should be 'opposed' not 'apposed.' Sorry.
Exactly, Nick.
Lutefisk is edible? Surely you jest. :)
"Having an abortion is the most unnatural thing for a woman." I bet DD is one of the misogynistic men that publicly scorns women walking into abortion clinics.
Running off and neglecting their child is the most unnatural thing for a man to do. America has raised so many "men" that neglect their children it's disturbing. But yet 'pubs still think like they are back in the '50s and that everybody will live happily ever after if they just go by their rules. Pubs believe that keeping sex education out of the schools will keep teens from having sex. Pubs believe that it's just laziness that keep people from reaching the middle class even as it's disappearing right before our very eyes. Pubs believe that all you need it to believe in an invisible god in the sky and everything will be all right.
Republicans have successfully used fetuses as a political wedge for years, their actions towards those fetuses when they become people shows their true intent. As long as the law is the law, liberals need to move the conversation on to other things or conservatives will continue to use fetuses as a political weapon.
You're right, Tim. I'm off to go support my very pro-life issues, and I'm so glad that here in MN we have a very pro-life governor that will staunchly support MNs children.
Now Dayton wants more money for mental health counselors in our schools and childcare tax credits which I fully support.
Mike, I have heard arguments that it is, and I have witnessed other people eating it, a very few with relish, but far more (myself included) with great difficulty. ;-)
Bill,
I wholly agree. I said earlier the weakest argument promoted by the pro-abortion is "don't inflict your morals on others" because every law is an imposition of morals, unless the proponent is essentially an anarchist.
The second weakest is that which asserts the absolute sovereignty of the mother's body to make the decision without regard to anyone else (societal values, father, baby, the baby's other relatives, etc.), unless one subscribes to Ayn Rand's Objectivism or some strains of extreme Libertarianism.
The reason these are the weakest philosophically and intellectually is the proponents in both cases (again unless they are anarchists or Randian Objectivists) virtually reject it in every other application of public policy and argument. This is essentially a combination of the following logical fallacies (again, use of a logical fallacy discredits the argument such it is legitimate to be ignored because it has no credibility upon which the other party should rely):
Shifting the goalposts/Shifting Sands/Bait & Switch/Petito Principi: This is where the proponent (in this case body is sovereign) rejects introduction of evidence of sovereignty limits they accept in other areas as even potentially applicable here and then moves on to the following logical fallacy.
Proof by assertion: While rejecting other situation's of sovereignty, the proponent continues to assert ad nauseum there is soveriegnty. By definition, sovereignty means not subject to an outside force.
Here are some implications (don't infer I agree with them as I don't ascribe to Randian Objectivism) to the assertion of sovereignty that I don't think the proponents will agree with (thus making the principal argument a fallacy) whereby very inter-personal obligation is transactional (value given and received is independently negotiated):
1) Because the women has 100% control if the pregnancy goes to fruition, the father must later freely assent to any future obligation and his contribution to the pregnancy doesn't bind him. Practically, this could be done by giving him a choice on whether his name goes on the birth certificate. If he assents to being on birth certificate, he assents to future obligation. Says no, he is off the hook.
2) The term of obligations is subject to negotiation and must be defined. For instance, a parent (mother or father) could determine even post-pregnancy the "value given" by the child is insufficient to "value received" and choose to abandon the child without further obligation by asserting essentially, "I agreed to give this a 2, 5, or 7 year trial. The kid is not worth it. Sayonara. Get out of my house."
3) Marriage itself is a daily, weekly, etc. transaction. If one is sovereign, agreement to limits or conjoining can be rejected at a future time when deemed to no longer be in the interest of one or both parties. Think of this as the ultimate extreme of "no fault" divorce. It has huge implication on the concept of alimony (claims on another's future income).
4) Even if one's principles of Objectivism includes some social contract, one's birth doesn't automatically subject one to the social contract but they must make an actual assent (semi-anarchy or anarchy coexiting with cooperation). By the way, this is where most Objectivist principles break-down. The other is inherent familial obligations (whereby obligations are gained yet one of the participants is of age and reason where parent is signing both sides of the contract).
5) Standards of what is acceptable under the social contract we have become untenable. For instance, progressive taxation would be illicit (unless one makes an act of assent to accept a level of taxation not applied to others.
6) Principles of social safety net would be illicit and its taxation because one's sovereignty presupposes the individual has no obligation to his neighbors without assent and any taxation for such purpose must be assented to.
Maybe (and I say maybe) the best summation of rejection of the above Objectivist argument (individual sovereignty) was covered by I think Plato (might be Aristotle or Socrates) is that being human has something that binds us beyond a contract but creates a covenant. Those who are religious would say it is the Divine. Those who are atheistic evolutionists would say it is instinctual survival skills. In either case, each of us knows and acknowledges that absolute individual sovereignty and absolute collectivism is against our nature. Thus, the constant social tension between the principles of individualism, subsidiarity, and solidarity.
In particular with regard abortion under the principle of individualism, there are strong intellectual and logical rationales for abortion being an option under our social contract/Constitution (the efficacy of some decline as the pregnancy develops).
But, what many of you believe are your strongest pro-abortion arguments are actually quite weak because they only appeal to those who already agree with you and off-handedly ignore the co-principles of subsidiary and solidarity. (logical fallacy Confirmation bias where they only resonate with those who already have the same conclusion).
Frankly, I would like to debate and discuss your strongest arguments along with those on my side* because that is the only way we might find some consensus on this issue which is not only dividing the nation but fraying the concept of our social contract with each other. Both sides should desire such a consensus for the consequences are anarchy.
Some of those arguments I like because it forces my pro-life allies to at minimum make a logic and intellectual choice between abortion and the death penalty or temper/change some of their arguments for the death penalty making its application a lot more limited (ala possibly only against crimes against humanity like terrorism or treason vs. individual acts of murder). Some of them I like because it will force an re-examination of the scope and depth of government intrusion into our lives.
And, frankly some of them I don't like so well because they force me to examine my positions in other areas (and since I don't have an obligation (sovereignty? LOL) to make your arguments for you, I'll let you find them).
*Arguments on the Pro-Life side too are filled with logical fallacies. I've not argued against them very much here when I've seen them (if at all) but have at the DWC, in my social circle and among my family. Sometimes I've actually been accused of being pro-abortion at the DWC. My point: The talking past each other with mostly emotional and illogical argumentation is not serving any purpose for anyone and certainly negate any claims of being intellectual or intellectual integrity.
P.S. There are a couple of other logical fallacies tangentially applicable in these arguments that I didn't mention but the discussion is more than they are worth in such a forum. For instance, Kettle logic (arguing out of both sides of one's mouth) seems to be the stock in trade of both sides.
Tribes: screw the legislature and open women's clinics in South Dakota.
Troy agrees with Bill F that lutefisk is edible? This is way above and beyond my educational level.
"""DD, can I assume you are a woman? Seems to me that is the only way you could even be remotely qualified to make that statement.""" Have you ever heard of the mourning of the death of their babies from a Rachel's Vineyard retreat, Tim? Poor argument on abortion when a formidable number of women do not support abortion. Sad part of this whole argument is there is nothing absolute about it from either point of view.
Les, when was the last time you gave birth? Yeah me either, my intent isn't to argue for or against, I'm a man I don't have a pony in the race. That's my point, it's each womans personal choice, nodody elses.
"Sad part of this whole argument is there is nothing absolute about it from either point of view."
Les, to me, that's not the 'sad' part.
Rather, more like the 'true' part.
'Anything is either true,
Or not true,
Or both true and not true,
Or neither true nor not true.'
- Nagarjuna, Buddhist Philosopher
It is instructive to note that this mode of thought gave rise to the concept of 'zero,' (shunyata/void) without which, modern mathematics and our decimal numbering system would be impossible.
There is an absolute on my pov. I absolutely will never concede an inch of ground to anti-abortionists as they take that to mean capitulation and then there is no stopping them.
Wingnut anti-abortionist want personal choice for their side. If it is their daughter,grand daughter,wife,she can be sent away to have the procedure and no one will be the wiser for it. If it some poor woman,the answer is no,or at least a feeble maybe if they have the money,which most don't.
One party has no problems blocking access to abortion or birth control or even women's health clinics. That same party screams like a raped ape when someone mentions gun registration or background checks.
The next damn thing you know, Republicans will want to ban miscarriages and incarcerate women that have them.
Oops! I shouldn't be giving them ideas.
""That same party screams like a raped ape "" Just how exactly does a raped ape scream, mfi?
I'm not sure it is my right to treat my body any way I want because it is mine. Who here is willing to pay for the consequences of my actions when I treat myself in ways you don't agree with?
Troy says, "Frankly, I would like to debate and discuss your strongest arguments along with those on my side* because that is the only way we might find some consensus on this issue which is not only dividing the nation but fraying the concept of our social contract with each other. Both sides should desire such a consensus for the consequences are anarchy."
Perhaps, Troy, but on the other hand, how many times do we really have to accomodate such conversation and debate?
I've lost count of the number of times Roe has been challenged and upheld in the SCOTUS, but I understood Roberts to say that it was settled law.
And yet it seems there is no end to the continued debate. How then would we ever determine what constitues a 'consensus' if not 25 challenges from the states and the continuing reaffirmation and upholding of Roe by numerous incarnations of our nation's highest court?
It would seem the 'anarchy' you warn us against is already upon us, courtesy of those who feel it necessary to constantly challenge what is in effect the well tested (and long settled) law of the land?
