Be careful - you can get shot/killed anywhere/anytime

[scgal]

Jun 20, 2023 11:29:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 7:10:04 GMT -5 scgal said:

In the mere belief that you think I'm wrong is where it starts. I want to say some laws are made to keep people safe (speed limits, seat belts, trespassing etc). Liberals many on this board if not all want to say you do you, I do me. That is fine except for abortion the seperation comes into the baby. Liberal want to use the word clump of cells (makes it easier for their conscience). 

Liberals think I'm wrong and I think they are wrong so who's right? I say a fetus is a baby and should not be terminated as in the use for birth control. Liberals say its ok who's right who's wrong. There is going to be opposin sides.

You say conservatives rule by belief but it is in the "belief" of what the logic, truth, and right or rights as you put them is. I can also say liberals don't care about the rights of others who believe differently. 

No conservative is denying the rights of a woman in the abortion debate they are giving a right to the baby. 

And you are perfectly fine in thinking that.  Liberals will forever grant you the right to think whatever you want as long as you do not harm another person by acting on it.  It is still only a personal belief though.  And NOBODY'S personal belief can ever by itself be sufficient as a basis for law in a free society.

Further, truth and logic are not malleable.  They do not depend on one's interpretation.  Conservatives do not look at what is actual truth.  They decide what they want "truth" to be and then use that to justify what they want to believe.  The fact that they are wrong about what the truth in fact is doesn't dissuade them at all.

Finally, you are again insisting here:
"No conservative is denying the rights of a woman in the abortion debate they are giving a right to the baby."

You are wrong on both counts.  You are absolutely denying the rights of the woman.  That would be true even if it were a fact that a fetus was a baby.  Competing rights come up in many situations all the time, and just as many legitimate arguments can be made about which competing right is more important.  Liberals may argue about which right is more important, but they do not ever deny that people are allowed to think for themselves.  It is almost certainly sloppy language use on your part, but what you are basically arguing here is that it is not a woman's right to have ANY say about her body, regardless if she is considering abortion or not.  But to get back on point, it is not a fact that a fetus is a baby.  It is your belief, and again you are fine holding that belief...for yourself.  It is not a fact.  It cannot be proven.  It can likely never be proven.  Given that uncertainty, it cannot be logically argued that the denial of rights to an existing person can be justified on that basis.  You seek to exert power over another person, simply because you believe what you believe, and think that your belief justifies the use of such power with no other basis than that.  No liberal will ever accept such a proposition.  Nor should they.      

Can it be proven it is not a baby? It is forming into a baby. Many will use the word viability that is not the point the point is it is a fetus growing into a baby and should be protected until is cannot develop (die) or is killing the mother. You are correct that is my belief but you cannot prove it is not a baby either. You say i'm wrong for my belief why am I wrong and you are right? I will still sign any petition for an abortion ban. You have the right to sign any petition for an abortion. 

[scgal]

Jun 19, 2023 16:21:19 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 19, 2023 16:11:06 GMT -5 scgal said:

you are doing the exact same thing. Its funny how liberals point out something they are guilty of

I'm sorry, who is forcing YOU to have an abortion? if you are against them, don't have one. 

No one I'm simply pointing the difference is liberal is forcing the issue that the fetus is not a baby and shouldn't have any rights. I say different 

[hurley1980]

The idea that all these women out there are using abortion as birth control is soooo ridiculous!  An abortion is extremely hard to get in some states, they are painful both physically and mentally, and they are expensive. In the states where abortion is more accessible, so is birth control.  In the states where abortion is limited (before the overturn or Roe), why would you rely on it as a form of BC, when it is nearly impossible to get one?  This argument that women are just getting abortions right and left as a form of BC is just stupid!

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 11:49:50 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:29:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And you are perfectly fine in thinking that.  Liberals will forever grant you the right to think whatever you want as long as you do not harm another person by acting on it.  It is still only a personal belief though.  And NOBODY'S personal belief can ever by itself be sufficient as a basis for law in a free society.

Further, truth and logic are not malleable.  They do not depend on one's interpretation.  Conservatives do not look at what is actual truth.  They decide what they want "truth" to be and then use that to justify what they want to believe.  The fact that they are wrong about what the truth in fact is doesn't dissuade them at all.

Finally, you are again insisting here:
"No conservative is denying the rights of a woman in the abortion debate they are giving a right to the baby."

