Forum Thread

Women's marches 2018

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 36 Prev 1 2 3 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, what the hell is going on? This guy should have been banned from the site; why did that not happen yet. We don't need GOP trolls. Look at what they've done to this country. You can't change them anyway they are "brain dead".

    Dutch,

    I am not a "GOP troll." I am, however, a conservative as shown by the profile indicators I was invited to select when I first joined the group. Those indicators included options for various strengths of conservatism, so I assumed conservative contributors—even staunchly conservative ones—were permitted to participate.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Lucas -- Yes many of my examples focus on Trump, but it is the Republican party that is his enablers. They are very tribal, much more so than Democrats. I also agree that most voters are one-issue voters and lack meaningful insight and knowledge not only of other issues but how government functions in general. For many on both the right and left, they seem to think that that the president has more unilateral power than he actually has.

    We can jump all over the place on those conversations, but I posted an article and video by a catholic nun, Sister Joan Chittister, on what it really means to be pro-life. Now if you believe that there are no degrees on being pro-life (similar to your view on racism...either a racist by the classic definition or not) then where do you draw the line on being pro-life? Does life begin at conception as many Christians believe? Mitt Romney, for example, vetoed a morning after pill bill when he was governor of Massachusetts. Do you agree that life begins at conception and that the morning after pill should be made unlawful (a kind of abortion) by the federal and state governments?

    That's just a start. We can get into the other aspects of pro-life later but I'll just focus on one point at a time.

    Reference: Christianity Today: Mass. Gov. Romney Vetoes Morning-After Pill Bill

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Lucas; may be you did not experience WWII, I did. I know and have seen what Nazi-ism is all about. My parents got killed by them; They were not Jewish but worked in the "underground" movement. I lived and traveled and worked all over the world in aviation and met all kinds of people. Furthermore lived in Canada, France, the Netherlands and now the US on "invitation" of the US because of my skills.

    Thus I observed what the GOP is all about; sorry but it is an "conservative" movement which does not fit modern times. Let alone being broad minded. Right now it leans very much in the direction of "isolation" of the world, as well "island" mentality. Also our leader is an child of 7 years old, who does not read, does not know anything about the world let alone about "governing"; Due to our antiquated corrupted election system as well non -vetting of a President who still runs his own business, then you get an "mafia" figure who gets influenced by a Nazi "Miller" type as well an "yes Sir" assholes like Kelly and Pence. If this is the picture of the GOP ruling, then please bring the barf bucket. Thus I'm not fond of "GOP" voters who got us this mess, let alone their love for the NRA and indoctrinated "evangelicals".

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt,

    Could expand on what you mean when you say Republicans are more tribal than Democrats? I’m interested in hearing that argument.

    As for the topic of when life begins, I think the basic question makes no room for equivocation in the way racism does. Racism is a term that received its fullest development in mid-twentieth century, but only because Nazi Germany incorporated the idea of race superiority so thoroughly into the foundation of its regime. The scattered origins of race superiority can be found in the nineteenth century, but the term “racism” had not yet been invented nor did any such thing exist as a thoroughgoing ideology. I suppose the various ways in which race superiority was expressed during that century could plausibly give us competing understandings of the nature of that sentiment, but I take the Nazi-borne version to be definitive.

    Re: When Life Begins

    In any event, to the extent that the question of life is biological and not linguistic in nature, I think it is indisputable that life begins at conception. The union of sperm and egg is a unique symbiotic relationship that has one and only one end: the creation of a human being. The successful fertilization of the egg results in the immediate sharing of the mother and father’s DNA, which is the complete set of building blocks for producing that particular child and not some other child or some other thing. It is not only uniquely human but a unique individual as well. Moreover, the zygotic stage is not a dormant stage at which additional human action is required to serve as a catalyst. The process is officially begun, and, barring spontaneous accidents of nature, only human intervention can stop it.

    Some people deliberately employ clinical vocabulary—zygote, embryo, fetus—to frame what millions of ordinary people call “babies” in morally neutral terms for the simple purpose of making their destruction less problematic for the conscience. (Some go even further in these efforts to denigrate humans at the neonatal stage of life. I know a woman in Oregon who refers to them as “parasites” and “tumors.”) But in reality, this clinical vocabulary was originally intended as nothing more than a scheme of categorization for labeling the different stages of human development. A fetus is no more non-human than an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, or an elderly person.