Some history of the ongoing debate:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029934
@Bill I oppose abortion in all circumstances. I encourage and support the use of easily obtainable birth control for those who don't want to conceive. With the advent of the cheap and readily accessible forms of birth control, the majority of the public understands that abortion as a form of birth control is immoral and wrong. The red-herring argument of rape, incest, and medical necessity of the mother is understood by most to be such a fraction of a percentage that it does not justify the wholesale murder of unborn children.
@Tim Your argument is not with my understanding that women are predisposed with motherly instincts, compassion, and a nurturing nature. Your argument to the contrary is with the history of mankind and is in itself misogynistic.
@Jenny I have nothing but absolute sorrow and pity for a woman that finds herself in the position of having been fooled to think it is okay to have her unborn child ripped apart and murdered in her womb. Your ignorant idiotic personal attacks are prime example why this issue is trotted out and used to defeat Democratic candidates. The problems you cite? Of men not being diligent husbands and fathers? Those problems were effectively addressed by the institution many of you attack, the church. There is a direct correlation in the weakening of the church and the ills of society.
@Tim Telling an anonymous poster, that you don't know, what they are and are not qualified to observe, especially on something that most people accept as being established, is like spitting into the wind.
Stace?
Bill,
There is no end to the debate so long as there is broad division in the body politic. The "question" was deemed settled by the court in the same way Dred Scott "settled" another issue (went to war to get a Constitutional Amendment and expropriate "property" from slaveowners). Or the ruling that said progressive taxation was "settled" (needed a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal). Or Brown v. Board of Education (passed various Civil Rights legislation) "settled" equality. And, in the same spirit, maybe those who want same gender marriage should have stood down as the matter had been "settled."
Should those who opposed slavery, or wanted progressive taxation, or greater and broader civil rights just accepted the matter as "settled?" Will you accept it is settled if SCOTUS over-turns Roe? What makes the SCOTUS in 1973 more omniscient about an non-enumerated right than a future court when they can't seem to be consistent with certain enumerated rights? Is there a body politic consensus which ignores the absolutists on both sides that is more compatible with broad desires of the social contract?
Right now the "debate" (not really a debate but a yelling past each other) is dominated by two logic fallacies on both sides: Kettle logic and Confirmation Bias.
And, it is made worse by people (done on both sides) who say they won't "concede an inch" lest it be taken as a "capitulation." Such an attitude not only frays the social contract, it is anathema to the social contract. It also creates an opening where mob rule and/or power makes right prevail with regard to all rights, liberties, privileges, and benefits of being an American.
For essentially 40 years there has been ebbs and flows on the general view on abortion but neither abortion on demand for any reason at any time in the pregnancy (effective current status) plus universal abolishment has added up to a majority. Yet, the debate has been dominated by these two sides (cumulatively a minority) arguing passed each other. The majority look at both sides and basically say "you don't get it."
Whether you acknowledge it or not, only a small minority of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand (e.g. for things like gender selection, genetic attributes, late-term, partial birth, etc.).
On the other hand, whether I like it or not, only a small minority of Americans think full personhood rights should extend to a freshly fertilized egg (regardless of the science it is a separate human being) with absolutely no consideration of the mother and the circumstances of the pregnancy (e.g. rape, incest, health of the mother) or how far the pregnancy has advanced.
Any status which ignores the majority (a majority where the needle has barely moved in 40 years) is tenuous for the absolutists on both sides. And, by definition majority opposition to both extremes is not "settled" no matter what SCOTUS says.
flemming, troy is no pitcher. you took the seams off that one:)
but boy he sure throws allota balls though.
DD, where have I attacked you in this debate? There is a strong correlation between a single mom deciding to keep her unplanned baby and poverty, and you call me idiotic and ignorant for bringing that up???
Troy is one that can usually debate without personal attacks but even he isn't mentioning the poverty problem that comes with unplanned pregnancies.
I hope the GOP gets a clear understanding that if Roe v Wade was overturned, we as a society would need hundreds of billions more dollars to raise all the babies nobody would want. There would be thousands of babies that no one would care to adopt because of serious health issues. White couples would want white babies, preferably not a minority baby. There is also the issue of women coming back to claim their babies after giving them up. This opens the door to numerous legal issues. Would the GOP continue to cut food stamps and healthcare? Would DD or Troy and their wives want to adopt a baby with serious serious health problems that would be confined to a wheelchair the rest of its life with the mental capacity of an 18 month old? I question that, as I would never want to adopt a baby with severe health issues. I'm not a bad person for not desiring that either.
DD, as I stated earlier, I am not arguing for or against abortion. There is not a man on this planet that has a horse in this race, NOBODY has the right to tell any woman what she does with her body or her health, period. It is solely her choice, end of conversation. As far as you claiming that you know what a woman wants or feels, thats a topic for another thread.
DD, thanks for your straightforward and thorough answer. When you wrote: "It goes against everything they (women) are hard-wired to do." I would have supposed that you were also opposed to contraception, because by your reasoning, it does the same thing, but I appreciate that you have sorted the difference out in your mind and do not, in fact hold the position I was guessing you might.
I think that's what Troy is getting at when he warns us of "kettle logic" which in essence gives a statement like yours a self-contradictory quality without further clarification. So thanks again for clarifying.
Jenny,
Your argument (more births from unwanted pregnancies) is a classic red herring argument that actually hits a couple
1) "Appeal to consequences" where the conclusion is justified because of perceived/projected negative consequences and not actual justification for the conclusion (distraction tactic).
2) "Fallacy of relative privation" where the essential arguments of the matter are ignored because one deems other issues being of greater import or need.
Very interesting thesis, Mr. Jones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think I hear you saying is that the reason to continue having the debate is to see if it's possible to move the extremists on either side of it more toward the middle. Is that correct, or am I oversimplifying what you wrote?
Bill, I would argue that women are hard-wired to have babies and be nurturing to them. We have the vaginas, uteruses and hormones to physically bear children, but being a loving mother is a totally different issue. We've all heard the thousands of child abuse cases of neglect and trauma that are in the news every single day. Many new moms are hard-wired to suffer from post-partum depression. Is that natural? In this country we don't care about mothers enough to give them mandatory 6 week paid maternity leave. In this country we still have to have laws that let mothers breastfeed in public! If you don't have a support system like immediate family and a husband, you're pretty much on your own in this country when it comes to moms and their babies.
p.s. Troy, who is your team in the SuperBowl today? I can't decide who to root for. Pick a team and I'll take the other one. LOL.
I hear you Jenny. From where I stand (dad to 7, grandfather to 11) being a mom looks like the hardest job there is. I don't think I could do it, and can hardly believe they do.
Bill,
I'm mostly saying the debate is critical because the current status is untenable and divisive. Who might ultimately move or move the most from the extremes I don't know or what the effect might be for those currently in the majority, I don't know that either. Can't get in my own head much less all of societies. :)
Seattle. Patriots offend my sense of sportsmanship.
No Troy, I'm not saying there will be more births if abortions are illegal. I'm saying people won't stop having sex and unplanned pregnancies will still happen. A lot of people are not responsible, especially when it's in the heat of the moment. Men don't wear condoms because it doesn't feel as good, and women will continue to forget to go back to the doctor/pharmacy for a birth control refill.
Young women will get scared when they find they are pregnant and will delay proper healthcare. These babies will have health issues from late prenatal care. Back alley abortions will happen. Mankind is capable of gruesomeness and illegal abortions will be a money making operation. Women will get infections and die, and there will be women that will have babies with very severe health problems that will get them up for adoption like you want but who will adopt these late prenatal care babies? Your tax dollars will be taking care of them but will your party want to dish out the monies to properly care for these institutional babies. Don't think this couldn't happen.
Jenny,
Your argument (social/economic consequences of unplanned pregnancies and these babies being born justifies abortion) also potentially supports logically the argument abortions should be performed because we can reduce other social ills (similar to what the founder of Planned Parenthood argued) and actually argues against your assertion of mother's sovereignty over her body. Or, more to point, it would justify castrations or forced steriilization to mitigate birth of potential criminals, etc. Don't think you want to go there.
It's a form of Kettle Logic (multiple, inconsistent arguments to support a position).
Troy, I could say that your argument is
1. supporting poverty
2. breaking up the mother child bond - adoption
Forcing a woman that is not ready to raise a baby when she doesn't have skills to make a living wage, not finished with school, and the father isn't in the picture is poverty promotion .
Adoption is often times the elephant in the room. While it has made many an infertile couple happy, many women regret giving up their baby and have felt they were forced into it, especially if one is from a very religious family. There can be post traumatic stress from giving up a child at a young age. Many women never get over giving up their baby and wonder if their baby went to a good home. They suffer from a poor mother image when they go on to marry and have children of their own.
I was raised Catholic and so I get the abortion issue. If people would just be responsible but that likely will never happen. Troy, you're practice selective reading by never answering my questions about GOP funding and adoption hi risk babies.
Jenny,
I would love to debate and discuss those issue. Adoption, social safety net, etc. are subsequent issues that arise with a change in abortion policy. That said, you going there or me going there gets us both into the sphere of the red herring of "Fallacy of Relative Privation."
As important as those policy questions are, they are not of the import of reconciliation of certain fundamental human rights. It's analogous to getting the cart before the horse and/or dealing with hypotheticals.
But, to your point, your question raises consequent issues some of my allies (economic conservatives) may struggle with. But, they are consequent (secondary vs. primary to the issue at hand). That said, just for your information, my views with regard to preferential option for the poor and defenseless will have you find me an ally on issues that might surprise you.