You are wrong on both counts.  You are absolutely denying the rights of the woman.  That would be true even if it were a fact that a fetus was a baby.  Competing rights come up in many situations all the time, and just as many legitimate arguments can be made about which competing right is more important.  Liberals may argue about which right is more important, but they do not ever deny that people are allowed to think for themselves.  It is almost certainly sloppy language use on your part, but what you are basically arguing here is that it is not a woman's right to have ANY say about her body, regardless if she is considering abortion or not.  But to get back on point, it is not a fact that a fetus is a baby.  It is your belief, and again you are fine holding that belief...for yourself.  It is not a fact.  It cannot be proven.  It can likely never be proven.  Given that uncertainty, it cannot be logically argued that the denial of rights to an existing person can be justified on that basis.  You seek to exert power over another person, simply because you believe what you believe, and think that your belief justifies the use of such power with no other basis than that.  No liberal will ever accept such a proposition.  Nor should they.      

Can it be proven it is not a baby? It is forming into a baby. Many will use the word viability that is not the point the point is it is a fetus growing into a baby and should be protected until is cannot develop (die) or is killing the mother. You are correct that is my belief but you cannot prove it is not a baby either. You say i'm wrong for my belief why am I wrong and you are right? I will still sign any petition for an abortion ban. You have the right to sign any petition for an abortion. 

Exactly, which is why the presumption of law MUST be on the side of the actual, undeniably living person.  I do not make a claim either way on the issue, so it is not a question of me being "right."  My claim is simply that one cannot prevent another from making a personal choice simply because you do not agree with it.  Any denial of someone else's right to choose must be based on more than that.  You don't have it here.   

[scgal]

Jun 20, 2023 11:56:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:49:50 GMT -5 scgal said:

Can it be proven it is not a baby? It is forming into a baby. Many will use the word viability that is not the point the point is it is a fetus growing into a baby and should be protected until is cannot develop (die) or is killing the mother. You are correct that is my belief but you cannot prove it is not a baby either. You say i'm wrong for my belief why am I wrong and you are right? I will still sign any petition for an abortion ban. You have the right to sign any petition for an abortion. 

Exactly, which is why the presumption of law MUST be on the side of the actual, undeniably living person.  I do not make a claim either way on the issue, so it is not a question of me being "right."  My claim is simply that one cannot prevent another from making a personal choice simply because you do not agree with it.  Any denial of someone else's right to choose must be based on more than that.  You don't have it here.   

Why? It is done all the time. I know several people who don't think they should wear a seatbelt, ingnore speed limits smoke in public areas, walk around nude, they all think these should be a personal choice yet there are laws and rules. What makes abortion any different? 

[daisylu]

Jun 20, 2023 11:52:39 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 19, 2023 16:21:19 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I'm sorry, who is forcing YOU to have an abortion? if you are against them, don't have one. 

No one I'm simply pointing the difference is liberal is forcing the issue that the fetus is not a baby and shouldn't have any rights. I say different 

YOU say different? WTF bearing should that have on me making my own decisions about my body? 

Until now I have been on the fence about gun laws, because I live in a state that has decent laws and we use guns responsibly in my home. You have inspired to me do everything I can to repeal the second amendment. So thank you for lighting a fire in my soul.

[billisonboard]

Jun 20, 2023 12:09:57 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:56:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Exactly, which is why the presumption of law MUST be on the side of the actual, undeniably living person.  I do not make a claim either way on the issue, so it is not a question of me being "right."  My claim is simply that one cannot prevent another from making a personal choice simply because you do not agree with it.  Any denial of someone else's right to choose must be based on more than that.  You don't have it here.   

Why? It is done all the time. I know several people who don't think they should wear a seatbelt, ingnore speed limits smoke in public areas, walk around nude, they all think these should be a personal choice yet there are laws and rules. What makes abortion any different? 

This ignores the word "simply because". Seatbelts are required to save taxpayers the proven expense of carrying for brain damaged crash survivors. Speed limits can be demonstrated to provide other drivers and pedestrians a safer environment. Second hand smoke is a proven health hazard for those exposed. Okay, no nudity I can't defend.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 20, 2023 12:09:57 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:56:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Exactly, which is why the presumption of law MUST be on the side of the actual, undeniably living person.  I do not make a claim either way on the issue, so it is not a question of me being "right."  My claim is simply that one cannot prevent another from making a personal choice simply because you do not agree with it.  Any denial of someone else's right to choose must be based on more than that.  You don't have it here.   