    Yet those with political motivations will often say that the prenatal terminology designates a collective stage of development during which the baby is only human in potentia. In other words, the child is not truly human, or even fully alive, because its survival depends on a parasitical relationship with an actual human being capable of supplying it with essential resources. This of course raises a number of questions, not least of which is why humans in potentia exist only in the prenatal stages of life. Infants, toddlers, invalids, and the very old also depend on others to keep them alive; yet we hesitate to classify these creatures as disposable bloodsuckers. Lastly, if a fetus is in fact nothing more than a nonliving, non-human cluster of cells, I wonder if those who support abortion would find anything morally unsettling in watching a physician dispose of a fetus by holding it aloft while shouting, “Hey, Mom and Dad. Watch this!” before tearing off its head and hook-shooting it into the nearest waste bin. Would any negative reaction we experience be limited either to our aversion to unprofessionalism or to the nausea we would feel had the fetus been merely a blood-soaked appendix? According to the pro-abortionists, our feelings should not go beyond this. The doctor’s use of the names “Mom” and “Dad” are simply bad labeling; no human being is the parent of a nonliving, non-human thing. And while the doctor’s bizarre actions may be off-putting for their unprofessionalism, he certainly could not be accused of acting inhumanely, but at worst unsanitarily.

    Still… I wonder. I know a couple women who have had abortions and I know several women who have had miscarriages, and all of them were deeply and adversely affected by the experience of loss. There are some who argue that these feelings are merely socially constructed irrationalities that need to be trained out of women, to make them confident in the “ownership” of their bodies over which the fetus has no more claim than a hangnail. But I do not buy that for a minute. If anything has been socially imposed on women, it is the callousness with which they are encouraged to treat the child within them. Unless, of course, you happen to want the damn thing, in which case you are free to fantasize to your heart’s desire about how it is a “baby” and not a loathsome zombie clinging to your insides.

    Re: Pro-Life

    Regarding Sister Chittister’s discussion of what it means to be “pro-life,” I disagree with her that being pro-life means seeking to eliminate hardship. Not only is hardship one of the defining features of human life as such, but I agree with Machiavelli, Rousseau, and others who insist that the experience of hardship is not only not a net negative but is actually desirable for creating a foundation on which virtuous traits—industry, courage, fortitude—can arise. Indeed, Machiavelli went so far as to say that any founder of a political community, whose settlement rests on fertile soil, must consider instituting laws that will impose hardships on his citizens in order to prevent them from becoming soft and idle. I don't know that I would go so far as to legislate hardships into existence, but I do agree that no injustice necessarily occurs simply because such hardships exist.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch,

    I think you would be on firmer ground if you argued about the similarities between Nazism and certain elements of the alt-right (e.g., white nationalists, identitarians, etc.) rather than American conservatism generally—including the conservatism of the twenty-first century. If you make your condemnation with too broad a brush, you will end up creating a circumscribed space in which only likeminded people are allowed to participate. And this is far closer to fascism than mere conservatism.

    I welcome all criticisms of my opinions, but the Hitler references indiscriminately bandied about in the past two years are becoming very tiresome.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Lucas -- Thanks for sharing your views on life and abortion. I better understand you now on that topic. I have encountered others in Colorado who share your views. It's why Personhood USA has been on the ballot here three years in a row, but getting voted down by Coloradoans each time. Your fellow Georgians seem to be more sympathetic to personhood, although that term also has an elusive meaning depending on who you talk to.

    In Colorado, Personhood USA tried different means to get voters to approve it. However, we saw through those attempts and were able to educate the public on what Personhood was up to. Basically giving legal status to a fertilized embryo had the implications of committing murder for any women who sought to abort her fertilized egg, even if that fertilized egg was terminated with something like the morning after pill...or other procedures later into the pregnancy. Coloradoans didn't like that...we defeated it by educating voters and also using fear as a tactic, one of the Republican tactics they are so good at.

