REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

God is an Iraqi

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 09:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8366
PAGE 1 of 3

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 4:38 AM

DREAMTROVE


I think Jon Stewart said something like that. Anyway, I thought it might stir a few things up. Here are some random thoughts:

1. Okay it's true, the cult of YHWH was born in Iraq. What is the second coming of Christ is born in Iraq, and all the wise men come, and then Bush drops a bomb on them?

2. Is it really a RTL position to drop bombs on civillian populations? Clinton, the right-to-death candidate did starve them to death, but he wasn't claiming to be right to life.

3. Right to life, while I'm at it, has a lot of logical extentions. Everyone knows I'm a taoist, not a christian, but right to life is a very fitting philosophy for a taoist. I don't really see any reason why the extensions of right to life might differ for a christian.

4. Minimum death does follow a RTL idea, but war on terror can only claim to if it is also minimum death. At the moment Al Qaeda is a pain in the ass, and quite possibly needs to be stopped, but it doesn't by itself merit a quarter million human casualties. So if there WERE an Iraq/Al Qaeda link, it would be a terrible argument. Saddam killing more people would be a better one. I think at the moment this war is nowhere near such a position.

5. RTL, further ideas. I think most of the republican platform points are basically consistant, and anti-death. Pro-life is actually not opposed so much by Anti-life, right-to-die. It's more like right-to-kill, or more positively spun, right-to-freedom, which comes down to freedom-to-kill. The reason I'm wandering down this dangerous road, and it is a random wander, is that it strikes me that lots of ancient laws banning rampantly promiscuous homosexuality and unfettered drug use, are anti-libertarian, but they are also closer to the RTL position, because such activities may endanger lives.

6. So there are a few exceptions, things which are ideologically inconsistant, that I wanted to tackle. Simply analyzing everything from a RTL perspective.

7. I hope that everyone will at least credit the right with, if not currently, but historically, being less warlike. This isn't a serious problem, I think most often the right is, if at war, trying to be at least somewhat minimum death, and not on a social militarism campaign. But the Iraq war does seem to be social militarism in action. The main purpose, as stated by Bush ad nauseum, is not to prevent Saddam from killing people, but to bring freedom, democracy, women's rights yadada yadada, ie. it is social militarism. Clearly this is in some way a violation of RTL.

8. Second Amendment vs. gun control. I generally take gun control as the old pro-govt. nazi argument, and unsuspecting lefties are actually advocating handing a tremendous amount of power of life or death to the govt. But I can see specific instances where that isn't the case. A ban on assault weapons, if and only if it were universal, ie. no other law enforcement or federal forces on US soil were allowed to carry them, then it could be construed as consistent with RTL.

9. Pro-Death penalty. This strikes me as the biggest flat out inconsistancy. It's a blatant violation of RTL. Putting aside the whole issue of the FACT that innocent people are put to death, and the whole concept of redemption which christians are supposed to believe in; It's a handover of power of life or death to the state. This is very clearly not an RTL policy, and no one who thinks should be able to support both.

10. Conservation. Everything has to eat, and so animal rights can clearly be said to be in conflict with the rights of animals that eat them, even if those animals are us. But still and all, destruction of species is a pretty clear anti-RTL position. I would think that christians, who believe, whether through evolution or intelligent design, that all species of life were put here by God; and who also believe that the destructive hand of man is the work of man manipulated by the devil (I believe it indicated this in the bible many times) would have a problem with this. How can they hold to these beliefs and yet be seemingly unconcerned when someone like Bush or Clinton recklessly destroys countless species of life. Isn't that undoing the hand of God? God didn't send Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton as his messengers, or if he did, perhaps you should start worshiping someone else. But seriously, there wasn't a memorable uproar from the christian community on this.

I say all this about christianity because I think this last point, its very clear how I would come to the conclusion that this is RTL form a taoist perspective, but I think it would be an inescapable conclusion for a christian as well.



Questions? Comments?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 5:23 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

10. Conservation. Everything has to eat, and so animal rights can clearly be said to be in conflict with the rights of animals that eat them Questions? Comments?
Animals that kill other animals should be put to death.

Seriously, RTL (to me) has always meant, 'We will defend to the death of your mother your right to be born once that sperm takes a likin' to a egg, but after that, you on your own, little buddy.'

Family Values my ass. Every person (with VERY few exceptions) will grow up to either:
a) pay taxes
b) fight in wars
or
c) enter the correctional-industrial establishment

All serve their purpose; all must be born. A signifigant dollar value is attached to every fetus.
All, however, must NOT be educated, fed, or treated as if they were wanted or loved, unless they lucked out.

And killing monsters and the odd innocent here and there abroad increases the $ value on every potential domestic GNP contributor by insuring the status quo.

Social-militarism is just good business.

Am I being too cynical?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:13 AM

DREAMTROVE


Chris,

Prehaps this is a first, but I so disagree with you here. I mean, this can be considered to absurd extremes, maybe terri schiavo was just a paying customer. But seriously, for some of us, many of us, RTL is actually about something. I'm not quite sure what pro-choice is about, but as political footballs go, it's not very catchy. But I wasn't looking to pick on fight on RTL, right or wrong. I was looking for more, where does the logical extension of RTL end. There are few better founding political ideas than I can think of. There is no more basic right than right to life. I think after that, maybe we can does with liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I think that we on the right have been fighting for education, btw, just not for public education, which is pretty much an automaton factory. I think that's what spike says in Bargaining Part I:

Quote:

That's all schools are, you know. Just factories, spewing out mindless little automatons.


I don't think we give up on kids. I think that...

You know I better stop before this becomes a partisan bitchfest. I was looking for thoughts on RTL, and I guess you gave me some. I get that 1/2 of people don't agree with RTL.

Abortion itself isn't a hot button issue for me, I don't intend to have one. But it's a good philosophical position and an excellent one for someone like me who doesn't like "Kill, Kill, Kill," as a platform. Clearly there are certain people who would vote for that platform, I know quite a few. But most of them are pretty young, and young people really don't vote or become active in politics much at all. They mostly just stand up on campus and protest, usually about the low quality of food or need for longer bar hours.

But the issue isn't really abortion. It's right to life. Where does it end, or what can it be applied to. I was delighted with the terri schiavo case, because it showed some thought applied to the subject. While I've seen this surface before within RTL, I'd never seen it before in the mainstream media. I think Bush handled it badly, but as a case it did expose that there are many possible facets to RTL as a concept, and there are many cases in which the right to life of a human is protected by law.

For instance, if I go in to a hospital with apendicitis and no money or insurance, they have to treat me anyway, my right to life in this instance is protected by law, in a way which is at odds with the profit motive you set forth.

So, to avoid partisan bickering, because that's not what I set out to start, I'm going to suggest a ban on any roe v. wade talk. I intended this thread specifically to collect people's thoughts on right to life outside of the context of roe v. wade. So I say again:

Where does it end, or what can it be applied to.

I don't think that you mean to say that it's your position that RTL ends at birth, I think you mean to say that is the GOPs position, and perhaps presently it is, but I don't think that's the conservative voters ideological position.



Re: social militarism. It can't be good business because it's too expensive to engage in. There may be some profiteering going on, but overall, it is too costly to a society. I think the decision makers at the top, Wolfowitz, Libby, Cheney, Perle - are all thinking of it as a trade off. It's not just a cover for rampant theft, at least not from the neocons' perspective. Maybe from a halliburton of chevron perspective it is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:55 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
For instance, if I go in to a hospital with apendicitis and no money or insurance, they have to treat me anyway, my right to life in this instance is protected by law, in a way which is at odds with the profit motive you set forth.