Raped apes squeal like stuck pigs,Les. Like I said similar to whitey wingnuts when someone says gun registration or back ground checks.
Plus,the next time you get raped and need an abortion,I'll gladly pay for it. No 72 hour propaganda sessions,no waiting periods,no ultra sounds,nothing.
you poor bastards.
is pp done, then? pretty pathetic over there while madville piles up the hits.
@Jenny "I bet DD is one of the misogynistic men that publicly scorns women walking into abortion clinics."
@Larry No, Larry "Happy Camper," remember?
@Tim Well, since you have put it like that, with such authority.. Yeah, no. The same ignorant logic is used by child abusers, wife abusers, Taliban, etc. It is intimately society's interest to protect those that are preyed upon.
In this modern age? You don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex or use birth control! Before you start sputtering ignorant drivel about rape and incest (MFI) look up the statistics.
DD-you left our your main talking point-are prime example why this issue is trotted out and used to defeat Democratic candidates.
DD-who protects the preyed upon from you guys?
Troy's logical fallacies have more twists and turns than a bag of pretzels.
MFI, you forgot to blame "whitey" and Christians for everything.
Troy, please define pro abortion, as I don't think anyone is cheering for abortions to take place. I am for a woman's choice over her body, especially in the case of rape and incest. I would like to see abortion become unnecessary and rare.
That's why I can't figure out why the anti-women's freedom to their own body want to criminalize contraception.
Still trying to figure out why the state believes that they can come between a woman and her physician...not to mention think that women are too stupid to make their own decisions.
Brother Bill F.
In scanning al of 170 plus comments on this thread I found that your comment at 12:59 yesterday had the most substance. What does this new bill really have to offer to anyone besides making a political statement?
And as I scanned the comments here there isn't argument made that hasn't been since abortion became a political issue, it seems to be game of one-upmanship by a bunch of men.
Suppose for a minute that the Supremes were to reverse themselves on Roe and make abortion illegal, who would that satisfy and more importantly would it increase or decrease the number of abortions?
Murder committed by men and women is illegal, has that stopped anyone from murdering if they choose? If it did we wouldn't have so many murders.
It has been my observation in viewing human nature that I people choose to done something illegal, no law will stop them.
Abortion, like LGBT community, have been around since the beginning of man, it is not entirely new concept regardless what one thinks.
The only saving grace is that if abortion were ever to made criminal is that we live in a day and age when the back alley abortionist will have better procedures in more sanitized conditions.
It is foolhardy to believe that you can change human nature by feel good legislation.
So I'm still waiting for a response to my point. If you can control my body and my reproduction, I demand equal control over yours.
DD said, "No one has dictated when or how you can reproduce."
Oh absolutely they have. Unless I have a certain degree of wealth, my access to birth control is limited, as is my ability to obtain an abortion.
DD, you toss around many Unruh-type "facts." I'm acquainted with many women who've had abortions. They are not devasted, depressed, ashamed, mentally ill or suffering in any way. They are no different from the average American woman. Abortion is not a horrendous, traumatic experience. It is an elective medical procedure that ends a pregnancy.
There are women who've had abortions and have struggled with their decision. I posit that is due to the extensive demonization by the anti abortionists. The fact is that we don't know with any certitude why she may feel depressed or anxious. The demonization? The procedure? There is no factual evidence at this time; just vitriolic assertions.
I'm not for abortion or against abortion. I don't have that decision to make for myself. I completely do support every woman's right to make her own decisions and be fully in control of her own body.
Now, which of you who are against abortion are going to turn over your reproductive autonomy to me? I'm ready. I have your best interests at heart.
Trust Me.
Jana,
Fair point. I know there is a big % of population that has positions that isn't supportive what I'm referring to as "pro-abortion" above. In this context pro abortion is defenders of the current status- abortion on demand for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy.
If you have a different position, it likely is easier to defend without resorting to logical fallacies and I'd be interested in your position.
Logical fallacy?
And yes Troy you can count me in with numerous judges and constitutional scholars in defending the current law.
By on demand, are you saying that the 72 hour waiting period, the state intervening between myself and my doctor and a mandatory meeting with a anti-women's choice counselor is "on demand"?
Getting a gun in South Dakota to shoot someone is easier than getting an abortion.
Jana or anyone else,
Let me ask some rhetorical questions as you appear to subscribe to the absolute sovereignty of one's body, do you think any of these the following should be prohibited by law:
1A) A person is a perfect match as a heart and liver donor for a loved one. Can that person agree to the transplants even if it will result in the donor's death if they can find a doctor willing to perform the operation?
1B) Does it make a difference if the prospects for the donee's survival is remote?
2) The same person as above is willing to do it for money?
Troy, why don't you respond to my rhetorical question first? I'm very curious about your reply.
An interesting point:
Troy and DD are speaking of abstracts and generalities. That's easy enough because this is not about their bodies. For us women, it's very personal and intimate.
So Troy, DD, what about Your Own Personal and Intimate Body? I'd like to have as much control over your body as you have over mine. My guess is that Jana and Jenny would like to share in that. The 3 of us will get together, without you anywhere near, and we'll decide, not only about your reproduction, but also your sons, grandsons, nephews and male cousins. Okay?
Okay!
South Dakota is a pimple on the body politic: what happens here is a squishing of that GOP. Religious extremism shapes the body of law like ISIS lops the heads from the world's journalists.
Deb,
Your question is one which one could take seriously if you subscribed to either Randian Objectivism or extreme Libertarianism. But, because you are selective in human sovereignty (social economic obligation to neighbors, etc.), your argument (rhetorical question is a form of argument) is not credible and it can be ignored. (This is not an insult but a statement related to logic and rules of argumentation).
That said, if you answer my last questions that you don't think such organ donations should be prohibited (and agree with the logical implications in large part I listed at 10:59), you'd have introduced secondary application of human sovereignty where it would likely response.
Santa Claus
SaniFlush
Drano.
So you are ducking my question Troy. I read your comment, and you are a skilled rhetoritician. And you are avoiding my question. It doesn't take several sentences or paragraphs. A simple Yes or No will suffice.
I'm waiting.
Troy might be giantess.
Troy shuckin and jivin.
Jello of Troy meets Godzilla.
Deb,
If there is a compelling public interest consistent with the social contract, it may be legitimate. What would that compelling public interest be?
Question not withstanding, I have not once submitted a particular position on abortion in this discussion except question the logic and intellectual basis for the proposition of absolute sovereignty of one's body. This is your argument. And again, the proponent has the Burden of Proof (Proof by assertion is another logical fallacy) under the rules of argumentation.
Yes or No?
Troy, like I said, this is not an abstract argument to me or most women. This is invasively personal. I don't give a damn about any rules of argumentation. Stop hiding behind words.
Yes or No?
Deb, it is a rhetorical question/argument grounded in the logic fallacy of "false equivalence" and not a credible argument. But, to humor your nonsensical proposition, you can regulate my reproductive rights. I never thought you'd propose chastity or forced sterilization. Probably extreme remedy under the social contract but that must be your position.
Deb,
Troy seems to only be able to ask rhetorical questions and not answer them, whether they add to a discussion or not.
1. Troy, I finally won a contest with you. Patriots over Seahawks. Fair and square. Great game.
2. Deb is essentially making the right to privacy argument. It's really all she has to say other than perhaps point to the 14th Amendment and ask why we should have more protection in that regard than she does.
3. Too bad we didn't place a wager. Then you could have delayed paying me as long as I did you. ;-)
Thank you Troy, for thoroughly trivializing women's concern for the right to control our own bodies and reproductive lives.
"to humor your nonsensical proposition,"
Of course it can be a trivial joke to you. No one is trying to control your body. And it's not only your body. I included your progeny for generations to come.
Your response illustrates the primary problem with men such as yourself who are trying to control us. We are merely abstractions good for humorous interludes. Bill, Blindman, Larry and other men get that. You do not. Until you truly internalize that information, keep your mouth shut on any topic about women.
Oh yeah. Don't ever try to convince us that you are not sexist. You've outed yourself.
Bill,
I'll agree we had a bet. I intended to email you to that effect and know you would have accepted.
I get the privacy and 14th Amendment arguments but that is not the argument presented- It is absolute sovreignty over their body in this one limited situation while I presume it is rejected (until I hear otherwise) with regard to my organ donation scenario and nearly every tenet of the social justice obligations imposed via the social contract (inherent tension between the often competing principles of individualism, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Absolute sovriegnty is only consistent with anarchy, Randian Objectivism, and extreme Libertarianism.
Like I said before, whether we acknowledge it or not, a majority of Americans neither support abortion on demand for any reason throughout the pregnancy or its wholesale prohibition. Most of the debate however is dominated by those who support either abortion on demand or wholesale prohibition and together these two factions are in the minority. Such division not only frays the social contract but threatens its very underpinnings.
Troy, you are so blind. So clueless. It's my body, you dummy. My body that I live in, that I inhabit, that I experience the world through.
You're so damn clueless. What you are doing is exactly what women hate. The only way you'll ever get it, and possibly treat women with the real respect they deserve, is if you consciously and deliberately make every effort to hear us - truly, truly Hear Us.
That means you listen with the goal of getting into our skins as much as possible. You listen without any thoughts of your counter arguments, without analysis.