Why? It is done all the time. I know several people who don't think they should wear a seatbelt, ingnore speed limits smoke in public areas, walk around nude, they all think these should be a personal choice yet there are laws and rules. What makes abortion any different? 

Seat belt laws save lives of actual humans. If that was all there was, a libertarian argument would be adequate. However, there are societal costs to accidents. Injured people wind up in the hospital, many times needing expensive medical care. We all pay for that. So, someone not wearing a seatbelt costs me money. If they are uninsured, someone, usually the government, meaning the taxpayer pays. I thought conservatives didn’t like to pay taxes for other people.

Now, how does someone having an abortion affect you? Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer, since you don’t like answering these sort of questions

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 12:29:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:09:57 GMT -5 scgal said:

Why? It is done all the time. I know several people who don't think they should wear a seatbelt, ingnore speed limits smoke in public areas, walk around nude, they all think these should be a personal choice yet there are laws and rules. What makes abortion any different? 

This ignores the word "simply because". Seatbelts are required to save taxpayers the proven expense of carrying for brain damaged crash survivors. Speed limits can be demonstrated to provide other drivers and pedestrians a safer environment. Second hand smoke is a proven health hazard for those exposed. Okay, no nudity I can't defend.

Correct.  There is an argument to be made of either public safety, public interest, or public decency.  None are simply because someone else doesn't agree with it.

For the record, I am opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws.  It is a legitimate function of government to protect others from my actions.  It is not a legitimate function of government to protect me from myself.  The public interest could be served by not forcing either taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for the care of someone injured while not wearing a seatbelt.  I go along with the seat-belt law because it is not enough of an imposition on me to fight it.  I think speed limits are generally too low, but they are required because way too many people are either stupid or bad drivers, or stupid and careless pedestrians.  Those bad drivers do impose a risk on others so the limits are justified on that basis.  "No-smoking" areas are completely justified because second-hand smoke is an undeniable health risk for others, and one should not be able to put unconsenting others at risk.  Walking around nude in public does impose on others, though there should absolutely be areas where it is acceptable.  Again, though, there are legitimate reasons why these limitations are in effect. 

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 11:52:39 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 19, 2023 16:21:19 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I'm sorry, who is forcing YOU to have an abortion? if you are against them, don't have one. 

No one I'm simply pointing the difference is liberal is forcing the issue that the fetus is not a baby and shouldn't have any rights. I say different 

Again, no.  Nobody is saying that.  We are saying that the woman DOES have rights, and that those rights cannot be superseded by anything as vague as someone else's belief.

[billisonboard]

pulmonarymd, glad you liked my post. Thought I did a good job of addressing issue of choice raised without needing to address the issue of what another member of our community does or doesn't do. Being a proponent of choice, I don't get hung up on pushing others to do what I want them to do.

[billisonboard]

Jun 20, 2023 12:45:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:29:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

This ignores the word "simply because". Seatbelts are required to save taxpayers the proven expense of carrying for brain damaged crash survivors. Speed limits can be demonstrated to provide other drivers and pedestrians a safer environment. Second hand smoke is a proven health hazard for those exposed. Okay, no nudity I can't defend.

Correct.  There is an argument to be made of either public safety, public interest, or public decency.  None are simply because someone else doesn't agree with it.

For the record, I am opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws.  It is a legitimate function of government to protect others from my actions.  It is not a legitimate function of government to protect me from myself.  The public interest could be served by not forcing either taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for the care of someone injured while not wearing a seatbelt.  I go along with the seat-belt law because it is not enough of an imposition on me to fight it.  I think speed limits are generally too low, but they are required because way too many people are either stupid or bad drivers, or stupid and careless pedestrians.  Those bad drivers do impose a risk on others so the limits are justified on that basis.  "No-smoking" areas are completely justified because second-hand smoke is an undeniable health risk for others, and one should not be able to put unconsenting others at risk.  Walking around nude in public does impose on others, though there should absolutely be areas where it is acceptable.  Again, though, there are legitimate reasons why these limitations are in effect. 

re the bolded: That sounds good until one gets into the details. Do paramedics require a person found at a crash site who appears to have not been wearing a seatbelt to provide a credit card before treatment begins? Do hospitals leave them on the curb? Mortgage companies send them into the street?

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 13:02:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:45:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Correct.  There is an argument to be made of either public safety, public interest, or public decency.  None are simply because someone else doesn't agree with it.