Oh, they CAN make you wait, though. AND wait. You can sit in an emergency room and die (it's HAPPENED, a lot more than you'd think) waiting because you're lookin' poor or drunk or have no insurance. Much of it depends on the humanity of the particular staff- some are saints, and some are sinners. The law says they have to take you, but the reality is they'll take you if they're so inclined, which thankfully, most are, but there's NO guarantee. BTW, those laws are old, look for new ones to alter them in subtle ways that will get corporations off the hook for letting the uninsured and poor die from lack of proper attention (No medical records= limited treatment?). Medical insurance is like car insurance now. Deny the first claim, 8 or 9% go away defeated-maybe even die- pure profit! Most really sick and poor people haven't the knowledge or stamina to stand up to the beaurocratic crap they'd have to deal with to remain healthy, much less alive. These corporate types push through laws we will never hear of until they're used to increase profits and concentrate power.

There are those sweet souls out there who try, and succeed, in helping less fortunate people, but by and large, money gives you the RTL in this country.
True conservatives (IMO) would like to 'conserve' human life, as well as the Earth itself. To them RTL means something. Phoney ones preach 'family values' while cutting programs to feed poor kids in school, wage needless war, carve up protected land for corporate sale and developement (read: destruction), and laugh about it at lavish dinner parties.

Now am I too cynical?

Chrisisall, Conservative Liberal Conspiracy Theorist

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:24 AM

CITIZEN


Well...
RTL, taken to it's absolute logical extreme would be complete disarment and putting us all in boxes so we can't hurt ourselves...
as the song says...
Calm,
Fitter, Healthier and more Productive
A pig
In a cage
On antibiotics.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:50 AM

MUGTWAINE


As far as I understand the conservative view on this topic, RTL goes something like this: "Once conceived, you are a person. As a person, you have the right to be born. Once you are born you have the right to live as long as you can. If you choose to waive this right, lethal force can and will be used against you."

Examples of waiving the right to life would be serial murder, genocide, etc. Basically any offense deemed capital by the state.

For conservatives, life is an absolute right, but one that can be given up. If you do something that is considered heinous beyond the point of plausible rehabilitation, you have chosen and welcomed the potential outcome of death. A baby in the womb of course can't actively do anything atrocious enough to be considered waiving the right, which is why conservatives are anti-abortion - unborn babies are rightly considered to be purely innocent, and therefore their deaths are considered more tragic than any other.

Murderers on death row, however, have made choices to get themselves there. Whoever throws the switch, conservatives believe that the criminal is the one who brought the execution about.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the conservative view. To their eyes, their stance on right to life is in no way self-contradictory.

I consider myself to be centrist/libertarian, so most of this makes pretty good sense to me. My one and only holdup on the subject of capital punishment is the fact that innocents are sometimes accidentally executed. As for those who are truly guilty, what goes around comes around.

And as far as the abortion issue goes, for me it's just one simple question. Do you believe a fetus is a human life? If the answer is yes, you're pro-life. If the answer is no, you're pro-choice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 12:01 PM

CITIZEN


One quick thing on the whole corporal punishment thing.
Just something to think about.
If it's a question of what goes around comes around, when will the state/executioners be put to death for all they've killed?

I have a further question on the right to bear arms issue. It's taking the whole argument to it's logical extreme again, but surely people have a right to build and maintain nuclear weapons, or at least 'rogue' states such as Iran have that right?


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 12:29 PM

FLETCH2


Left to my own devices I'm probably pro life. The problem I have with the US situation is two fold.

1) I'm not at all happy that a government would use a moral possition as the basis of access to healthcare. Say a small state elects a majority of Jehovah's Witnesses to government, under this precedent they could deny me a blood transfusion in an accident because it conflicts with their moral viewpoint. I find that worrying.

2) Some on the religious right seem to be using this as a moralising tool. "You be a sinner and have sex out of wedlock and we'll MAKE you have that baby little missy!" It comes across like punishment for sin rather than a true prolife position. Here in Texas we see a lot of dumb fishes and other "look at me I'm holier than thou" bumper stickers on cars so you stop noticing them. However the other day I was stuck behind a car that said simply "consider adoption -- times look desperate but we can help" It had been put out by a local Catholic group and is I feel the only reasonable prolife position not "see what sin did reap" but "there's an alternative, we can help you."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 12:42 PM

CITIZEN


Fletch2:
I'm pro-choice, simply because personally at an early stage of pregnancy a baby isn’t a baby, and to ban abortion not only opens up questions like your own (Re. the transfusion thing) but, well just doesn't stop abortion.
It'll just make it happen down the backstreets with some dodgy guy with a vacuum cleaner and a blood soaked screwdriver.
Maybe this is what the 'moral' extremists want; having a young woman’s life ruined/cut short, a suitable punishment for her sin, perhaps?
I don't hold to that.
That's not to say I support abortion per-se. I just find a ban would be a much, much worse thing than legalised abortion.
"consider adoption -- times look desperate but we can help"
Never a truer word, err, printed, on a bumper.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 3:16 PM

MUGTWAINE


Yeah, citizen, I understand your position on abortion. Really it just comes down to what you believe a fetus is. Personally, I err on the side of it being a life. Does it have a soul? Do any of us really have souls? I don't really know.

I'd like to think we do, otherwise there's not much point to any of this. And even on the assumption that we do, I don't know exactly when we get it. Does the soul develop early or is it strictly third trimester? Does it plunk into your body the moment your last pinky toe leaves the birth canal? Haven't the foggiest.

That's why I personally disagree with abortion. I don't know where the line is, so I choose to draw it at conception. After conception, barring a natural miscarriage, if you leave it alone it will become a person at some indeterminate point. That's enough for me to make it a bad thing to end it.

Of course, I'm reasonable enough to understand that my belief is not everybody's belief. I don't have proof that I'm right, nobody has proof that I'm wrong, and vice versa. So even though I have the feeling, yeah, there's a potential genocide going on here, I also understand the laws can't be overturned on gut feeling alone. It's a personal choice thing. So up until now I thought of myself as pro-life, but maybe I'm really "pro-choice, but choose life, dammit!"

The one thing that always bothered me about the pro-choice movement, though, was the catch phrase "Keep your laws off my body." This is really an ineffective battle cry, since true pro-lifers have absolutely no interest in *your* body. They're interested in the *baby's* body. True pro-lifers aren't trying to punish sin, they're trying to prevent it. This pro-choice argument falls on deaf ears, mainly because pro-lifers say "What's your point? I don't want anything to do with *you*, just don't kill the person *inside* you, thanks kindly."

And that's the thing that frustrates me most about this subject. When people debate it it always turns ugly (thankfully this has not happened yet here, but even so it won't be long), and the true reason for that is that neither side is talking about the same thing the other is. Neither side lives in the same world that the other does, in a very real psychological sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 3:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. First of all- SOUL. We ain't got one as far as I can tell. Arguing about when we "get" one if pretty much like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin IMHO. But just because we don't have a "soul" doesn't mean human life isn't- or shouldn't be- precious.

Still, that begs a lot of questions. What is "human"? There are a lot of variations on that sperm+ egg stuff. Blobs that look like placentas- no human features at all. Babies with no brains. People with no brain activity. People with brains, unable to move a muscle. Healthy, neurologically intact people who seem to be moral patholgies- multiple murderers, pedophile sadists, drive-by gang-bangers. People who have the misfortune of being born very very poor in far-away countries.

Really, when you think about it, the quality of being "human" is like any other quality: it has fuzzy edges. Examples that are three, four, or more standard deviations way from the norm. Not trying to practice sophistry here, but when we talk about "human life" we seem to be more in love with an idea than with the reality. I think that's why we're so in love with the fetus: we can load it with all of our hopes and dreams, no messy reality gets in the way. I'm not sure we even see the reality.