Troy, I don't think you can do that. You've shown yourself to be very comfortable arguing in the abstract, more focused on the rules of rhetoric than the heart and soul of the person engaging you. You like distance on any topic. That's exactly the reason one of the first things emphasized by Second Wave Feminism was, "The political is personal/The personal is political."
You are so clueless and you don't even know it.
Deb,
I'm not trivializing your concerns. But, I am pointing out your proposition is grounded in false equivalence and is nonsensical because you assert no public interest for your proposition except a quid pro quo for an offer you are not seriously proposing. As I said, if you assert a rationale why your proposal serves the public good in any way, I said I'd answer the question.
Maybe your willing to live with this social divide in our nation. I'm not and as I showed today am willing to engage in a logical debate of the issue focusing on a primary tenet of your position (absolute sovereignty) and pointing out you reject it in virtually every other aspect of the social contract. This is intellectually inconsistent and illogical whether you admit it or not.
Troy, your funny in the same way Vizzini in the Princess Bride is funny.
Not sure if you are an intellectual or a pseudo intellectual...but if this fits...well.
"...a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine” intellectual. It is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to win an argument or impress, rather than modestly trying to find the truth – a focus on surface and rhetoric over content. These often involve a superficial understanding of a subject and condescension to the audience, as well as possible self-delusion (not being consciously dishonest, but rather sincerely thinking oneself to be behaving as a genuine intellectual despite one's incompetence)."
Nope. You are not really engaging Troy. That's exactly what I've been telling you that you are choosing not to hear.
You've not asked one single woman here what it's like to have a group of mostly men making these incredibly intimate decisions about our bodies. You've not asked for expansion from us, except as it fits your narrow parameters. You haven't said, "Help me understand. Help me get it."
You're just digging yourself in deeper with every comment. You are clueless and obviously intent on staying that way.
I'm done with you on this topic. I've tried hard to help you and you've refused to accept. All right. I just wish you'd stop inserting your ignorance into this topic.
Good night.
Exactly, Jana. Exactly.
Deb,
Regarding your last point, I do get that in is emotional and visceral for you. But, do you get there is a counter, equally emotional and visceral perspective.
If the discussion of this issue can only be done on the emotional level, there is no ground for a discussion. Only yelling past each other and making accusations against the other person.
I'm trying to get past that in pursuit of something that finds a modicum of social consensus. To do that, emotion has to be set aside and there is a dedication of our minds.
I guess though based on your agreement with Jana my effort has been in vain. I did my best to apply logic and rules of argumentation to discuss this divisive issue.
@Deb a woman has the ability not to have sex, surest form of contraceptive there is. Curious, does this mean you believe if a man doesn't want a woman to conceive a child he should have the right to require her to have an abortion? What about refusing to support the child? Since you are all about reproductive rights, I am sure you are devotedly for a man's right to chose not to be a father or support the results of an unwanted pregnancy?
Guess that's some of that kettle logic Bill was talking about.
Troy, I am guessing you are very smart. Now try being genuine.
Troy, if the government was trying to control your testicles, you might get emotional too.
Jana,
I get that. Humor ma and presume I am being genuine.
Give me your personal perspective on my organ donation question and what I assert are logical extensions of absolute sovereignty this morning at 10:59.
Troy,
Whether you choose to recognize it or not, there is a social divide on the abortion issue and there always will be.
Do you truly believe that when a woman makes a decision on her reproductive rights she even considers that the majority of Americans are opposed to abortion.
Men and women make very few if any personal decisions base on our supposed social contract. We are very adept at making those decisions for others as in the case of legislating women's health care.
Seriously Troy..."logical extensions of absolute sovereignty" is a really weak attempt at being genuine.
I'll rephrase your hypothetical to: if one of my parents were dying a very painful and ultimately soon to be fatal disease like cancer, would I help them commit suicide. The answer is yes.
Now Vizzini, tell us how much government control you would advocate over your reproductive organs. And yes I know the poor little things are sensitive.
72 hour waiting period before sex? Refilling your Viagra prescription and you need to visit with a stranger who is advocating abstinence...even though you are a very smart person who is in control of your body...but the hormones are just dying to get out.
Having to report your penile implant to government?
Should we have mandatory disclosure of when the little swimmers were released?
Last I checked, no pharmacist has ever been a conscientious objector to selling condoms. Would that be OK or would you just get one out of the machine in the Men's room at the truck stop? And don't tell us you have never had that telltale ring on your wallet from years of carrying it without ever needing to use it.
How about getting a permit for your little gun before you can shoot? Don't worry, it's easy in South Dakota. I think the new rule is if you can breath and fog up a mirror, you are good to go.
As a matter of fact, your whole argument is based on the logical fallacy that you could ever be pregnant and yet you want to have total and complete sovereignty over lady parts.
Good night Vizzini.
Jana,
My organ donation question is sincere. But you won't answer. Hmmmm.
If I could lay down my life for a loved one, yes, I would donate an organ. As a matter of fact I have friends who have undergone painful, and yes risky, bone marrow transplants knowing that there might be a slight possibility at keeping a living human alive.
So now we can eagerly await your response on how this validates your anti women's choice beliefs.
Don't get me wrong Troy, I respect your faith and beliefs, I just disagree with you. Kind of like the Catholic belief that women are second class citizens and not good enough or not holy enough to be ordained priests. Not to mention, have no legitimate equal voice in the Church.
Now I do notice that you are not answering anyone else's questions.
Hmmmm.
I will admit that I am suspect to your sincerity based on your lack of genuineness.
Troy, I answered your question. Now answer mine.
How much government control and sovereignty over your reproductive organs are you willing to give up. Be specific.
Cue the Jeopardy theme song while we wait.
Here's a similar riddle for you Troy.
If you knew that your wife has a 90% chance that she may die from a pregnancy, would you force her to carry that fetus to term and risk her death?
Let's try another one Troy. If you knew that your working poor grandmother would die without health care she can't afford, would you be for Medicaid expansion?
Everything is the fault of whitey and christians. Happy now,DD?
Troy,you are full of more shit than a christmas turkey. Show me one person on Cory's blog who supports abortion on demand or is pro-abortion!
Jana,
You did not answer my questions. They are very specific and specifically germane to the central question (absolute sovereignty). However, I don't care what your answer is any longer. Every response includes a personal smear. And it is clear you hold your position and refuse to justify it using logic. But as a parting gift, I wholly accept a life of the mother exception and would respect either decision she would make. Whether or not it involved my grandmother, I would not support Medicaid expansion.
Why anyone lives in South Dakota remains a mystery.
The State of South Dakota has stolen thousands of children from their families, placed them in foster homes, boarding houses and with clergy pedophiles yet earth haters like Troy Jones still deny a woman her right to a routine medical procedure. Why? Because the issues raises millions to elect those who give the stupid state cover for crimes against kids.
Denny Daugaard starves families, denies educational opportunities to actual living children, drives people from the state, imprisons children to die in his care and takes campaign cash from criminals.
Wtf?
Women who live in Jones' stupid state and can afford it just fly to Minneapolis or Denver or Albuquerque to have routine medical procedures to whom women at middle or lower incomes are denied access representing a chilling effect on the rights of entire classes of people.
Arguing with religionists is inane, people.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/pro-life-bill-anti-abortion-groups-across-country-are-trying-kill
Troy, I like your organ transplant questions. Indeed, I think if you go a bit further in that area perhaps you might see another perspective that is closer to home for you as a male.
Your position is that our state government should have the authority to govern what a woman does with her own body, and you use the government's ability to prohibit certain organ transplants as an example of when the government should be able to control everyone's bodies, including a pregnant woman who does not want to carry the zygote or fetus.
Your logic indicates that you believe the state should have the authority to legally force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, to save the life of the zygote - fetus. Such lives are valuable and our state should be given the authority to enact legislation to protect and save these lives.
We know that many people need kidney or liver transplants to survive. And we know that an individual donor can survive after giving up a kidney, or a part of the liver (which will typically regenerate into a fully functioning liver in both the donor and the donee).
People's lives are valuable and worth saving, presumably including those people who need transplants. Your analysis logically indicates that the state should be able to round up its residents, check their bodies for compatibility with people in need of a transplant, and if compatible, forcibly take whatever organ or part on an organ needed for the donee's survival.
So, under your logic Rev. Hicky should introduce legislation subjecting everyone, men, children and women (including women who can no longer conceive), to testing to determine organ transplant compatibility and then use the power of the state to require compatible individuals to "donate" their body parts to everyone in need of a transplant, right?
How would this be any different than seeking a law requiring a woman to donate her body to a needy zygote - fetus for 9 months? And yet I see no "pro-lifer" supporting such a mandatory organ donation position. Why not?
Although I am late to the thread, I offer a few additional comments:
(1) I have read through over 200 comments, yet no pro-life commentor has addressed the problem of women who will turn to unsafe abortions if safe abortions by medical providers are outlawed. Perhaps these pro-lifers feel the woman who seeks an illegal abortion because safe abortions are outlawed deserves whatever bad effects she gets as a punishment?
(2) And what about the question of providing care for the born? Why won't pro-lifers explain their apparent support for denying such help?
(3) Disgusted Dakotan states "I oppose abortion in all circumstances." Since this must include abortions necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, the rational for this position is in question. The most common argument I have seen for this view is that God's will must prevail, and if God has decided a woman must die so the fetus can live, humans should not interfere.
The logical result of this view, however, is to oppose health care of any kind. After all if a human gets sick, it is God's will, and if that person will die without health care, that too is God's will. Thus, providing health care to cure the illness or save the life also contradicts God's will to inflict the sickness and resulting death.