For the record, I am opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws.  It is a legitimate function of government to protect others from my actions.  It is not a legitimate function of government to protect me from myself.  The public interest could be served by not forcing either taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for the care of someone injured while not wearing a seatbelt.  I go along with the seat-belt law because it is not enough of an imposition on me to fight it.  I think speed limits are generally too low, but they are required because way too many people are either stupid or bad drivers, or stupid and careless pedestrians.  Those bad drivers do impose a risk on others so the limits are justified on that basis.  "No-smoking" areas are completely justified because second-hand smoke is an undeniable health risk for others, and one should not be able to put unconsenting others at risk.  Walking around nude in public does impose on others, though there should absolutely be areas where it is acceptable.  Again, though, there are legitimate reasons why these limitations are in effect. 

re the bolded: That sounds good until one gets into the details. Do paramedics require a person found at a crash site who appears to have not been wearing a seatbelt to provide a credit card before treatment begins? Do hospitals leave them on the curb? Mortgage companies send them into the street?

Would it not be the same "assumption of risk" that we apply elsewhere?  If someone needs to be rescued on a mountain, they may face a large bill for the rescue.  Many won't, either because the state or the Park Service thinks it an appropriate use of money, or because the rescuers are volunteers, but many others will have to pay.  And they should.  Taxpayers should not be burdened paying for someone's else's ignorance or unpreparedness.

I can easily see where a state would say that emergency care at an accident site is payable, but more extensive or long-term care is not and would fall on the injured party. 

[daisylu]

I am going say that I appreciate chiver78 liking things and being a good mod,

[billisonboard]

Jun 20, 2023 13:21:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 13:02:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

re the bolded: That sounds good until one gets into the details. Do paramedics require a person found at a crash site who appears to have not been wearing a seatbelt to provide a credit card before treatment begins? Do hospitals leave them on the curb? Mortgage companies send them into the street?

Would it not be the same "assumption of risk" that we apply elsewhere?  If someone needs to be rescued on a mountain, they may face a large bill for the rescue.  Many won't, either because the state or the Park Service thinks it an appropriate use of money, or because the rescuers are volunteers, but many others will have to pay.  And they should.  Taxpayers should not be burdened paying for someone's else's ignorance or unpreparedness.

I can easily see where a state would say that emergency care at an accident site is payable, but more extensive or long-term care is not and would fall on the injured party. 

NOTE: there just so happens to be a discussion of the rescue costs on this thread here

I also can easily see and support emergency care being covered. Also emergency room costs. But that could just push the potential issue down the road. A young person is sitting in an emergency room wheelchair drooling from brain damage but with no life-threatening injuries. What next? "Here you go family. Good luck."

[billisonboard]

Jun 20, 2023 13:48:34 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Jun 20, 2023 13:02:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

re the bolded: That sounds good until one gets into the details. Do paramedics require a person found at a crash site who appears to have not been wearing a seatbelt to provide a credit card before treatment begins? Do hospitals leave them on the curb? Mortgage companies send them into the street?

No but you can get a big ass bill later.  My grandma was being a brat and refusing to answer my dad's calls so he called 911 for a wellness check.  The firemen were sent out.  First time was  freebie but if they were called again for a non-emergency they made it clear she would be billed for it.

It's the same with park services.  I've seen several articles where people have had to pay through the nose for having to be rescued because they were hiking where they should not be.   

I would not be shocked if our neighbor got a call for her kid's prank 911 call that resulted in three armored cop cars to our house because she said she saw a guy with a gun running around.  That was an awesome evening.

So there are consequences to being flippant with the rules.  It's paid for by tax payers but that doesn't mean it is a free service to the point where it can be abused.  

And I am okay with that being the system.  I don't want to deny anyone rescue or aid but I am okay with there idea of a giant bill hanging over their head to hopefully get them to pause before they do whatever.

Which is all well and good with an issue resolved. Seatbelts help prevent traumatic brain injuries if incurred can involve lifelong bills for someone incapable of working to pay them.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 20, 2023 13:43:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 20, 2023 13:21:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Would it not be the same "assumption of risk" that we apply elsewhere?  If someone needs to be rescued on a mountain, they may face a large bill for the rescue.  Many won't, either because the state or the Park Service thinks it an appropriate use of money, or because the rescuers are volunteers, but many others will have to pay.  And they should.  Taxpayers should not be burdened paying for someone's else's ignorance or unpreparedness.

I can easily see where a state would say that emergency care at an accident site is payable, but more extensive or long-term care is not and would fall on the injured party. 