And then we come to the whole point of life being "precious". "First do no harm", the Hippocratic oath, also includes a part about not performing abortions. So, what do we find in lavatory pits just outside Greek and Roman whorehouses? The skeletons of lots and lots of babies. So- who is life precious to? What will it be traded for? You know, governments and coporations trade life for all KINDS of reasons: The ability to pollute, to wage war, to make unsafe products in unsafe factories, to subsidize some farmers, to enforce law and obliterate internal dissent, to select child's sex. The ONE person who has the most responsibility for that life- the mom- generally has no say whatsoever. That's a typical imbalance of "responsibility" and "authority".

One more comment- Where are the dads in all this? Does their role end when they zip up their pants?

So- how do we make "human" life "precious" to everyone- that includes corporations, governments, and fathers? Seems to me that as long as people and institutions think it's okay to trade life for something else (profit, convenience, power, ideology) then we have no claim to being RTL.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 3:49 PM

DREAMTROVE


Wow. So nice to have have started a successful thread.

Quote:

True conservatives (IMO) would like to 'conserve' human life, as well as the Earth itself.


Chrisisall,

You know I agree completely. I of course, am poor and uninsure, and have myself nearly died waiting for 18 hours with appendicitis. They said when they took it out the doctor said something about a few more hours and I would have been gone. I think that he, personally, was unaware when he said that that his hospital had kept me waiting for 18 hours because it was delivered with this "you really left it to the very last minute guy" sort of attitude. At the time, I was in no shape physicially to talk, much less argue, I was just trying not to die.

I agree, RTL is guaranteed today by money, but thinking ideologicially, what it 'should' be or could bbe extended to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 4:09 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Citizen

RTL, taken to it's absolute logical extreme would be complete disarment and putting us all in boxes so we can't hurt ourselves...


Citizen, try to stay in the bounds of reality. This is like saying the ultimate right to bear arms is to give everyone a nuke. Radiohead aside, we want to live in this world.

Quote:

If it's a question of what goes around comes around, when will the state/executioners be put to death for all they've killed?


Yes, this is a good point, but it's not the main point. The main argument of why death penalty is not a position which is consistant with RTL is this:

Death penalty gives a power over life to the state. RTL is a right, rights are guaranteed to the people, it's a guaranteed right of the people, of power of life. If you take that power of self determination away and give it to the state, you have removed the right to life even if you kill no one, guilty or innocent.

Quote:

surely people have a right to build and maintain nuclear weapons, or at least 'rogue' states such as Iran have that right?


There is no right to bear arms here. We do not guarantee the rights of the islamic state of Iran.

The second amendment is meant to guarantee the right to the american citizenry to bear arms to protect themselves from unjust rule.

It is actually a RTL issue, stange as it may seem. In Nazi Germany, the German right to bear arms which had existed was removed, and the people, once disarmed, were slaughtered like sheep by an unjust rule of a govt. that still had guns.

This is where the argument against gun control comes from. Democrats sell the idea on "fewer deaths" but democrats also seek a world where society is unthreatened by its citizenry. I believe that if a leadership is not threatened by its citizenry, tyranny will ensue.

But as a right to life issue, gun control would once more take the right to life out of the hands of the citizenry and put it back into the hands of govt.

Still and all, we can't have people walking around with nukes. The best way, IMHO, to deal with the problem is via a bilateral disarmement, whereby US forces and citizens agree to scale back from machines guns hopefully towards some non-lethal but equally combat effective weapons.

And no, BTW for anyone who thinks otherwise, this law was never intended to protect the rights of hunters to hunt. Hunters have no right to hunt, under the consitution.

Quote:

I'm pro-choice, simply because personally at an early stage of pregnancy a baby isn’t a baby, and to ban abortion not only opens up questions like your own (Re. the transfusion thing) but, well just doesn't stop abortion.
It'll just make it happen down the backstreets with some dodgy guy with a vacuum cleaner and a blood soaked screwdriver.
Maybe this is what the 'moral' extremists want; having a young woman’s life ruined/cut short, a suitable punishment for her sin, perhaps?
I don't hold to that.
That's not to say I support abortion per-se. I just find a ban would be a much, much worse thing than legalised abortion.
"consider adoption -- times look desperate but we can help"
Never a truer word, err, printed, on a bumper.


When life begins is obviously subjective, and clearly a lot of us would disagree. I hold it is an irrelevant argument. A human will come to pass if no intervention is made, so just as the failure to intervene to stop a murder is accessory to the crime...

But I agree, messy abortions is not the goal. Banning abortion and doing nothing about adoption would be a disaster. But just because people are RTL doesn't mean that they want that solution, or even that what they want is a ban. I would like to see the number of abortions reduced, and those babies to be adopted, and the birth mother to be compensated for her time. I think that even in the absense of a ban, that would lower the total number of abortions more than a ban by itself.

But abortion is a hot button issue I'm acutally trying to avoid.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 4:17 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mugtwaine,

I think I posted here two arguments which sidestep that whole question.

1. Death Penalty is inconsitant with RTL because it takes the power over life and hands it back to the state. I agree about the innocents, but this fact of transfer back to the state alone makes something not a right, and so invalidates the position. Thus logically, they cannot be reconciled. IMHO.

2. Regardless of whether the feotus is a human, it will be, and thus if you consider the year and day consequences of action, it would still be murder under extant law. But really, I'd prefer to not argue abortion.

I agree that the arguments you quoted are the arguments that are commonly used by both sides. I don't think that they are really thoroughly thought out arguments, but more or less what the parties want people to say so that people will continue to support positions which may be inconsistant, but are all on the party platform.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 4:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


Fletch,

I don't think this is an access to healthcare issue. If you come into the office with someone who is unconscious, that person still has a right to healthcare.

Ergo, if a pregnant woman comes in, both her and the baby have a right to healthcare. If you take the baby out and kill it, it's right to that healthcare has been violated.

If it comes down to "we can save one or the other," I'd accept "lost the baby" as an acceptable solution, because if nothing else, the babies healthy life can never be guaranteed.

But I'm going to break the rules now in my next post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 4:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, break it up.

We get that there are pro-choice democrats and pro-life republicans here. That wasn't the issue.

If a debate continues on the validity of RTL as a position, there will be some unpleasant things said by the end of the day, possibly even by me. That isn't what I intended here.

I want to hear thoughts on how far RTL can be extended.

If you oppose RTL, you have two options here.

You can say "I would support RTL if it extended as far as"
or you can say "I would never support RTL."


If you support RTL I'm curious as to what you might think it might extend towards.

I'm also interested in everyone's opinions on RTL's potential impact on other issues such as death penalty or 2nd amendment.


Finally,

I'm aware that thread-jack happens, even to me. I'm not trying to just avert a threadjack here. I am trying to avert a disaster. This is such a sensitive issue that it is hard even for me to talk about things close to it without touching on my personal feelings on the core matter. But really my person feelings on the core matter are really quite minor, I'm much more concerned with the periphery of the subject, and I also know that no teeth will be knocked out in the discussion if we can stay away from the abortion issue itself.

So let's assume this:

No one will outlaw abortion without a supreme court ruling over which we have no power. If that ruling comes down we will have no power to block it. It is a matter completely and utterly out of our hands. In addition, none of us is going to change the mind of someone else on the issue, and changing their mind also has no possible influence on the decision. Even if you could conceivably argue someone to change parties on this topic which is unheard of, and then to do it about ten million times, party presidents have a bad track record of appointing viewpoint consistant justices on thing issue, and no one will be appointing new justices for a long time. So there is nothing even conceivable for us to gain by arguing abortion per se. Interpretations of the extent of RTL might impact other laws which actually can be legislated, so it ought to be an inherently more interesting topic. This is basically where I'm coming from on this one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 5:45 PM

MUGTWAINE


Dreamtrove, I'll agree with you that nobody will ever change anybody's mind on the matter of abortion. In fact, nobody can ever forcibly change anybody's mind about anything. That is of course why I didn't try to change anybody's mind - just point out some of the basic reasons why people can't seem to effectively communicate on the issue.