Larry, thanks for the link. One of the commenters referred to the opposition of that fetal heartbeat bill as the "Forced Birth" people.
It's true that many Republicans and the top fat cats against women's rights to human adult autonomy do not want abortion to go away. It's their cash cow. I'm guessing a majority of the peons on the lower levels have a degree of sincerity.
A few years ago, it appeared that they were getting wise to being jerked around by said fat cats and Republican elites. Unfortunately, that trend seems to have reversed.
Good points BCB.
You nearly always do a good job of addressing real life by applying abstract constructs like Troy's to them. I feel heard in conversations with you and with most Madizens. I wish Troy could learn how to do that.
Bear,
I know that my known opposition to abortion was an impediment to the discussion I intended. But, my focus was simply related to the concept of absolute sovereignty over our bodies and whether it really exists. (Sidenote: Absolute means without limit)
I didn't express a position on organ donation in the specific situation I mentioned. It was purely a rhetorical question to gain understanding on what is being asserted. Read those questions again and I would love to know your answer. Note it is significant that in all cases I outline, the donor will die.
I ask that very specific question because the concept absolute sovereignty is grounded in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, a philosophy that rejects the social contract as we know it and document it in the Constitution.
1) It seems odd that liberals would embrace anything in Objectivism so maybe they aren't really asserting absolute sovereignty but something else and I want to know what that is.
2) And, if they do, I would like to know how it is reconciled with a rejection of Objectivism in virtually every other policy question.
3) Or is the matter of such emotion (as Deb maybe suggested), proponents are just grabbing onto arguments they think supports the cause without reflecting on the implications of the argument. As one who flirted with Objectivism, it has a lot of allure but at its core is anathema with the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (whole cloth of the social contract) because of its exclusive extolling of the individual.
With regard to your three questions, I was almost exclusively the only pro-lifer in this discussion (except for DD on a few occasions). My focus has been trying to get an understanding if absolute sovereignty is really being asserted because I think it is a position contrary to the social contract, Constitution, and American ideals. It certainly is rejected by every liberal I've ever met. Only extreme Libertarians give it much credence as a philosophy.
For this reason, I've ignored distractions such as you posit in your post. Not because they aren't legitimate in the larger abortion debate but because they aren't legitimate in the narrow debate on absolute sovereignty. Being a lawyer, look up the red herring fallacy argumentum ad consequentiam. Its basically the argument that because we like the consequences or don't like the consequences from the act/position, we don't have to discuss the rationale/justification for the act/position. Ends the debate because the proponent doesn't want to debate. LOL. As a lawyer, you probably already knew what it was.
My pleasure, Deb. The chilling effect on the rights of women to a routine medical procedure because religion makes no sense except to those making the sex abuse lawsuit payments with the proceeds.
Its nice to have the net again. An inch of rain and then a foot of snow and -3 this morning.
Deb said " If you can control my body and my reproduction, I demand equal control over yours."
Then you need "The Home Vasectomy Kit" from THE CHURCH OF BILL. It comes complete with everything you need to take care of wondering husbands, your daughters hormonally supercharged boyfriend, or the neighbor with a spotting scope.
1. One hammer for use in both anesthesia and the procedure.
2. 4 extra strong plastic slip ties for hands and feet. Some men dont like this out patient surgery.
3. One pair of needle nose pliers.
4. One inch wide flat chisel.
5. One tube of super glue. No mater how careful you are your bound to nick and super glue is the easiest was to fix that. Besides its fun to watch em wake up with their hands glued to an appendage.
6. And one 25cc bottle of combiotic. After all your not a barbarian are you?
Its presterolized and packaged with a decorative holder for your coffee table.
You will enjoy the craftsmanship of this equipment every time you use it. Thats right its reusable. Its The Home Vasectomy Kit, from THE CHURCH OF BILL
The Blindman
Thanks Deb!
Troy, the absolutist argument seems to cut both ways. The anti-abortion position seems to be that a zygote - fetus has absolute sovereignty, and that the female human being carrying the fetus is subjected to that sovereignty, and is thereby denied the right to take any bodily action that might interfere with the development of the zygote - fetus.
Personally, I would answer your organ donation questions as follows:
"1A) A person is a perfect match as a heart and liver donor for a loved one. Can that person agree to the transplants even if it will result in the donor's death if they can find a doctor willing to perform the operation?"
Yes. Such a decision should not be prohibited by law.
"1B) Does it make a difference if the prospects for the donee's survival is remote?"
No.
"2) The same person as above is willing to do it for money?"
This also should not be prohibited by law.
I am unsure what you consider "red herring" arguments in the questions I posited. I tried to find a situation in which a man's body parts could be used, with little chance of killing or harming the man, to save the life of another. Organ transplants seem to fit the bill. Yet, I have never found a pro-lifer who was willing to support laws that used force to trump a man's decision not to donate. Thus, it appears that the asserted value of life in the anti-abortionist argument is quite shallow, and that some other motivation compels the desire to use the law to subjugate a woman's body to the needs of the zygote - fetus.
Finally, the pure logic of the anti-choice argument escapes me. I cannot see how it is any different than any "argumentum ad consequentiam," an argument based on an emotional reaction to the consequences to the zygote - fetus of an abortion. The unwillingness to provide post-birth support evidences a clear lack of support for the lives of children.
Troy, your "Kettle logic" comments bring to mind another point not yet discussed above. You have previously commented on "unintended consequences" of proposed legislation on a different topic. Another point of "Kettle Logic" that ought to be considered here is the unintended consequences of interpreting the Constitution to allow a state to control reproductive choices of women.
Once a state is deemed constitutionally able to regulate human reproduction choices, the state would necessarily have the power to enact laws that require sterilization. And the state will have the authority to enact laws that require the abortion of potential offspring state officials deem undesirable or unworthy, such as Down's syndrome children, or as in China, female children. Under Roe, the state lacks that power. Overrule Roe, and we go back to the days of Buck v. Bell, in which Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted:
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
Bear,
You are reading too much into my question. You answered my question. Thank you.
And, yes, logic and rhetoric can cut both ways. In an intellectual exercise in pursuit of the truth, we can't ignore it when it cuts against us and use it when it cuts for us. Logic and rhetoric is just that- a knife the cuts away the fat/emotion and allows reason us to get to the heart of the matter.
It was quite frustrating as nobody would answer the question. Your answer is consistent with "absolute sovereignty" and your answer does make me want to explore this further with you as it is an answer/concept/position I think contrary to general progressive thought I've only found it really asserted with extreme Libertarians.
Maybe, if/when you come for the cup of coffee or lunch when to discuss Christian life and death issues, we can add this to the agenda and logically they will take us to questions/issues you raise (they are not red herrings in the broad debate but were with regard to the singular issue I wanted to flesh out). I really need to move on (plus a friend who monitored this discussion told me to do so. He is my elder and I'm afraid of him).
Or if you want, we can have an email correspondence. I think there is someone else who might like to participate. Blogs sometimes make it hard to stay on the logic path as we get drug down different rabbit holes. We might not change our minds (OK, highly unlikely) but I'll bet we'll have a better appreciation of the thoughts of the other side. And, that to me is always good.
I'm not avoiding you. Yesterday, I devoted way too much thought and time to this and not getting stuff done. I was at the office until after midnight last night and back again by 7. I'll probably be here again until midnight. Busy week and hard week.
Reproductive rights is tossed around to justify the murder of an innocent child; however, those same people are hypocritical in their commitment to those rights to all. They use that statement to squelch their squeamishness over the actual act they support, the killing of an unborn baby. If this truly was the worthy cause that all the pro-abortion crowd brays it is.. then where is the abortion on demand for the father who doesn't want his DNA use to father a child? Where is the support for deadbeat dad's who don't want to pay for the children they have no say in having? That dang "kettle logic" is a cursed thing.
The irony? Imagine if wholesale abortion was practiced by all the pro-abortion crowd's parents in regards to present company, we evil pro-lifers would win the argument by default. Imagine all of the little Leftests that are being murdered in the fake trumpet call of civil liberty.
Disregard all my fair play misgivings about abortion being used to draw Democrats out..
Bear,
I really have to get some work done and put a smart meal in the microwave. Keep that last comment for discussion as well. I'm not afraid of getting cut and it appears you aren't either. I wish you had been here yesterday. Take care.
"Yesterday, I devoted way too much thought and time to this and not getting stuff done."
Troy, I have been there and done that! Thanks for your thoughtful comments! If you want to email me, I give Cory permission to provide you with my email address. Take care!
DD, you seem to miss an important point - there is a living woman involved. The father's "body" is out of the picture. He has no risk of extreme pain (back, knee), infection, uterine prolapse, cystourethrocele (bladder and urethral prolapse), uterine rupture, hemorrhage, hypertension, and thromboembolism, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia, operative vaginal delivery, emergency Caesarean section, postpartum haemorrhage, infection, hemorrhage, hypertension, thromboembolism, and death from pregnancy and childbirth. The list is far from complete, but perhaps you will get the point.
Perhaps that is why the father lacks standing to decide what the woman will do with her body.
"But I have a much harder time buying into the myth that those who bankroll the forced birther movement, those who hate the thought of all government regulation, are being motivated by a desire to protect life. Or babies.