NOTE: there just so happens to be a discussion of the rescue costs on this thread here

I also can easily see and support emergency care being covered. Also emergency room costs. But that could just push the potential issue down the road. A young person is sitting in an emergency room wheelchair drooling from brain damage but with no life-threatening injuries. What next? "Here you go family. Good luck."

There is also moral hazard to the medical and nursing professions. We either treat people with major injuries with the families incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, knowing we will not be paid. Or we let someone die who we could have potentially saved because they cannot pay. Because we know people will not purchase insurance coverage for this and the insurance may be prohibitively expensive. So we get to the issue of unreimbursed care, because most physicians are going to provide the necessary care. Then we get into the issue of people who are unresponsive when they arrive at the hospital. Do we wait until they regain consciousness to treat them?

It is easy for people to sound tough in the abstract. It is a much different issue when you are faced with it

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2023 11:29:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Liberals may argue about which right is more important, but they do not ever deny that people are allowed to think for themselves.  It is almost certainly sloppy language use on your part, but what you are basically arguing here is that it is not a woman's right to have ANY say about her body, regardless if she is considering abortion or not.  But to get back on point, it is not a fact that a fetus is a baby.  It is your belief, and again you are fine holding that belief...for yourself.  It is not a fact.  It cannot be proven.  It can likely never be proven.  Given that uncertainty, it cannot be logically argued that the denial of rights to an existing person can be justified on that basis.  You seek to exert power over another person, simply because you believe what you believe, and think that your belief justifies the use of such power with no other basis than that.  No liberal will ever accept such a proposition.  Nor should they.      

there are so many philosophical arguments here that we could literally double the thread length JUST on this subject by subjecting everyone to moral dilemmas.

for example, there is the "greater good" principle.  in that scenario, one looks at what is likely to be a net gain for society, regardless of where people stand morally in the situation.  that leads to some strange outcomes.  for example, if the mom is leading a peace negotiation that stands a good chance of saving 100,000 people and billions of lost assets in a costly war, and the late term pregnancy will interfere with it, it might seem reasonable under this circumstance to abort the baby right up until 9 months.

and there are literally more scenarios like this (without abortion involved) than you can count.  the train full of people, and someone is caught in the switch track.  the fat guy stuck in the porthole of a sinking ship.  Hitler as a fetus.  i mean, it goes on forever.  and it is all worth pondering, and has real world consequences.

that is the domain liberals live in.  which is why we have a hard time drawing bright lines.  there are just so many exceptions to the rules!!!!  

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 14:12:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:29:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Liberals may argue about which right is more important, but they do not ever deny that people are allowed to think for themselves.  It is almost certainly sloppy language use on your part, but what you are basically arguing here is that it is not a woman's right to have ANY say about her body, regardless if she is considering abortion or not.  But to get back on point, it is not a fact that a fetus is a baby.  It is your belief, and again you are fine holding that belief...for yourself.  It is not a fact.  It cannot be proven.  It can likely never be proven.  Given that uncertainty, it cannot be logically argued that the denial of rights to an existing person can be justified on that basis.  You seek to exert power over another person, simply because you believe what you believe, and think that your belief justifies the use of such power with no other basis than that.  No liberal will ever accept such a proposition.  Nor should they.      

there are so many philosophical arguments here that we could literally double the thread length JUST on this subject by subjecting everyone to moral dilemmas.

for example, there is the "greater good" principle.  in that scenario, one looks at what is likely to be a net gain for society, regardless of where people stand morally in the situation.  that leads to some strange outcomes.  for example, if the mom is leading a peace negotiation that stands a good chance of saving 100,000 people and billions of lost assets in a costly war, and the late term pregnancy will interfere with it, it might seem reasonable under this circumstance to abort the baby right up until 9 months.

and there are literally more scenarios like this (without abortion involved) than you can count.  the train full of people, and someone is caught in the switch track.  the fat guy stuck in the porthole of a sinking ship.  Hitler as a fetus.  i mean, it goes on forever.  and it is all worth pondering, and has real world consequences.

that is the domain liberals live in.  which is why we have a hard time drawing bright lines.  there are just so many exceptions to the rules!!!!  

SO much easier being a conservative.  Decide what you want ONCE, and never have to re-examine it!   