Amazingly enough, we've had a conversation of several posts that did not degenerate into a flame war, for which I say "Go us!" Such is a very rare thing.

HOWEVER, that being said you are of course right that this topic was never intended to be about abortion. I'm probably the one most at fault for steering it there, so I apologize.

Back to the original topic, and especially the death penalty, I think I made a point earlier that addresses your concern about the state removing a right and therefore making it not a true right in the first place.

I'm honestly of the belief that every human has a right to life that should not be infringed upon by any individual or organization. I do, however, believe that this right can be forfeited.

There are already examples of this in the U.S. Every American has the right to own and operate a motor vehicle, given that they can pass certain certification requirements and can afford said vehicle and insurance. That is a right that cannot be denied based on race, religion, sex, or anything intrinsic to a person. However, if you speed or drink and drive habitually, there have been cases (I'm fairly certain) where it was ruled that a person could never again drive a car. Due to the person's actions, it was decided that the person could not be trusted to drive, indeed that the person was not worthy of the right to drive. Effectively, through the choices that person made, he chose to waive his right. It was not - repeat, NOT - taken away from him by the state. He gave it up.

At least, that's how a conservative who supports the death penalty while simultaneously touting right to life would see it.

Death penalty is the same thing. It's not some kind of secret - executions happen in this country. Crimes have consequences. Depending on the crime, death may be one of them. Foreknowledge of the consequences turns the decision to commit a crime into a decision to accept the possible punishment.

Way I see it, legal punishment is not something the state does to the individual, it's something the individual coaxes from the state. I think of our laws basically as a contract with the citizens. For such and such crime there is such and such penalty. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And if society finds that too many people are willing to do the allotted time for a particular crime, then apparently the penalty needs to be adjusted.

And speaking of doing time, what is your position on incarceration? If your reason for disagreeing with the death penalty is that it takes the inalienable right to life away from the individual and gives it to the state, then you must not agree with putting criminals in jail. After all, doing that takes away their inalienable right to liberty.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 5:54 PM

FLETCH2


DT:
No it is an access to healthcare issue. Let me explain. My youngest sister has a congenital condition that means that if she chooses to have children her life is potentially at risk. We know that no contraception method is 100% so she has some possibility of accidentally becoming pregnant. She is a fully adult and functional human being with rights and a soul if you believe in such things. A baby is not viable independent of the mother for 9 months, even then we still have child mortality.

So here's the situation, imagine my sister gets pregnant, either intentionally or by accident and it becomes clear that pregnancy endangers her life, what rabid pro lifers say is that that none viable fetus's rights transcend the rights of an adult woman. In this case the government would be denying her life saving medical help just on the basis of other people's moral viewpoint.

We call Muslims barbaric for activities like honour killings and female curcumcision, but in their societies under their moral laws these things are legal. We can't say "these people abuse women by enforcing their stupid religious beliefs on them" and then turn around and do the same thing.

I don't believe that forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want is a justified method of punishing her "sin" of having sex. I don't believe that forcing a woman to have a child to make an example of her to "discourage" those activities is justified. In Muslim countries if a woman is forcibly raped her family will often honour kill her in the belief that she was to blame. If abortion is never allowed under any circumstances we are saying the same thing --- that a rape victim is responsable for the crime and must be made to suffer the consequences.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:00 AM

MUGTWAINE


Well, at the risk of being dragged back into the abortion thing (which I'd rather avoid) there are a few things I'd like to clarify.

First, I definitely don't think victims of rape should be required to bring a resulting fetus to term. I do acknowledge that, being of the mind that a baby is a life, this is in fact the killing of a human. However - and here's the tricky part - the reason I believe rape victims are in a different position is because I support the right of a woman to do with her body what she chooses.

But wait, that sounds like a pro-choice argument! Here's what the difference is for me: A woman should be able to do with her body what she chooses, but only when her body is the only body in play (i.e., in general I believe an abortion involves two bodies). The last choice involved in whether or not to have a baby that involves the woman and the woman alone is whether to have sex. If that choice was made for her by an aggressive and unwanted attacker, then she should not have to deal with the consequences. Her right to live her life in the way she wants trumps all.

Likewise, in the case of life-threatening danger to the mother, I would agree that the decision must be completely up to her. If one or the other is going to die, then someone needs to make that decision and it should be the one whose life is in the balance.

I'd also like to address something Fletch wrote, about a child not being able to survive independent of the mother for 9 months. Of course, this is true. But I'd take it further. A baby one day before birth is essentially identical to a baby one day after birth. It certainly can't care for itself in either case. In fact, humans have the longest postnatal development process of any animal on the planet. We're essentially helpless for years. So if it's simply a matter of viability that determines someone's personhood, why not extend the period of time where an "abortion" is allowed to the first few years of life?

I'm being facetious of course. There was one South Park episode like this, where Cartman's mom wanted to abort him. Somebody asked her how far along she was, and she said, "Oh, he's about 10." The other person responded, "But that would put him somewhere around the... 40th trimester." So she responds "You keep your laws off my body!"

But honestly, this is the reason why the viability argument has never meant anything to me. In my humble opinion we don't have an adequate understanding of the simple notion of personhood for the viability argument to work.

Anyway, this is all just food for thought. Sorry again Dreamtrove for the hijack. In order to keep it from continuing, I think I'll just excuse myself from the discussion now. Probably should be working anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:09 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mugtwaine,

It wasn't my intent to be a topic nazi, but to avert a flame war. It was impressive I admit how the conflict had not spread to a world war, so I decided to try to sign the armistice before it got to that point. Several recent threads have reached the fever pitch, something I would like to avoid in the future.

So on to death penalty.

Now, that said, I must nitpick.

My brother is a senior law professor, and he likes to use the car thing as an example for many cases of rights, from the other side.

Here's why:

The 'right' to drive a car is legally speaking a priviledge, and not a right. The difference is that a priviledge can be revoked, a right cannot.

A right, for example, would be like you're right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. Unlike what Bush would like to believe, that right cannot be revoked.

Technically, the right to bear arms is just a theoretical interpretation of an article in the bill of rights which actually only allows those arms to be used in the office of the national guard. Outside of that, we actually have no 'right' to bear arms. The interpretations of the 2nd amendment grant us the priviledge of carrying weapons outside of that venue, which attempt to carry on the spirit of the 2nd amendment, but are not strictly speaking, a right, and so can be revoked at any time.

The right to vote would be a sticky one where people would argue that the right to vote, which is licensed through voted registration, because of that fact is a priviledge and therefore can be revoked, some states argue. Others argue it is right and cannot be.

The right to free speech is a right, it cannot be revoked. The right to remain silent is a right, as is the right to be free of unjust search and seizure or inhumane cruel and unusual punishment.

You see the legal distinction.

So the right to life must be a right to life, not a priviledge to life, since you cannot license life. Since life is not license, the fundemental right cannot be revoked.

Quote:

Way I see it, legal punishment is not something the state does to the individual, it's something the individual coaxes from the state.


Again, though not a lawyer, I know enough about law to know this isn't legally sound. The power belongs to the state, not the criminal.

The execution is actually an order to die, given by the govt., and not a request made by the convict., legally speaking. As such, the govt. can only order within its rights, which does not allow it to give an order that would conflict with the rights of the citizens. A govt. cannot legally order torture of a citizen, even if Bush were to pass a statute allowing it, because the 8th amendment of the constitution forbids it.