I think their motivation is a lot closer to the one that prompted Nicolae Ceausescu to implement Decree 770 within a year of taking over the government in Romania. Decree 770 banned the once available-on-demand abortions, as well as sex education."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/01/1360140/-Abortion-good-intentions-or-bad-and-the-road-to-hell#
Sacred Sperm: The naked truth about Judaism’s prohibition of masturbation
http://www.haaretz.com/life/movies-television/1.640380
Great links Larry - thanks! I hope the pro-lifers read the link describing Decree 770 as it really shows the other side of state control over reproduction.
Bear,
Took a quick break and found a comparison of pro-lifers to a dictator and murderer?
Using that standard, Hitler's Germany and Stalins USSR really shows the other side of government controlled health care, government regulation of business and taxation and abortiona defacto Chinese one-child policy.
You really want to go there?
Or should we just presume the other side isn't dictators and evil incarnate?
My pleasure, bat: Generalissimo Franco is resting comfortably in his grave assured that churches are raising money to pay clergy sex abuse lawsuits with efforts seeking to impose chilling effects on women's rights.
BCB, actually, those who support the idea that abortion is wrong miss the point.. there's a living baby, a separate life involved. If the reproductive freedom argument is good for the proverbial goose? Than it should be good for the gander. Whether a man wants to reproduce or not, the woman and the state decides that fate for them despite some not wanting to be a father or pay for that decision that is made for them.
oops, for those that believe abortion is right, I meant.
Those of us who understand killing a baby is wrong understand that.
Pick a lane, DD. Monsanto is responsible for an untold number of spontaneous abortions: when so-called 'pro-lifers' start boycotting industrial age we progressives might take them seriously.
Thanks bearcreekbat for answering Troy's questions and engaging his own particular brand of debate.
Now maybe Troy will show the same courtesy and answer these questions that were posed earlier.
"If you knew that your wife has a 90% chance that she may die from a pregnancy, would you force her to carry that fetus to term and risk her death?"
" If you knew that your working poor grandmother would die without health care she can't afford, would you be for Medicaid expansion?"
"How much government control and sovereignty over your reproductive organs are you willing to give up. Be specific."
For Troy and his choir of hypocrites:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28856-monsanto-s-roundup-enough-to-make-you-sick
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/12/04/high-nitrates-des-moines/19906717/
I don't don't believe abortion is the answer DD. I'm just saying I don't and you don't either have a right to tell someone else what to do.
I'll ask again. What happens to the baby after its born?
Troy and his murder of christian crows believe the thousands of brown children dying in the drone war and to suicide in tribal nations are merely collateral damage.
You people make me puke.
What is the drone war, Mr. kurtz?
You know when your daddy used to puke at that bar on Hansina street in Volga I would hand him a bucket. I am glad to hand you a bucket too.
gfy, grud.
@Larry You pick a lane GMO is a total new subject and here to uncharted debate.
@Owen and yet the law currently tells a man that they will be a father if a woman decides to have their baby whether they want that or not and the man will be financially responsible till the child is 18+. If reproductive freedom is good for a woman, then your logic has it that it should be good for the man. My logic? It's self defeating to murder your progeny inutero.
Jana,
You have never answered my specific questions, in good faith I answered your first two questions, and I am currently engaged in a logic discussion where we are trying to discern the validity of the premise of absolute sovereignty of a person's body. I'm unable to answer your last question at this time. If I have absolute sovereignty, it is a transaction and my answer depends on what you are offering and what you expect in return. If you have a legitimate claim on my body, I have no choice but to accept up to that claim.
That said, unless you answer my prior questions, I have no more interest in conversing with you. If you answer my questions, I'll dialogue with you so long as you agree to continue the conversation under a modicum of rules of argument and without personal attacks on me or matters such as my religion.
Good for me, indeed, Lar. Back then I was a kinder fellow.
DD, are you anti-death penalty also? I'd appreciate a kindly response.
@Jenny I am sorry, I cannot humor your request for a kindly response to the subject of whether the government has an obligation to defend it's citizenry with deadly force..
@DD a man should be responsible for that baby until its 18. he really doesn't have a say on an abortion or not. It's the woman's body. Now if the woman's life is in danger and her and the father decide to take a chance and have the baby then it's their choice. If they decide the risk to the mother is too great then they'll choice to abort. key word is choice. And now where are you or I in that decision.
I'll ask again. What happens to the baby after it's born? Republicans want to cut food stamps, welfare and healthcare and they want to claim they're pro-life?
@Owen so a man should be responsible for a child he doesn't want to have until its 18? But a woman shouldn't? Doesn't sound like equal reproductive rights to me.
So, somehow Republicans are collectively responsible for the financial responsibilities of a child that a women self determinedly decides to have? Where is that porous logic written? From whence have I signed on to such responsibility through the voter registration process? Does that liability evaporate if I re-register as a Democrat or Independent? Or are Republicans solely responsible for other people's reproductive decisions?
Uh, DD: industry has been killing foetuses as collateral damage for centuries long before there were laws giving them civil rights in the third trimester.
Troy said, "I am currently engaged in a logic discussion where we are trying to discern the validity of the premise of absolute sovereignty of a person's body."
And that's what you are good at. Keep it up. But don't say that you get it from a woman's point of view. You don't. I don't think you are a bad or evil person. You are unable or unwilling to drop the academic outlook and enter into a woman's place in this. You continue to insist that any discussion on this topic must be on your terms only, until you are satisfied.
As a member of the white, male dominant culture - you get to follow the rules of your culture. I'm not going to play by your rules because I find them invalid. You've been saying, in essence, "My way or the highway."
Movin on down, movin on down, the road! (from The Wiz)
Sorry I didn't reply specifically to you "absolute sovereignty" questions. I took you at face value in your post at 6:26 where you said, and I quote "However, I don't care what your answer is any longer."
Also, saying that every one of my responses to you is a personal smear is patently false.
Even though you seem to contradict yourself regarding your interest in my response to your questions, the answers are yes, no and yes.
To me, your rejection of Medicaid expansion and the outrageous cost of healthcare, it seems that there is conservative approval of economic manslaughter of human beings unable to afford proper care.
Now Troy, I also asked the question, "How much government control and sovereignty over your reproductive organs are you willing to give up?" And I did ask you to be specific.
Round and round she goes. The fact remains you want to control a womans body. I on the other hand want the woman to have complete control of her body. If I'm wrong about this just say so, dont play word games when all you want is control just spit it out.
Never mind, you dont have a fucking thing to tell me that you couldnt have said before.
But lets review. You love unborn until they are born.
You are more worried about the sperm planters rights then the pregnant womans. If I'm wrong just explain so the women here know that you dont feel that their rights are somehow less then that of either the spermer or that clump of cells.
I guess I have a clear picture now, your a pig. You know how to use words, but your a boarish pig.
Just remember, somewhere theres a woman that doesnt like the legislated protection orders you keep throwing at her pregnancy, and she might not feel the love for you that I do. Who knows maybe The Home Vasectomy Kit is just what you need to get a feel for such private things.
If God wouldnt have shown someone how to do the first abortion. No thats not right.
if God created everything, and God is a she, where does that leave you when you tell her that "you have assumed control of the pregnant women?"
God finds out that you want to be an amateur gynecologist with a global client list.
And your still more worried about the mans rights then the womans. Now that is both telling, and sad.
The Blindman
Yep, I'm not surprised with Disgusting Dakota's response of being pro-death penalty, even though it's known plenty of innocent black men have been wrongly executed.
In the future uterine transplants will be a reality and men will be able to have children. Artificial womb making will become a reality also. The men that make the laws will never consider outlawing safe legal abortions. They just never would and most women would staunchly agree with me.
Interesting, when I worked in hospitals in SD, I knew several GOP women that had abortions. Dirty little secrets if only their GOP men knew.
@Jenny Spoken like a flea peering through the wrong end of a telescope. FYI, if pigs had wings? They could fly.
Kudos to one of my favorite people, the Blindman. I'd like to be a member of The Church of Bill. How do I join, Rev. Blindman?
Don't get mad at me if the wife or girlfriend didn't tell you, Disgusting.
I've got the good Madville boys on my side here, so back off.
Deb,
I was schooled (one prof a woman) in the means to work difficult questions of philosophy and resolve what appears to be intractable differences at the micro level. I apply it in my business all the time and frankly this is the first place where I've gotten such resistance or been presented with it being something sexist. In fact, women might like it more than men because of its inter-active nature and pace.
The process is to start at the highest order of the proposition, agree on terminology (so there is no confusion on concepts), work through its universal application and limits, and proceed down the specific as it relates to the initial issue (which is specifically where gender will come into play but we are a long ways away from where gender is relevant). Rightly or wrongly it has been used since Socrates and as laborious as it usually is, it has been proven in my experience to bridge divides and/or enhance mutual understanding and respect, reach degrees of consensus, or at minimum agree to disagree without being disagreeable. At the same time, I have no experience where we begin with what separates us, yell at each other that "you don't get it and never will" and solve anything.
Women don't have their own Scientific Method and they don't have their own Philosophical Method. This method is gender neutral designed to give respect throughout the process.
If you don't want or are incapable of using a process specifically designed to work through what at the onset appears to be intractable, I accept that and we can just agree to disagree.
You know Blindman, your church needs a little symbolism. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has their colander. How about Ray Charles sunglasses for The Church of Bill? But they'd probably never be acceptable for state ID photos. What else? Anyone?
So, really Disgusting supports saving (preferably) white babies, but the death penalty, of which everyone knows is filled with sentenced minority men, is of no concern to him, even though it has a notorious error rate of innocent black men executions. Black men is of a lesser weight of humanity than white babies. Are we really surprised in racist DDs thinking?