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2023 14:19:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 14:12:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there are so many philosophical arguments here that we could literally double the thread length JUST on this subject by subjecting everyone to moral dilemmas.

for example, there is the "greater good" principle.  in that scenario, one looks at what is likely to be a net gain for society, regardless of where people stand morally in the situation.  that leads to some strange outcomes.  for example, if the mom is leading a peace negotiation that stands a good chance of saving 100,000 people and billions of lost assets in a costly war, and the late term pregnancy will interfere with it, it might seem reasonable under this circumstance to abort the baby right up until 9 months.

and there are literally more scenarios like this (without abortion involved) than you can count.  the train full of people, and someone is caught in the switch track.  the fat guy stuck in the porthole of a sinking ship.  Hitler as a fetus.  i mean, it goes on forever.  and it is all worth pondering, and has real world consequences.

that is the domain liberals live in.  which is why we have a hard time drawing bright lines.  there are just so many exceptions to the rules!!!!  

SO much easier being a conservative.  Decide what you want ONCE, and never have to re-examine it!   

that is exactly right.  this is why Democrats have a MARKETING problem.  you can't squeeze liberal ideas accurately into pithy slogans.  or to put it another way:

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 14:23:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2023 14:19:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

SO much easier being a conservative.  Decide what you want ONCE, and never have to re-examine it!   

that is exactly right.  this is why Democrats have a MARKETING problem.  you can't squeeze liberal ideas accurately into pithy slogans.  or to put it another way:

Going back to your post about ethical scenarios, I can think of one, perhaps:

"Edith Keeler must die."

[hurley1980]

Jun 20, 2023 14:12:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:29:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Liberals may argue about which right is more important, but they do not ever deny that people are allowed to think for themselves.  It is almost certainly sloppy language use on your part, but what you are basically arguing here is that it is not a woman's right to have ANY say about her body, regardless if she is considering abortion or not.  But to get back on point, it is not a fact that a fetus is a baby.  It is your belief, and again you are fine holding that belief...for yourself.  It is not a fact.  It cannot be proven.  It can likely never be proven.  Given that uncertainty, it cannot be logically argued that the denial of rights to an existing person can be justified on that basis.  You seek to exert power over another person, simply because you believe what you believe, and think that your belief justifies the use of such power with no other basis than that.  No liberal will ever accept such a proposition.  Nor should they.      

there are so many philosophical arguments here that we could literally double the thread length JUST on this subject by subjecting everyone to moral dilemmas.

for example, there is the "greater good" principle.  in that scenario, one looks at what is likely to be a net gain for society, regardless of where people stand morally in the situation.  that leads to some strange outcomes.  for example, if the mom is leading a peace negotiation that stands a good chance of saving 100,000 people and billions of lost assets in a costly war, and the late term pregnancy will interfere with it, it might seem reasonable under this circumstance to abort the baby right up until 9 months.

and there are literally more scenarios like this (without abortion involved) than you can count.  the train full of people, and someone is caught in the switch track.  the fat guy stuck in the porthole of a sinking ship.  Hitler as a fetus.  i mean, it goes on forever.  and it is all worth pondering, and has real world consequences.

that is the domain liberals live in.  which is why we have a hard time drawing bright lines.  there are just so many exceptions to the rules!!!!  

This whole post reminds me Chidi on the Good Place, trying to teach moral ethics to the group!  There is such a large discussion around the subject that philosophers have spent their entire careers and lives dedicated to it. 

[chiver78]

Jun 20, 2023 13:33:21 GMT -5 daisylu said:

I am going say that I appreciate chiver78 liking things and being a good mod,

thanks for the kind words. I've been seriously biting my tongue in this thread. 

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 13:33:21 GMT -5 daisylu said:

I am going say that I appreciate chiver78 liking things and being a good mod,

And the fact that she likes all of my posts and none from the people I argue against speaks highly of her intelligence and judgment!  

[chiver78]

Jun 20, 2023 16:39:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 13:33:21 GMT -5 daisylu said:

I am going say that I appreciate chiver78 liking things and being a good mod,

And the fact that she likes all of my posts and none from the people I argue against speaks highly of her intelligence and judgment!  

kind of why I felt okay to hang back in case I needed to moderate (which I did...). the rest of you held your own quite nicely. 

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2023 11:49:50 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 20, 2023 11:29:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And you are perfectly fine in thinking that.  Liberals will forever grant you the right to think whatever you want as long as you do not harm another person by acting on it.  It is still only a personal belief though.  And NOBODY'S personal belief can ever by itself be sufficient as a basis for law in a free society.

Further, truth and logic are not malleable.  They do not depend on one's interpretation.  Conservatives do not look at what is actual truth.  They decide what they want "truth" to be and then use that to justify what they want to believe.  The fact that they are wrong about what the truth in fact is doesn't dissuade them at all.