Right to life is born here:
Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness


Everyone recognizes the preamble to the declaration of independence. If this were the preamble to the constitution, it would be law. As it is, it is not, and so it is a political philosophy that believes that because the founding fathers crafted this domcument, it is an indication of their intentions, recorded here by Jefferson.

I think it's a pretty sound philosophical idea. Some may disagree. But as a philosophy, it must be internally consistant. And as a right, the right to life cannot be revoked.

Quote:

And speaking of doing time, what is your position on incarceration? If your reason for disagreeing with the death penalty is that it takes the inalienable right to life away from the individual and gives it to the state, then you must not agree with putting criminals in jail. After all, doing that takes away their inalienable right to liberty.


No. Generally speaking I would make a case for something in this direction. I would say that since this nation endured the inconsistancy of slavery for a long time, there is a lot to be worked out here. My favorite punishment personally is exile. After that I might favor an imposed incarcerated debt which must be paid off with labor. All becuase I'd like to see convicts become at least less of a liability. But before I go on I must strike down the above logical fallacy.

Right to life is based on that life, but specifically it is right to life. Right to liberty as a value may be one that I would also share, but my opinions are irrelevent. Right to life is not right to liberty.

Right to Life, by itself, is a complex legal position which would require a great deal of study and analysis, which was the purpose of this thread, to start such a debate.

But even as such, Right to Life is simpler in its nature than Right to Liberty, which would require a far more complex study. Furthermore, Right to Pursuit of Happiness would be incredibly complex.

Here's what I would like to see:

A fundementally well thought out comprehensive Right to Life passed as an amendment to the constitution. Whatever it says, that will be an issue of much debate. But that would be my goal on the issue. I think that such a bill would have profound impacts on society, such as who is to blame and what consequences there would be if the right to life was not upheld. Highways were closed, and armed guards prevented convention center dwellers from physically leaving the city of new orleans in search of food. Is this a fundemental violation of such an amendment, were one to exist? I would hope that it would be. If you deny food to citizens to the point where they starve to death, you have IMHO violated their right to life.

If such an amendment were to be passed, I think the subject Right to Liberty would immediately leap to the forefront of political debate. But as it is a much more complex subject, it has been supressed by the priotity on right to life.

As a final note:

It would absurdly cheapen the debate if pro-choicers were now to claim that theirs was a right-to-liberty position. This would make the entire DOI about abortion, which none of it was.

So. Everybody gets to play. Pro-choices will just begin their amendment "life begins at birth" and pro-lifers would begin it "life begins at conception."

I intended the debate to reach further than this, into the concept that it might address environmental or animal rights issues. I think though not stated in the constitution, certain rights are assumed, in the practice of legslating, to apply to animals as well, so as bans on cruel and unusual treatment. Similarly, a right to life bill - animal extension might imply that if denying or forcibly depriving a human of food to the point of death or serious or permanent damage is a violation of RTL, that doing the same to a household pet would also violate RTL.

I think for my sake, I would imply that such a statute would not be a basis to force the creation of a social program, that each citizen is responsible for feeding themselves, but to situations such as the Katrina environment where in order to be able to feed themselves it would have been necessary that the people be allowed to leave the convention center, and quite probably that they would have to leave the city of new orleans (the exit being under two blocks away) in order to find food. There was in fact food on the other side of the bridge, so it would not have been a huge oddessy to find food. These would somehow be implied in my amendment, as it would be also not legal to lock your children in the cellar without food, etc. The Katrina example does not fall under other laws, since you have no legal responsibility to strangers. Just for a final clarification, this law would not mean that you were required to feed a homeless man who came begging to your door. It would mean that you could not take a homeless man and prevent him from leaving the subway station until such a point as he starved or froze.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:28 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

I definitely don't think victims of rape should be required to bring a resulting fetus to term.
Quote:


I can't support this position because I think it launches into a very dangerous area, which is differentiating the right to life based on circumstances. The govt. can and does operate on precedence, like the SCOTUS the Senate will pass legislation saying "they did it here" as reason enough, and a good rational Senate cannot be counted on in the future, so you have to be very careful with the precedents you set. If the right to life can be conditional, it opens a can of worms. There will no doubt be an endless number of possible applications of this, such as the rights of prisoners. But even other ones we migt not have thought of, such as the rights of clones.

Furthermore, it puts one person's freedom over another person's life, and there no end of trouble there as well.

Quote:

Likewise, in the case of life-threatening danger to the mother, I would agree that the decision must be completely up to her.


Now I'm going to disagree from the other side. If you let her choose, you are in a right-to-die situation. I would let her choose to take a risk, but she can't choose certain death.

Quote:

Fletch wrote:

My youngest sister has a congenital condition that means that if she chooses to have children her life is potentially at risk.


So does mine. But I addressed this. Life at risk? No baby. I'm fine with that. I think we're all fine with that. Only people who are afraid that Neo-Jesus will be aborted aren't fine with that, and those people are loonies. They make River look like a beacon of sanity.

Quote:

We can't say "these people abuse women by enforcing their stupid religious beliefs on them" and then turn around and do the same thing.


This is interesting. I hadn't thought of that. I'm sure it's already true though. I need to think of a good example here, but there are undoubtedly many ways that we have already discredited ourselves in the eyes of the muslim world re: women's rights.

Plus, they would agree with us on abortion.

Quote:

A baby is not viable independent of the mother for 9 months, even then we still have child mortality.


The dependence of the baby shouldn't be an issue. I think part of the thing about terri schiavo was that you can't take away someone's support system, unless you're Bush I guess. But that it would still be killing someone to do so. Other issues on Terri Schiavo could be addressed, like whether or not she was actually alive. Dead people probably don't have a right to life.

Quote:

I don't believe that forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want is a justified method of punishing her "sin" of having sex.


No. It's not a punishment. She's asking help out of that situation she's already in, but that help would also require us to kill someone else. It's a much more complicated question than this.

There are people who have children and then later kill them, and clearly we don't support their right to do so, so control over someone else's life isn't something we grant to anyone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:34 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
A baby one day before birth is essentially identical to a baby one day after birth. It certainly can't care for itself in either case. In fact, humans have the longest postnatal development process of any animal on the planet. We're essentially helpless for years. So if it's simply a matter of viability that determines someone's personhood, why not extend the period of time where an "abortion" is allowed to the first few years of life?


I really agree. There's not much difference. On a sentience level it's also true. There's not really anything going on in a baby's head. Not particularly more than in Terri Schiavo's. The brain isn't actually fully build unitl a child is two years old, so technically before that it isn't fully human. When you consider the rate at which animals become aware, which is often within minutes, vs. the couple years on humans, it is clear that this biological fact of they have no brain, no fully formed human brain, that babies are pretty much not people. Let's just kill them too. You could probably notice before that brain is done certain identifiable traits starting to develop, or maybe just go by genetics. Perhaps the father was arrested for a double murder.

Okay, not I'm doing it. Not just being facetious but arguing abortion. I have to unjack my own thread. Other than abortion, anyone have any views?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 5:42 AM

MUGTWAINE


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Okay, not I'm doing it. Not just being facetious but arguing abortion. I have to unjack my own thread. Other than abortion, anyone have any views?


Agreed. Again, apologies for this. It really is hard to unjack a thread once it finds its way to this subject. I think it's especially hard this time, because for once we seem to have a group of uniformly reasonable people debating. But still, all good things must come to an end, and I'd rather not contribute to the sudden but inevitable betrayal of goodwill here.