    A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows that 70 percent of Americans support Roe v Wade. Only 26 percent disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling. So you have an uphill climb to get it overturned and even a bigger hill to climb if you want full Personhood as law. That certainly is a possibility if Trump can put another Gorsuch type on the Supreme Court, and then get SCOTUS to effectively "legislate from the bench" a legal case that is challenged in the higher courts.

    In any case, the Women's marchers would just love another woman's issue to help mobilize them. Attacking Roe v Wade will do just that.

    I do not want to demonize you or anyone else who shares your beliefs on when life begins. I respect your views. But I think more Americans disagree with you, and for those many that might agree, I don't think they would want to go backwards to the days of back alley abortions. We have moved on from those days.

    One of the ways to lesson abortions is to make contraceptives more readily available to sexually active people. Colorado has offered "free birth control for five years, leading to a 40 percent drop in unintended pregnancy, a 42 percent drop in abortions, and millions of dollars in healthcare savings". I'm proud of my state in that regard.

    I'll comment on the other issues in another post. This one is long enough.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lucas Wrote:

    Dutch,

    I think you would be on firmer ground if you argued about the similarities between Nazism and certain elements of the alt-right (e.g., white nationalists, identitarians, etc.) rather than American conservatism generally—including the conservatism of the twenty-first century. If you make your condemnation with too broad a brush, you will end up creating a circumscribed space in which only likeminded people are allowed to participate. And this is far closer to fascism than mere conservatism.

    I welcome all criticisms of my opinions, but the Hitler references indiscriminately bandied about in the past two years are becoming very tiresome.

    I guess you still live in 1920 as well 1800 when the Constitution allowed guns all over the place and we stick to it. I guess you never lived in any country which had healthcare for everyone, did not start wars all over the place, have strict gun laws, elect leaders without billions of bribery, gives free education, has an clean environment, a multi party government so you don't get a dictatorship like the GOP now and our "mental" leader wants, decent wages and job protection, not huge army's which cost trillions here and are stationed all over the world because we want to dictate others while we can't even run our own country without corruption on all levels.etc. etc. Should I go on and on? Yes the US is an arrogant "island" in this big world, with a "mental child" as leader. But yeah all empires come and go. L'histoire ce repette.

    It is now our turn to be a "has been".

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    But I think more Americans disagree with you…

    Schmidt,

    It depends on the aspect of abortion being discussed. Many pro-abortion advocates frame the procedure as one that is entirely divorced from all moral considerations. After all, if children in the womb are not human beings, then destroying them—even en masse—is no more morally problematic than carving out cancerous cells. It is simply a nonissue. However, the data we receive from survey respondents reveal that many Americans experience a kind of moral ambivalence about abortion. They do not want to overturn Roe, but they are willing to institute laws that will steer women away from having abortions (e.g., mandating the viewing of ultrasound images, notifying husbands, and having doctors discuss alternatives to abortion with patients). Moreover, their reasons for allowing abortions to take place are unequivocally rooted to moral dilemmas, such as protecting the life of the mother or preventing the future suffering an infant with a terrible disease or disorder.

    As such, they disagree with the argument that it is morally unproblematic to abort children simply on a whim—a sentiment that clearly rejects the opinion that children at the embryonic and fetal stages of development have zero claim to the considerations of personhood. This is evident in the results showing that respondents do not think a woman should have an abortion simply because she does not want the child, even if she is only in her first trimester of pregnancy. Even the zygotic stage appears to be one at which respondents’ moral concerns remained active, with there being a virtual tie over the question of whether to permit females of any age from having access to emergency contraceptive pills.

    Again, I want to stress that my position is not that there is a groundswell of support for the specific goals of an organization like Personhood USA; however, neither is there a groundswell of support for the Planned Parenthood et al. position that children in the prenatal stages of development are utterly devoid of moral status. This is crucial to understanding the debate over abortion.

    Below are links to a number of survey responses collected by Gallup. Red highlights indicate a conservative preference; blue highlights indicate a liberal perspective.