@Jenny Now you're just being ignorant. Don't compound your loss of the debate by losing any remaining self-respect.
The sacrament of sex: pay at this window, girls.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale
I try not to get involved in abortion discussions. I'm both pro-choice and pro-life, so I find myself agreeing with everyone and disagreeing with everyone. One thing I don't do is ever assume this issue is going to be controlled by simple logic. These issues go to the core of what a person believes and knows and feels about so many of those "capitalized" issues---Life, Death, Morality, Science, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Religion. Then add in everyone's personal experiences, socialization, religious and political leanings. If someone isn't a whole cupboard full of Kettles, then they haven't thought very deeply about the issue.
I leaned pro-choice until my daughter was in the womb. Then it became real to me what abortion meant, and I leaned pro-life. Logic had nothing to do with it. Love did. But I never was so arrogant to believe that what I believed and felt was going to be true for someone else. And I knew enough about human biology, and human societies and cultures to know that women are primarily in control of these issues. I have no problem with that reality, since it is reality. So, while I'm pro-life, I'm for women having the choice that they have had since humans evolved.
Conceived in sin and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal but all women are brood mares.
Allowing double standards is hypocritical. It's not a game to me, since you refuse to debate fully and answer our questions such as supporting welfare and Medicaid. Economics is a main reason why women choose to have abortions, but yet all the GOPers on here refuse to answer anything about funding the care of these babies.
That last comment was directed to DD.
It is absolutely impossible for anyone to lose or win a debate on abortion.
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference that the state would ask SCOTUS to reverse Roe, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if SCOTUS reverses itself on abortion. They will continue.
I read today an article on the underground abortion clinics and the underground railroad in New York that protects women seeking abortions that can't afford them. They are no longer called back alley abortion clinics and are mostly staffed by qualified doctors. I wouldn't say they are the safest clinics, but they are safer than what used to exist.
Right or wrong, legal or illegal, abortions will continue and the great debate will not change that.
Deb, there's a ten foot Ray picture setting at the keyboard as you walk in the door. Straight across from him is a ten foot Jeff Healey jammin Cruel Little Number and it says "LIVE AT GROSSMANS ."
If you go left and have the nerve to walk into the mens restroom you'll find a poster covering one wall of a live performance of Alice In Chains, Live in LA "Check My Brain."
If you were to turn right and could sneak into the Womens restroom you would find a poster covering one wall of a live performance of Alice In Chains, Live in LA "Check My Brain."
It's pretty dark in the church itself, but you can see a satin KD Lang behind the stage, and a satin Elvis "Live From Hawaii." There's a fifteen foot Trojan blimp tethered from the bar, and an IUD hanging from a slowly turning ceiling fan.
Its classic rock church every damn day of the week, except Monday. There's paid advertising of every kind just like the fence around a baseball diamond. At ten oclock every night we turn down the lights and listen to this, http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cMVvNtcMYjo
At least thats what I've been told.
The Blindman
Ok so named commenters have to endure vitriol from sock puppets as the price of admission now, Cory?
dithmer-wait a second, am not so sure he's good at words. his ayn rand philosophy paul ryan so loved (as does troy) has been "the gate-way drug for life on the right" for young conservatives for decades. UV prof. jennifer burns. Others call it a cult of sexual puritanism, damning and condemning, and deification. wiki
oh, why duyah think they call 'em RAY-BANS? :) oh, oh, and a velvet "kd"! damn! a couple o' all-time favs
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/news/state/3669857-medical-malpractice-victims-sd-cant-find-lawyers
Stupid state.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/03/panel-oks-barring-pre-payment-abortions/22796041/
DD, perhaps you can help me understand why you are such a staunch opponent of abortion. If I get the gist of your comments, is it because you believe that abortion kills a zygote - fetus? If you think killing a zygote - fetus is the main evil of abortion, is that based on your religious views? If so, could you describe the religious views or beliefs that you believe to be relevant?
Logical Fallacy Beans-in order to enjoy them one must soak the beans in wingnut cynicism for about 12 hours,run them through a credulity strainer and nitpick the stuff that doesn't look like logic. Then you put said beans in a cauldron set on flames,add more cynicism, a few talking points for spiciness and wander off to attempt other derring do good deeds while the pot slowly boils away any goodness and nutrients.
Blindman-Freebird is good any time once you get past the intro where it sounds like their guitars are off key.
The only logical reason to fear logic is if you are afraid of the truth. If you desire the truth no matter what it may be, logic is your friend.
lol.
I agree that logic is our friend and disagree that it will always yield truthful answers (if indeed that's what you are implying, Mr. Jones ;-) One of the reasons some conspiracy theories are so difficult to debunk is that they are so internally logical, even though they are almost certainly false. Logic, like everything else, has limits.
http://plus.maths.org/content/goumldel-and-limits-logic
Bill,
It has limits because it can't overcome some of our own limits. But, unlike yelling emotional inconsistent bromides, it certainly gets us closer to the truth. And, when it is found, we can go no farther, we shakes hands because both must concede we can go no farther.
It's the choice between mutual arrogance or mutual humility. Have a better idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q6KzDhugDA
Nope. I have some other ideas, but I couldn't logically prove that they are better. ;-) Harmony theory for example. Take three notes. A tonic, its fifth and a major third. That sound makes most of us happy. Now drop the major third to a minor third, and it will make most of us sad. The logic of this is extremely easy to demonstrate mathematically, and to prove experimentally. But the truth of it is as mysterious in the knowing as it is in the not knowing.
I had logic-back in vocational school. Solid State logic was what it was. Everything was on or off. 1 or 0 nothing else mattered.
Point being, if the objective of the exercise is to reach an emotionally satisfying conclusion, it might be unwise to discount our emotions in the process. We are as much emotionally driven as we are rationally driven. Some would argue even more so.
A key problem with logic arises from errors in formulating a premise or two. Once you have a faulty premise logic leads to faulty conclusions.
Bill F, what about substituting a minor second for the third as in this new song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyTTX6Wlf1Y
Logically conclusions, like truth itself, are in the eye of the beholder.
You know the routine, my truth is more truther than yours.
Great track, bat. Love to see women playing bass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJJO_bLvA0
Bear,
That is exactly right. That is the point of the exercise- examine the premise against logic and expose the logical fallacies.
It also is an exercise of the mind- by definition reasonable, ala able to be reasoned. By definition, that which is emotional is not able to be reasoned, ala unreasonable.
To be a right, it must be reasonable, found through reason, so it can be defined and can be applied not only in the specific issue but in general.
If I claim to have a right based on my emotions, how can I expect another to respect that right, a right by definition not based on reason?
Love is an unreasonable emotion. ;-)
With a world composed of so much fuzzy logic, pure logic cannot exist. Emotion in my opinion ranks considerably down on the list. I disagree that we are all emotionally driven as much as logically, Bill. Though you stated rationally which I believe to be another process. I've dealt with it all my life on boards and we brought in an Emergentics test a few years back and the board was all over the place on logic vs emotion in their decision making process. Though for discussions sake, I need to learn the process of dealing with others emotions.
If the speed of light can be manipulated most likely the absolutes are only in one another's minds.
I enjoy watching women at whatever they might choose to occupy their time Bill. Are you being a little fussy today?
Have you ever tried to play an upright double bass. Les?
As you stated above, BIll. Love is an unreasonable emotion.
I've worked at guitar and piano most of my life when I would get a month here and there often years between those sessions. I'm sure the upright has difficulties I can't imagine and I know I'm not qualified to carry her water.
LOL. Me too, Les. That's why I love watching them. My forays into the land of the double bass wore me out in about half an hour. And both of these women make it look easy. :-)
I contend infatuation is emotional and Love is wholly reasonable because it is so much more than an emotion such that the emotional aspects are fleeting and shallow. I love who I do because, by reason, I know they make me better and I make the choice, by will, every day to do so.
Sorry, i've been gone from the computer was out roto-tilling the garden in shorts and bare chest: you guys?
It's an interesting topic in and of itself, to be sure.
Excerpt:
"If love and hate aren't emotions, then what is?"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/#5
New thread for this, Bill. A honeymoon is full of emotion on so many levels. The couple celebrating their 60th definitely have emotions but much more is built on trust, loyalty and more of the rational/logical process'. That is the truest of love, in my book.
Not so pretty a picture Lar. BTW, pool at 9:30 and not where all you rich old white guys go with ya motorhomes n tents.
Bill, wow she's good! Here's Les Paul's bass player, Nicki Parrott. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHjVF3srVNA
Emotions raise an interesting issue when considered in light of stoicism and/or our ability to choose how we will react to any given situation, or as some call it, "free will." Phenomenology (our basic human experiences) suggests that we can use our reason to control emotions. Doesn't this in turn indicate that emotions are not inconsistent with either choice or rational thought?
Correct me if I am wrong, but some of the comments have left an impression that Troy and Les have relatively strong religious convictions. Religion, however, seems inconsistent with reason and rational thought. Indeed, isn't that the very premise of many religious teachings, such as don't try to understand God or Jesus, just have "faith" or as some say "blind faith?"
Bear,
Good question. Pope John Paul II said: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth- in a word, to know himself- so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”
I can't speak for other religions but the Catholic Church specifically teaches that we can find God through Reason and Nature as surely we can in Scripture because He is the source of it all A such, Reason, Nature, Scripture can't can't conflict because God can't conflict with Himself and He made all.