Finally, you are again insisting here:
"No conservative is denying the rights of a woman in the abortion debate they are giving a right to the baby."

You are wrong on both counts.  You are absolutely denying the rights of the woman.  That would be true even if it were a fact that a fetus was a baby.  Competing rights come up in many situations all the time, and just as many legitimate arguments can be made about which competing right is more important.  Liberals may argue about which right is more important, but they do not ever deny that people are allowed to think for themselves.  It is almost certainly sloppy language use on your part, but what you are basically arguing here is that it is not a woman's right to have ANY say about her body, regardless if she is considering abortion or not.  But to get back on point, it is not a fact that a fetus is a baby.  It is your belief, and again you are fine holding that belief...for yourself.  It is not a fact.  It cannot be proven.  It can likely never be proven.  Given that uncertainty, it cannot be logically argued that the denial of rights to an existing person can be justified on that basis.  You seek to exert power over another person, simply because you believe what you believe, and think that your belief justifies the use of such power with no other basis than that.  No liberal will ever accept such a proposition.  Nor should they.      

Can it be proven it is not a baby? It is forming into a baby. Many will use the word viability that is not the point the point is it is a fetus growing into a baby and should be protected until is cannot develop (die) or is killing the mother. You are correct that is my belief but you cannot prove it is not a baby either. You say i'm wrong for my belief why am I wrong and you are right? I will still sign any petition for an abortion ban. You have the right to sign any petition for an abortion. 

it depends what you mean by "baby".

we call the offspring of every mammal "baby".  do you mean HUMAN baby?  i think you do.  what does it mean to be HUMAN?  i have posited consciousness.  most cognitive scientists believe that this happens between 19 and 22 weeks.  i think it is NOT a coincidence that this and viability are concurrent.  in other words, the MOMENT a baby becomes viable it also becomes conscious- or it is so close to concurrent that it is not worth debating.  which is why MOST of the 7B people on this planet draw the line at that point.

if you don't think consciousness defines what we are as humans, what is it?

[teen persuasion]

Jun 20, 2023 12:45:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:29:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

This ignores the word "simply because". Seatbelts are required to save taxpayers the proven expense of carrying for brain damaged crash survivors. Speed limits can be demonstrated to provide other drivers and pedestrians a safer environment. Second hand smoke is a proven health hazard for those exposed. Okay, no nudity I can't defend.

Correct.  There is an argument to be made of either public safety, public interest, or public decency.  None are simply because someone else doesn't agree with it.

For the record, I am opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws.  It is a legitimate function of government to protect others from my actions.  It is not a legitimate function of government to protect me from myself.  The public interest could be served by not forcing either taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for the care of someone injured while not wearing a seatbelt.  I go along with the seat-belt law because it is not enough of an imposition on me to fight it.  I think speed limits are generally too low, but they are required because way too many people are either stupid or bad drivers, or stupid and careless pedestrians.  Those bad drivers do impose a risk on others so the limits are justified on that basis.  "No-smoking" areas are completely justified because second-hand smoke is an undeniable health risk for others, and one should not be able to put unconsenting others at risk.  Walking around nude in public does impose on others, though there should absolutely be areas where it is acceptable.  Again, though, there are legitimate reasons why these limitations are in effect. 

Seatbelts are necessary for the same reason no-smoking areas are necessary - to protect others. An unrestrained vehicle occupant becomes a projectile weapon in a crash.


DH was an accident injury coder for NTSB for a while. His job included examining crash scene photos of the victims. He could tell immediately if someone was restrained or not. Different class of injuries and fatality.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2023 12:45:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:29:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

This ignores the word "simply because". Seatbelts are required to save taxpayers the proven expense of carrying for brain damaged crash survivors. Speed limits can be demonstrated to provide other drivers and pedestrians a safer environment. Second hand smoke is a proven health hazard for those exposed. Okay, no nudity I can't defend.

Correct.  There is an argument to be made of either public safety, public interest, or public decency.  None are simply because someone else doesn't agree with it.