    Survey Results 1

    Survey Results 2

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To write all this crap about abortion is a waste of time. It is purely created by evangelical nut heads who want to meddle in the personal lives of women. Nowhere in any "bible" is says you can't have an abortion if you are raped or the fetus is so deformed that it will only suffer if kept alive and will become an horror story for the mother and family with huge cost as well. Women should themselves decide what they do with their body (they live in it); not churches or the government should have any say in that. Unwanted kids likely will be abused or will become mentally disturbed. Look at those idiots in CA with 13 kids on chains and no food or shower. Therefore "Planned Parenthood" does the right thing by preventing abuses and helping women with "birth" decisions. Any other "civil" country in the world allows abortion. Except the US who wants those kids for "cannon fodder" once they grow up.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I personally hope 96% chose to never have an abortion but 100% always have the freedom to chose what is best for themselves. Fools who have convinced others that they know what's best are not correct. It is a personal choice for each individual.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I guess you still live in 1920 as well 1800 when the Constitution allowed guns all over the place and we stick to it. I guess you never lived in any country which had healthcare for everyone, did not start wars all over the place, have strict gun laws, elect leaders without billions of bribery, gives free education, has an clean environment, a multi party government so you don't get a dictatorship like the GOP now and our "mental" leader wants, decent wages and job protection, not huge army's which cost trillions here and are stationed all over the world because we want to dictate others while we can't even run our own country without corruption on all levels.etc. etc. Should I go on and on? Yes the US is an arrogant "island" in this big world, with a "mental child" as leader. But yeah all empires come and go. L'histoire ce repette.
    It is now our turn to be a "has been".

    Dutch,

    It is still not clear to me how any of the things you listed support the argument that today’s American conservatives are anything like Germany’s Nazis.

    At any rate, if we take small-government conservatives as the representative group of conservatism generally—omitting fringe elements like white nationalists and RINOs—they are characterized primarily by their support of the federal principle: i.e., the distinctive American principle which divides governing power among the states in order to mitigate the adverse effects of consolidation in a central location. This is also known as the Madisonian solution, and its very purpose was to prevent tyranny from acquiring nationwide power.

    If any modern development is responsible for America’s tenuous position today, i.e., responsible for its standing on the brink of authoritarianism, it is the influence of left-wing progressivism, whose progenitor, Woodrow Wilson, declared that fidelity to the U.S. Constitution was akin to “political witchcraft” and who set out to concentrate political authority in the executive branch on the grounds that the checks-and-balances system built into our bicameral legislature resulted in unnecessary impediments to the exercise of raw state power. Like day into night, this led to the explosive growth of the national civilian bureaucracy—a legion of over two million unelected, unaccountable, and intractable agents who have the power to impose tens of thousands of laws (“regulations”) on the entire nation.

    It is today’s so-called “liberals” who heartily embrace the growth of the faceless bureaucratic state along with its ever-multiplying reams of regulations and red-tape apparatuses.

    In the words of one observer: You don’t need a president for life when you have a bureaucracy for life.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: It is a personal choice for each individual.

    TJ,

    This is the standard libertarian position on most matters and I think most Americans are sympathetic to it; however, the reason it is not as widely popular with regard to abortion is because many Americans are conflicted about the moral status of unborn children. This is no small matter, because if unborn children possess some semblance of personhood, then abortion becomes so far from being morally neutral that it verges on being criminally immoral. The magnitude of the error would be similar to adopting Stephen Douglas' popular sovereignty, which, in effect, permitted the question of slavery to be decided on the basis of personal taste.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lucas Wrote:

    I guess you still live in 1920 as well 1800 when the Constitution allowed guns all over the place and we stick to it. I guess you never lived in any country which had healthcare for everyone, did not start wars all over the place, have strict gun laws, elect leaders without billions of bribery, gives free education, has an clean environment, a multi party government so you don't get a dictatorship like the GOP now and our "mental" leader wants, decent wages and job protection, not huge army's which cost trillions here and are stationed all over the world because we want to dictate others while we can't even run our own country without corruption on all levels.etc. etc. Should I go on and on? Yes the US is an arrogant "island" in this big world, with a "mental child" as leader. But yeah all empires come and go. L'histoire ce repette.
    It is now our turn to be a "has been".

    Dutch,

    It is still not clear to me how any of the things you listed support the argument that today’s American conservatives are anything like Germany’s Nazis.