In response to what you said about Liberty, I do agree that it's another can of worms with (possibly) fuzzier edges than life. However, I don't agree that my point is a logical fallacy. I believe it's an accurate and valid analogy. If your argument is that giving the government some control over the life and death of a criminal means that they never truly have a right to life, then giving the government some control over the basic freedom of a criminal would then (by analogy) imply that the none of us truly have a right to liberty. It would lump liberty in along with the privileges you mentioned. We don't need to discuss the details of what exactly right to liberty encompasses in order to make this connection.

As for what you said about the state handing out punishments rather than criminals inviting them - yes, I agree that is how the law is organized in the strictest sense. However, barring any false convictions and other judicial miscarriages, the state has absolutely no power to hand out punishment save for the power the criminal gives them.

Another analogy to demonstrate this point... You cannot give me a speeding ticket unless I am speeding. I know that speeding is a ticketable offense. If I choose to speed, I understand that the consequences may include a ticket which will deprive me, in some small measure, of my right to property (my money). Of course, I don't want this to happen, but I know that it might. So I speed in the hope that I will be spared.

Maybe I get away without a ticket. Maybe I do get a ticket. In that sense, the state does have the power to punish or not punish as they see fit. But the power to give them the power to punish me was mine alone.

This is why I see laws as a contract, with criminals simply making transactions as outlined by the laws. Since I don't want to be put to death, I simply won't do anything that would give the government the power to execute me. If I do commit any acts that rise to that level, then I have only myself to blame.

Someone said something earlier to the effect of, "If what goes around comes around, then what about the executioners?" The way I see it the executioners do not kill anybody. The criminals killed themselves. They handed a gun to the state, which originally had no guns of its own, and said, "Shoot me if you want, but I'd rather you didn't."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 5:57 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- how do we make "human" life "precious" to everyone- that includes corporations, governments, and fathers? Seems to me that as long as people and institutions think it's okay to trade life for something else (profit, convenience, power, ideology) then we have no claim to being RTL.
This is the bottom line as far as I can see. RTL is just a concept (and a noble one), but the world is a fierce and unpredictable jungle, albeit one with a very civilized facade.

So civilized in fact, that if an criminal is attacking you, you are under a legal obligation to judge the motive of the attack correctly, and use only the reasonable force in responce to protect yourself. I.e., you cannot break the neck of someone who only wishes to beat and sodomise you; you can only break the neck of someone who wishes to break your neck.
In my opinion, RTL would include the right to not HAVE to defend yourself from rape, beating, or murder, and as such, any defense should be appropriate. An attacker is by his actions noting that he is operating outside the rules of society, therefore giving up his RTL in the attack, and should legally be able to be repelled w/deadly force, even if he only means to bloody you up a little, or rob you under the threat of same. How in the world is a person supposed to see the attacker's envisioned outcome of his attack? He might leave you alive, he might WANT you dead, who can tell?

Remember Bernard Goetz? He should have gotten a ticket for having an unliscensed weapon, period.

RTL should include being free from nonsense.

This post courtesy of the Libertarian in Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 6:13 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Mugtwaine:
Another analogy to demonstrate this point... You cannot give me a speeding ticket unless I am speeding. I know that speeding is a ticketable offense. Maybe I get away without a ticket. Maybe I do get a ticket. In that sense, the state does have the power to punish or not punish as they see fit. But the power to give them the power to punish me was mine alone.

Ah, the other side of that coin.... there was a place on the Long Island Expressway where it dips down (near Roslyn/Glen Cove exits for you NYers) and anyone going 55 in an easterly direction would invariably exceed the speed limit for a short time due to the decline; only the most speed-aware would use their breaks for such a small run. However, the police became aware of this section, and had it manned round the clock as it became the 'fish in a barrel' area to shovel out tickets. Was it helping anyone be more safe? NO. It was a cash cow for the local authorities. Laws= money, not safety or protection.

Chrisisall, who believes in CREAM

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 6:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Hi folks - I don't much to add here, save for one tiny little point, and then I will go back to lurking...

A most fascinating, informative and civil discussion on a topic most folk can't keep polite for 3 posts in a row, as someone said, go us.

I think it's a *good* discussion because it addresses a lot of points in a civil and honest fashion.

Anyhow, my point is thus - in my experience, i have come across some of the places that these children who are given up for adoption wind up when they are too old to be likely to be adopted, and if there is a hell, it is these places, the foster care system is also it's own nightmare.

So when a child is put up for adoption in order to avoid being aborted, and then winds up in this system - they may well face years of being tortured by the system and come out of it a monster who spends every waking moment wrecking havoc on our society.
(See Also: Lifestyle-violent juvenille offenders)

So one also has to contemplate the usual fate (death, obviously) of these unwanted children after years of torture, abuse, neglect and mayhem.

Conversely, those who ARE willing to adopt are subjected to a nightmare of red tape and legal fees.

You see, we tried to adopt, but while we have enough to raise a child, $35,000.00+ USD in legal fees, years of red tape and hassle made this impossible, especially with the complications of a religious belief that isn't 'socially acceptable' to the state - which has NO right to dictate beliefs to us, but does in cases like this.

I am not in any way, shape or form RTL, however a good starting position would be to educate and support young folks BEFORE they wind up pregnant alone and scared - the whole 'birth control is evil' thing simply has to be chucked from the RTL argument, and actual education beyond 'sex is evil, don't do it' would do wonders for reducing the number of potential abortions we are talking about.

Reality trumps theory much of the time.

A second help to the starting position would be dismantling or streamlining the adoption process so that potential parents (like myself) are not driven off in defeated frustration, still childless and a lot poorer for the trouble.

But really, the whole RTL position should best be summed up "Do no harm that you do not have to."
Which is said in different words in many beliefs.

THAT position, I can agree with - in fact, I think we all can no matter what else we believe.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 6:47 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:


So when a child is put up for adoption in order to avoid being aborted, and then winds up in this system - they may well face years of being tortured by the system and come out of it a monster who spends every waking moment wrecking havoc on our society.
So one also has to contemplate the usual fate (death, obviously) of these unwanted children after years of torture, abuse, neglect and mayhem.
I take it that you don't mean every child will have this experience, but a large number of them will...
In any case, let's make it personel.

To those who would respond, would you rather have been born to young or troubled girls who put you into the adoption machine, only to wind up too old to adopt, and never having a family experience thinking the world was a cold, hatefull place where sadness was your only friend....
Or would you choose a second or so of pain your un-developed brain wouldn't be able to recognize anyhow, and be born to those prepared to accept and love you?

I guess your answer will be based largely on whether you believe you will be here no matter what. If each fetus is our one and only shot at getting here...well, no offence, but that's kind of a sad belief, don't you think?

Consciousness finds a way...



Dr. Malcolm Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:10 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

giving the government some control over the basic freedom of a criminal would then (by analogy) imply that the none of us truly have a right to liberty. It would lump liberty in along with the privileges you mentioned.


I can't accept this because right ot liberty is undefined. It's possible when we define it, it will have your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, and then the incarceration is not a restriction of freedom of the convict, but an enforment of the freedom of the non-convict as a minimum measure. It's also possible that an investigation into right to freedom might stike down incarcetation, and we might end up replacing the system completely with penal colonies or some other solution.

Right to life is pretty cut and dry relatively, and I think if it can be revoked than it becomes priviledge to life, which is not the same thing.

The same argument that I just made for incarceration, which may itself be a fallacy, would certainly not hold for life. Killing the murderer is not a minimum measure to protect the lives of the not yet murdered, since incarceration already does this as well.

Again, you have no right to speed, or a right to drive. You have a licensed priviledge to drive, and never had a priviledge to speed.

Quote:

he way I see it the executioners do not kill anybody. The criminals killed themselves.


I think this just isn't so. By the power vested in me, but not by anything you gave to me. It's a punishment system and comes dangerously close to having a legal system based on vengeance.