For the record, I am opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws.  It is a legitimate function of government to protect others from my actions.  It is not a legitimate function of government to protect me from myself.  The public interest could be served by not forcing either taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for the care of someone injured while not wearing a seatbelt.  I go along with the seat-belt law because it is not enough of an imposition on me to fight it.  I think speed limits are generally too low, but they are required because way too many people are either stupid or bad drivers, or stupid and careless pedestrians.  Those bad drivers do impose a risk on others so the limits are justified on that basis.  "No-smoking" areas are completely justified because second-hand smoke is an undeniable health risk for others, and one should not be able to put unconsenting others at risk.  Walking around nude in public does impose on others, though there should absolutely be areas where it is acceptable.  Again, though, there are legitimate reasons why these limitations are in effect. 

i like the way you pick through this list of laws and challenge each for legitimacy using a universal standard.  that is what i call consistency.  it is quite rare in the US public.  certainly less than 10% in my experience do this.  it is a very liberal/libertarian thing to do.

if you want to see an excellent and thorough "going through", i would recommend the book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.  The Absurdity of Consensual Crime In a Free Society".  imo, the state killed the guy who wrote that.  i can explain why i think that if you are interested.  Peter McWilliams was his name.  

[tallguy]

Jun 20, 2023 23:34:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:45:25 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Correct.  There is an argument to be made of either public safety, public interest, or public decency.  None are simply because someone else doesn't agree with it.

For the record, I am opposed to mandatory seat-belt laws.  It is a legitimate function of government to protect others from my actions.  It is not a legitimate function of government to protect me from myself.  The public interest could be served by not forcing either taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for the care of someone injured while not wearing a seatbelt.  I go along with the seat-belt law because it is not enough of an imposition on me to fight it.  I think speed limits are generally too low, but they are required because way too many people are either stupid or bad drivers, or stupid and careless pedestrians.  Those bad drivers do impose a risk on others so the limits are justified on that basis.  "No-smoking" areas are completely justified because second-hand smoke is an undeniable health risk for others, and one should not be able to put unconsenting others at risk.  Walking around nude in public does impose on others, though there should absolutely be areas where it is acceptable.  Again, though, there are legitimate reasons why these limitations are in effect. 

i like the way you pick through this list of laws and challenge each for legitimacy using a universal standard.  that is what i call consistency.  it is quite rare in the US public.  certainly less than 10% in my experience do this.  it is a very liberal/libertarian thing to do.

if you want to see an excellent and thorough "going through", i would recommend the book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.  The Absurdity of Consensual Crime In a Free Society".  imo, the state killed the guy who wrote that.  i can explain why i think that if you are interested.  Peter McWilliams was his name.  

I am sure I have posted it before, but there are two main tenets that undergird virtually every one of my political positions.  In fact, they are so ingrained that I never even have to think about them.  The first is a respect for individual rights and individual liberties.  (Concurrent with that, of course, is the responsibility to NOT infringe on the rights of others.  I well know you understand that intrinsically, but not everyone automatically equates the two, so the explanation is for their benefit.)  The second is the principle of equal treatment under the law for everybody.  No person in this country should be either advantaged or disadvantaged under the law by any aspect of their situation.  Anything that violates either of these two principles is almost necessarily invalid.  The foregoing examples fall under the first principle, but their validity is based on the mandate to not infringe on or harm others.  That obligation outweighs one's own self-interest.   

[billisonboard]

Jun 21, 2023 0:05:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 20, 2023 23:34:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i like the way you pick through this list of laws and challenge each for legitimacy using a universal standard.  that is what i call consistency.  it is quite rare in the US public.  certainly less than 10% in my experience do this.  it is a very liberal/libertarian thing to do.

if you want to see an excellent and thorough "going through", i would recommend the book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.  The Absurdity of Consensual Crime In a Free Society".  imo, the state killed the guy who wrote that.  i can explain why i think that if you are interested.  Peter McWilliams was his name.  

I am sure I have posted it before, but there are two main tenets that undergird virtually every one of my political positions.  In fact, they are so ingrained that I never even have to think about them.  The first is a respect for individual rights and individual liberties.  (Concurrent with that, of course, is the responsibility to NOT infringe on the rights of others.  I well know you understand that intrinsically, but not everyone automatically equates the two, so the explanation is for their benefit.)  The second is the principle of equal treatment under the law for everybody.  No person in this country should be either advantaged or disadvantaged under the law by any aspect of their situation.  Anything that violates either of these two principles is almost necessarily invalid.  The foregoing examples fall under the first principle, but their validity is based on the mandate to not infringe on or harm others.  That obligation outweighs one's own self-interest.   

Well stated. For myself, living and witnessing the heat of human existence has tempered my rigid adherence to high principle. Humanity and humility demands nothing less of me. YMMV