St. Jerome once said something to the effect, "If you find two verses/passages in the Bible you think are in conflict, you don't understand what one or both of verses mean." So it is with Nature, Reason, Faith, and Scripture. They can't conflict and whatever conflict we see is because we aren't seeing something clearly.
With regard to blind faith, at least from a Catholic perspective, life is a walk of faith throughout which Jesus loves us and we are to trust Him.
Sometimes because God has not revealed everthing to us or we are blinded by our sin or impediments we put in front of our eyes, the walk of faith is sometimes in darkness. Thus the reference to "blind faith" that though we might be in darkness, we are to slog on in love and trust. Reason is a source of light and reduces the blindness.
or maybe it was Traffic. Maybe it wuz little Stevie Winwood on his own making noize. That ain't logical,is it?
Was back in the high life again a call for help from an alcoholic?
Lar, I love it when you go bare-chested with your leather Jesus sandals.
Troy, thanks for your comment. When you say "we can find God through Reason and Nature as surely we can in Scripture because He is the source of it all," this strikes me as a bit of circular reasoning. If I understand what you are saying, it seems like this:
God exists and has created everything.
Since God exists, we can use our reason to find God.
Therefore, our reason will tell us that God exists.
Do you see the problem with this logic? It seems to be the same as Example #2 given here:
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/67-circular-reasoning
"Example #2:
The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.
Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives. This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail."
Of course we can use our reason to control emotions unless mental challenge of whatever sort. We can also let our emotions control our reason and therein lies my disagreement. We are not all wired the same so yes, broad inconsistencies of emotional reaction to the same inputs can be expected. Maybe not the rule, but expected. And I might have completely missed your point.
The short take for me on faith is very much through a relationship that is built/building not on blind faith but by the results of my relationship with an unseen force I choose to call God taught by parents and religion. As with any relationship, the more I put into it the more it returns which builds faith. To say that it is reason, emotion voodoo or etc?? could probably be argued. I'll add this before Lar beats me up. I don't choose to be noted as a christian per say. christians have given Christians a bad name. I'm sure I've done my part. I do look forward to your thoughts, Bear.
I defer on the religion aspect, for me to use religion in any part of my post would more than open me for a shot across the bow here and I'll save that for a snowy day back in God's country.
Troy, here is another example:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
Les, I agree that some "christians have given Christians a bad name," just as some atheists have given atheists a bad name, and some Muslims have given Muslims a bad name, etc. I do appreciate you sharing your views on this complex and sometime confusing topic.
LOL, I would thoroughly enjoy hearing how Troy and BCB reasoned their way into falling in love, or responding with joy to their favorite color. Or started crying over a perfectly played melody. Or pulling back their hand when the nasty tempered little dog took a snap at their hand.
Not to pick on you guys, but come on, doods, seriously? :-)
All I can say is wow, adventures in bass
The Blindman
god i hate bassists that can sing, its not as if guitarists have enough to do, what w/ wahverbflangevibraphazerrepeats. thx 4 meghan, nickie! love spalding! infatuated w/frettless. Lake Street Dive has one, jeff b. has had a few, the Pariah Dogs on letterman-"Repo Man", has one of my faves. i cant paste links w/this hardware
mfi-was stevie wonder in blind faith??
Bear,
Your Bill/Jill conversation is perfect example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.
However, surely poorly communicated on my part, my faith, reason, and Scripture is not circular reasoning but reinforcing. The Church teaches that we can come to believe in God three ways.
Nature: We look upon Creation and say this must have been made by a Supreme Being (God).
Reason: We think/reason about life, purpose, science, mathematical odds, and say there must be a God.
Faith (often by reading Scripture): The Word (Bible) speaks to us in the deepest recesses of our being (Soul) and we say there must be a God.
Whether we see God in Nature, Reason, Faith, we begin our walk of Faith and during that walk, all three are in union because God and all He creates is One. No conflict. No contradiction. If we see something we think is in contradiction, there is something we aren't seeing right. So we work it out by dedicating our whole being (Body/Nature, Mind/Reason, and Soul) to find reconciliation of the conflict by grace (God working in us).
To a non-believer, I'm sure that looks like nonsense. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows it is all quite logical. Of course, whether it is proven true, we all get to find out on our death. But, as I sit here right now, I believe* it to be true with all the grace God has given me to believe it.
* Sidenote: Pope Benedict took almost 100 pages in his book "Introduction to Christianity" to explain what it means to say "I believe." The summary is:
To say "I believe this is true" doesn't mean "I think this to be true" or "I wish this to be true" but "I understand this to be true and I will stand on this understanding even unto death."
P.S. Understanding in the above context comes from combined input/experience of our Body/Nature, Mind/Reason and Soul/Faith. Deeper comprehensive knowledge. :)
Troy, it appears from your arguments that you would like to find a rational or logical basis for believing in God, but it still boils down to faith alone.
"Nature: We look upon Creation and say this must have been made by a Supreme Being (God)." Troy you must admit that this type of thinking is totally illogical. It posits a God, but doesn't answer the question - where did God come from? It seems illogical to rely on speculation about the existence of God when that merely begs the question by adding one more magical element (God) to the mystery of creation. As an aside, science seems to be making more logical strides toward explaining creation as we gain more understanding about quantum mechanics and related concepts, such as dark matter.
"Reason: We think/reason about life, purpose, science, mathematical odds, and say there must be a God." I don't follow this logic at all. It seems a bit repetitive of the Nature argument, by again simply making up a magical answer to tough questions.
"Faith (often by reading Scripture): The Word (Bible) speaks to us in the deepest recesses of our being (Soul) and we say there must be a God." This also seems totally illogical. Indeed, it strikes me as an emotional reaction to some parts of the scripture, while repressing any reaction to the more pernicious stories in scripture, of which there are many.
Mercer: "Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea, introduced legislation that would prohibit the beheading of unborn live children."
http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/politics/brown-s-petition-signer-bill-has-back-story/article_2721e421-a976-5c1b-aa70-11d4926e6590.html
If you are married, Bear, is it faith in your partner that gives you comfort in your marriage? Or is it comfort from your partner that gives you faith in him/her? Is it our invisible friends in childhood that groom us for a God? Building that relationship in various ways after? Is perception truth? Are we all right as long as we don't project that on others?
Les, I have been married to the most wonderful spouse in the world for 47 years. My love for my spouse in unconditional and requires no faith whatsoever.
I recall no invisible friends as a child. My childhood friends were visible human beings.
I am not sure I understand your other questions. You seem to be asking about my religious views? After reaching the age of reason and leaving my childhood church, I spent most of my life as an agnostic and decided that it did not matter to me whether a God existed. I had no fear of being punished by a God, nor any particular belief that a God would reward me or intervene in any human activities.
Later in life I became more interested in theology and began studying the complete Bible and other holy books, such as the Koran, the Book of Morman, and assorted religious writings. These studies opened my eyes further and changed me from an agnostic to an atheist.
I now struggle to avoid becoming an antitheist, especially in light of news stories about atrocities committed in the name of religion by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I am uncomfortable with antitheism, however, because of the benefits many people seem to enjoy from their religious views, and the good that many people do for others in the name of their religion. I have no idea what I will think in the future, but I like to think that I can keep an open mind and change views when new information comes to me.
Bear,
In an attempt to give you a cursory overview of the three different paths to faith. I was trying to give a short summation of what is usually discussed in complete books not present them in a way for argument.
For instance, the Nature point (look a the expanse of Nature and say "there must be a God" doesn't prove anything to anyone (not even the person who said it) and nor did I assert it did. But, it creates the opening for further investigation.
Further, I'm not a theologian or Christian apologist. I only answer questions qualified by they are my views as I understand them. If it goes into deep detail, I think it best for both parties to just refer to a book that will say it better than me.
Troy, thanks for clarifying. As indicated in an email to you, I do not intend to speak for you, nor assert what you mean in your comments and to the extent I have done so, I apologize.
The three points you set out are points that I have discussed with people much smarter than myself (such as my PhD scientist brother-in-law genius) who argued for the existence of a God. I shared with you the problems I saw with those arguments, but did not intend to question your personal views. And from your many comments you seem to be more of a theologian than many others that have discussed these matters with me. I respect your views and feel I benefit from reading them. Thanks.
Bear,
No problem. The email and this are a little separate as others are reading this, including Christians who might expect me to follow through on defending my poor explanation above.
Our private dialogue is wholly separate as it is just us and we can exchange things differently. We are good.
I'm a bit frazzled with work so I'm a bit curt right now. The third party in our dialogue must have learned to see when curt is curt and being an a-hole is being an a-hole cause he gets it right everytime. But sometimes he asks.
I have no doubt of the quality person you are from your writing and I'm sure that has a great deal to do with the marriage as well as mirroring the qualities of your wife for that marriage to be that successful, bear. You have me by five years.
Therein lies my definition of faith. Unconditional love like yours and mine is also reactionary, obviously not every women could have given us that. I don't have to wonder if my wife will be there waiting for me and I don't have to wonder if my prayers will help bring me peace. Faith is that picture for me. I believe it to be a continuously moving ever evolving picture. As with my dear wife, I'm sure I've given her many days of serious reflection and bless her heart, I'm guessing her picture varies significantly from mine.
I believe we try to put God or whomever, whatever we believe in a box so we can understand, control or define as I'm possibly doing with the word faith.
I think about a song, They'll know we are Christians by our love, yea right. Odd, how it could be so simple.
rep. latterelle-did this come from bar talk after watching American sniper?