    At any rate, if we take small-government conservatives as the representative group of conservatism generally—omitting fringe elements like white nationalists and RINOs—they are characterized primarily by their support of the federal principle: i.e., the distinctive American principle which divides governing power among the states in order to mitigate the adverse effects of consolidation in a central location. This is also known as the Madisonian solution, and its very purpose was to prevent tyranny from acquiring nationwide power.

    If any modern development is responsible for America’s tenuous position today, i.e., responsible for its standing on the brink of authoritarianism, it is the influence of left-wing progressivism, whose progenitor, Woodrow Wilson, declared that fidelity to the U.S. Constitution was akin to “political witchcraft” and who set out to concentrate political authority in the executive branch on the grounds that the checks-and-balances system built into our bicameral legislature resulted in unnecessary impediments to the exercise of raw state power. Like day into night, this led to the explosive growth of the national civilian bureaucracy—a legion of over two million unelected, unaccountable, and intractable agents who have the power to impose tens of thousands of laws (“regulations”) on the entire nation.

    It is today’s so-called “liberals” who heartily embrace the growth of the faceless bureaucratic state along with its ever-multiplying reams of regulations and red-tape apparatuses.

    In the words of one observer: You don’t need a president for life when you have a bureaucracy for life.

    As usual with Republicans, they change the subject; read my thread again. It shows how backwards this country is in all aspects as well its huge corruption everywhere, especially in politics. Trillions spent on wars; invading countries who never have attacked us; billions spent on elections with bribery of the "rich" . Refusal to care for the poor, or "educate" this country, let alone the "infrastructure" which in shambles ( no TGV trains; they tried one which could not even make a turn at 80 miles/hr; laughable) An government structure due to the antique "electoral college" system in which the "stupid" States like Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Carolina have now the prime positions in the government. The total refusal to provide decent healthcare for everyone at reasonable cost; but due to the lobby system here impossible. Our drugs out of Europe cost half of that here. As long as this country stays as corrupt as any S. American country with no decent modern laws or government structure adapted to 2018, but instead spending billions on lawyers defending/explaining what the people in 1776 were thinking with their flintlocks in their hand while dictating the slaves with their whip.

    Yes all of this creates a country ripe for Nazi-ism, with a "leader" who barely went to school (he knows it all) and is a member of the mob as well having a daddy who was a member of the KKK. Yes and the GOP closes their eyes for all of this and sucks up to this criminal. All of them bravely "pray" and think prayers will travel to outer space to an invisible ghost on Mars and all their wishes will be granted. Keep on "dreaming" America; this country is becoming a "third world country" where corruption and lies run the show.

    Thus Lucas be proud of your GOP they sure make this country "great again" Are you kidding? Sorry I have to run to get a flight out, so my girlfriend can have an abortion in Mexico, ha ha.

    By the way do you know what the "conservative" means? It means you don't want to improve things; "regulations" are there not for nothing, just pollute and corrupt all you can is preferred; stick to the old worn out shoes, so much more comfortable.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lucas Wrote:

    Schmidt,

    Could expand on what you mean when you say Republicans are more tribal than Democrats? I’m interested in hearing that argument.

    This is more of an observation. Just contrast the way Republicans are circling the wagons around Trump as Mueller closes in on his role in Russian collusion, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. It's like "we got your back, Mr. President." I would hope that some of those enablers will eventually be charged with lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice themselves. What the hell is Devin Nunes up to? What a suck-up.

    On the other hand, Democrats wasted no time in purging Al Franken from their ranks. Any allegations of sexual misconduct now have zero tolerance in Democratic Party ranks, but in the Republican Party, especially amongst the Evangelicals who so revere Trump, it's like "god has forgiven him". Ditto for Roy Moore.

    Many progressives are conducting purity tests of elected Dems promising to "primary" them because they don't meet 100 percent of their criteria for their idea of the ideal candidate...in other words, they want no compromising ideologues as their elected representatives.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, you should add as well that they want to "purge" the FBI as well other departments of non GOP registered people; thus people who don't think as FOX news or Miller etc. That was the "secret society" hoopla affair.