The legal system should be based on prevention, if it is to exist at all. I am coming from an extremist position where I wouldn't be heartbroken if I woke up tomorrow and there was no govt. and so it wouldn't bother me if there was no law either. The only problem with lawless society is that it falls to easily into law by vengeance, and if we legislate it as such, then we really haven't created an improvement on total lawlessness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:23 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The only problem with lawless society is that it falls to easily into law by vengeance, and if we legislate it as such, then we really haven't created an improvement on total lawlessness.
I take it you're not a fan of most Clint Eastwood movies...

The good, bad and ugly Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:31 AM

DREAMTROVE


Chrisisall,

The attack cannot give up his RTL because it is a right, not a priveledge, just as you cannot give up or lose your right not to be tortured.

It's one of a minimum preventative measure. The attackers motives cannot be clearly determined. If someone is trying to rape you, you can't be sure that the attack does not have HIV or any of a number of infections that his rape of you would actually kill you, and so the rapist can be treated the same as a murderer. Also, anyone who is seeking to simply knock you out or knock you down, might also kill you. So really there is a big grey area here where in order to be sure not to be killed, you might have to take action.

In the case of theft, If the thief is taking an item off of your desk, that has cash value to you, and then attempts to flee in possesion of that, you certainly have no right to kill them. In the case of Geotz, if someone attacks you with a sharpened screwdriver and threatens to kill you if you do not give him your money, your life is in danger, because he might kill you anyway. It's again a grey area, but I would agree with you, it's not normal behavior to try to kill someone, and in a crowded area a group of four who would kill someone might kill other people as well.

In the whole balance of RTL, if the situation is kill or be killed, and rape and various other attacks that might well end in death have to be more or less equated to being killed, then the RTL is a balanced issue. Either posisble outcome results in loss of life, and so there is no net gain, so by default, I would agree, you have the right to do everything in your power to not die.

But I do not agree that the attacker has sacraficed his right to life.

Take a hypothetical example. The year is 2033, and RTL is law.

An armed gangster breaks into your house, intent on stealing the code file for the design of the personal atomic paralyzer. You come dowm and recognize him as former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. He's sporting an H16 laser cannon. He sees you, and recognizes that you will be able to identify him to the police as the theif, and so he begins to charge up his H16 to annihilate you, but you pull out your smith and wesson and fire.

Mr. Chavez is now bleeding on the floor, and has dropped his H16, which being made of crystal, breaks into a billion pieces. Chavez cannot move much and no longer poses any serious threat to you. He attempts ot reach a phone to call 911 and get an ambulance to take him to the hospital, but you pull kick the phone from his hand, breaking it, and Chavez dies on the floor.

Now you have murdered Chavez, because his right to life was not sacraficed by his attack on you. After he no longer posed a threat to you, and had been defeated in combat, he still had a right to life, and had a right to medical attention. He may have to face, and probably would, other possible criminal charges after being sown up, but he would have a right to see a doctor so he can go on living.

Now, consider this scene with a different ending, and one in which Chavez has given up his priviledge of life by making the attack on you. In this scenario, You shoot Chavez but he still gets away, but uninentionally drops the plans on his way out the window. Since Mr. Chavez' priviledge of life is fofeit, you now track him down at his home with your smith an wesson.

You see the madness that such a society that had accepted the latter interpretation would find itself in.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:47 AM

DREAMTROVE


Fremdfirma,

I gotta slam this

Okay, yeah sure, yay us, but I was much more interested in the non-abortion side of things, so I was trying to spin it :)

But I can't accept this, oh it's a depraved life, throw it away. This is an appalling argument. By this argument, let's legalize genocide against the poor. Right to life is a right to life, and things that are alive tend to want to stay alive. I can't even come close in words to how strongly I oppose this idea of "better off dead" Euthanisia is sick. It's genocide for the purpose of making the lives of those who don't want to have to deal with the problems of others so they can make there own lives a little more convenient. I don't think this is your position, but this is the logical endpoint of this type of thinking. Better if we don't even venture down this road.

The reason adoption is a nightmare is that most the unwanted children are aborted. So you end up getting kids from other countries, most of which are facing serious situations where crimial baby snatching rings are kidnapping kids and/or killing parents and selling babies for cash, and it's a mess, hence endless legal trouble, etc. A new adoption system, preferable private sector (I hate govt.) would be much better. Competition between several competitors could make things quite smooth.

A final point is that adoption people waste a lot of time vetting parents. What a total waste, and what a socialistic discriminatory practice anyway.

Here's why:

We don't vet parents before allowing them to give birth.

The only difference with adopting parents is usually one of biology. The genetic variance among humans exceeds the species barrier by a hair, and that means any two random humans may not be genetically compatible. Some people can't have children at all. This idea that these people who are biologically unfortunate should have to meet the standard of, let's be honest, a left leaning institution, is just plain fascist. I'm not in this group, and not looking to adopt, but objectively I'm appalled.

I basically get where you're coming from, so none of this is directed at you, just at the world state of affairs.

The foster system, IMHO, sucks pretty bad. This is a different issue, though. People's right to life simply can't be tied to the probably quality of that life, or you get dangerously close to giving justification to fascism again.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:05 AM

DREAMTROVE


Chris

Quote:

that's kind of a sad belief, don't you think?


The post you were responding I probably thought was about the most offensive one I ever read, but I don't think it was intended to be. I was just hoping for a retraction. Anyway, of course you're right. I think it goes further than that.

1. A child is born in a hospital and chances are only 10% that the child will ultimately survive and live a happy normal life, so you decide to take an axe and chop it's head off.

2. A group of cats are sitting in the pound. Statistically you know, if released into the wild, of the 10, only 3 will lead normal happy lives, then 3 will probably die in a year and the remaining 4 will contract feline leukemia. So you start out by killng the most dilapidated, and then, because you're not certain which will survive, you kill them all.

3. A group of children are dispondent because they live in foster care. They never had a decent family life, and they don't really have any friends other than each other. Some are already career criminals, and others are terminally ill. You can't stand the sight of this lack of normalness of shiny happy people, so you kill them all.

I can't find an application in which this kind of thinking isn't utterly appalling. One of my best friends was in foster care. He was given to a born again christian family which locked him in a room for his entire childhood. He had no friends and wasn't allowed to socialize with the family. He was essentially just slave labor. I've known a fair number of people in this or a similar situtaion, even some who were terminally ill on top. I didn't kill any of them. None of them ever said to me "I wish I were dead" or "Someone should've killed me before they put me through this." Ironically those are things said by troubled teens who've never really had these sorts of life threatening problems.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:06 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chavez cannot move much and no longer poses any serious threat to you.
At that point I call 911 and try to stop his bleeding, IF he no longer has the strength to overcome me.
I think we're on the same page here.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:14 AM

DREAMTROVE


Yeah, I knew we were, I was making the point that he has not at any point forfeited his right to life, killing him is self defense was the only option you had to ensure your own survival, and thus the RTL of it was a wash, and didn't apply. It was a minimum measure to protect your own RTL which you had a right to do.

I like Clint Eastwood movies okay. I'm not saying I want ot live in one. But if we live in Clint World, than WTF is govt. for?

Govt. is the most expensive thing we buy. Having it costs the avg. worker more than buying a new car every year. If we actually buy govt. it ought to provide something worth having.

At the moment all I get for my money is Iraq War, (my fed tax) and then some guys who threaten me with guns on the highway (my state tax).

I'd like to see some competition of govt. Maybe I could be a citizen of newamericancitizen.com instead of the USA, and then I'd be bound by its rules, and get its benefits. If this sounds absurd, bear in mind that this is essentially how it was done in Germany before the Christians came.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:18 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:


I've known a fair number of people in this or a similar situtaion, even some who were terminally ill on top. I didn't kill any of them. None of them ever said to me "I wish I were dead" or "Someone should've killed me before they put me through this." Ironically those are things said by troubled teens who've never really had these sorts of life threatening problems.


We have to go with what we get; I just have no problem with the aborting of an unwanted pregnancy because from my view, you're essentially starting from scratch, again.
I still like the bus analogy, miss that one, catch another.
But of course, like any other view, it can be perverted into 'Let's kill starving poor people to relieve them of their burden', and that's not likely to ever become an acceptable view for any civilized group- I hope.

I think we're almost on the same page here.(?)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:44 AM

MUGTWAINE


Ah, the other side of that coin.... there was a place on the Long Island Expressway where it dips down (near Roslyn/Glen Cove exits for you NYers) and anyone going 55 in an easterly direction would invariably exceed the speed limit for a short time due to the decline; only the most speed-aware would use their breaks for such a small run. However, the police became aware of this section, and had it manned round the clock as it became the 'fish in a barrel' area to shovel out tickets. Was it helping anyone be more safe? NO. It was a cash cow for the local authorities. Laws= money, not safety or protection.


Yeah, I hear you on that one. I was driving in New Hampshire recently (where I grew up), but I now have the misfortune to have Massachusetts plates. I was traveling with the flow of traffic (which, admittedly, was speeding in itself, but not to an extreme degree). Came upon a downward slope in the highway, and neglected to hit the brakes. Next thing I know, I'm pulled over and smacked between the eyes with a $216 ticket. My first. I didn't know they could cost that much.

Anyway, I agree that speeding tickets are just a cash cow. Meanwhile, you can drive as recklessly as you want at lower speeds, and you'll never get in trouble despite the fact that what you are doing is far more dangerous. In fact, I'd wager failing to signal a lane shift in moderate traffic is much more dangerous than speeding. It's just not as easy to catch.

The speeding thing was just an example though. Hopefully the point made sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:08 AM

MUGTWAINE


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

... then the incarceration is not a restriction of freedom of the convict, but an enforment of the freedom of the non-convict as a minimum measure.


Interesting point. So you're saying that the rights of potential victims are given a greater weight than the rights of the convict. The victim's right to be safe from the criminal trumps the criminal's right to walk free. I might be able to buy that.

Unfortunately, it gets a bit messier when you think of a one-time crime. Maybe somebody loses money gambling, and realizes the error of his ways. He'll never again get himself into such a tight spot, but just this once he needs to knock off a convenience store to avoid getting his thumbs broken by Jimbo. Since the ex-gambler will never again rob a convenience store, nobody else's rights or safety are in danger. So he should go free, right? There is no potential victim whose rights trump the ex-gambler. If we punish him, then we're just being vengeful.

Problem with viewing incarceration in this way is that it would actually damage the cause of prevention. If you follow the idea to its somewhat silly end, you'd have thousands of people doing illegal things and then crying (maybe even honestly), "But it was just that once!" and then getting off scott free.

Quote:

Again, you have no right to speed, or a right to drive. You have a licensed priviledge to drive, and never had a priviledge to speed.


Never meant to imply that people did have a priviledge to speed. I was really just trying to make the point that if you don't do anything wrong, then you have absolutely nothing to fear from the state (not true, of course, since false convictions do occur, but I'm trying to keep things simple).

So yeah, I guess my semantics are a bit strong. The government *does* punish people. However, while the criminal does not *welcome* punishment, he is the only one who can create the *opportunity* for it.

Quote:

It's a punishment system and comes dangerously close to having a legal system based on vengeance.

The legal system should be based on prevention, if it is to exist at all. I am coming from an extremist position where I wouldn't be heartbroken if I woke up tomorrow and there was no govt. and so it wouldn't bother me if there was no law either. The only problem with lawless society is that it falls to easily into law by vengeance, and if we legislate it as such, then we really haven't created an improvement on total lawlessness.


This all reminds me very much of a Philosophy of Law class I took a few years ago in college. Basically, I do think of our laws as preventative. They are also punishment, but not just punishment for punishment's sake. I don't see our system as vengeful. If you were so inclined, it could very easily be seen as a system of threats of punishment - which is not much nicer than a system of vengeance when you get right down to it, but would at least be more preventative in its goals.

Still, I don't even see the system as a threatening one. When a mother tells her child that hitting his brother will get him a time out, that is not a threat. It's a consequence. It's a promise. That's how I see our laws.

Now there are of course some very silly extensions of my approach. For example, if I buy a CD in a music store, am I really *buying* it or am I stealing it and paying a petty theft settlement outside of court? It's really not so different, I guess...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:16 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Citizen, try to stay in the bounds of reality. This is like saying the ultimate right to bear arms is to give everyone a nuke. Radiohead aside, we want to live in this world.

I thought you were asking the logical extreme of the RTL argument, and that’s where I see it leading, eventually, if unfettered by the other POV. Yeah it's entirely unrealistic but that's where I see it leading if taken to its logical conclusion.
However, you’re American, right? Kudos on recognising the Radiohead quote .
As for the right to bear arms stuff I'm not sure, again logical extremes, a gun is a tool, but a tool that from conception to reality is designed to kill.
I mean we all still don't carry swords, do we .
Quote:
Still and all, we can't have people walking around with nukes. The best way, IMHO, to deal with the problem is via a bilateral disarmement, whereby US forces and citizens agree to scale back from machines guns hopefully towards some non-lethal but equally combat effective weapons.

I agree, to a point, but that point is kind of outta the scope of this discussion.
Quote:
When life begins is obviously subjective, and clearly a lot of us would disagree. I hold it is an irrelevant argument. A human will come to pass if no intervention is made, so just as the failure to intervene to stop a murder is accessory to the crime...

I was stating my own opinion on that, I don't see a couple of cells as a Human, and not all pregnancies result in a viable birth, beyond that it's all very subjective.
I accept your point on not every right to lifer wants a ban, which is why I made the distinction of moral extremists.
One thing I will say, which is one of the reasons I'm not pro-pro life, is I see a lot of extremism (even violent extremism) on the side of the pro-lifers, and little if any on the side of the pro-choicers. This is something you don't often see; usually the extremism is more 50/50.
Also my own thoughts on the issue are backed by real life situations I've experienced. If I may share an anecdote:
A very close friend of mine had an abortion once. Her mother nearly died of a retained placenta, and so did she after she gave birth to her eldest daughter. This wasn't the reason for her abortion though, her eldest was born some years post, and she had no reason to assume she'd suffer from a retained placenta.
The reason she had an abortion was because she was forced into it by her abusive boyfriend.
Whether abortion was illegal or not she would have had an abortion. The only difference is whether she had it in a licensed clinic with an experienced doctor or in a seedy kitchen with some guy who killed a cow once.
I realise your not advocating a ban, but pretty much all I see of the RTL side of the argument is the desire to ban abortion.
If abortion had been banned (as I believe will happen if the RTL 'side' gets it's way as a whole) my friend would most likely be dead, or infertile.
Since both her children (my god children) were born some years after the abortion, then neither would be alive now.
Such I see the banning of abortion could very well be counterproductive to the RTL campaign.
I think that the RTL campaign is most essentially toward a ban on abortion, and the pro-choice is against a ban on abortion.
That's to say I'm pro choice because I'm against a ban not because I'm pro abortion.
Under my idea of the two ideals I would label you as a pro-choicer, Dreamtrove, if that helps your understanding of my stance any.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 11:45 AM

MUGTWAINE


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

One thing I will say, which is one of the reasons I'm not pro-pro life, is I see a lot of extremism (even violent extremism) on the side of the pro-lifers, and little if any on the side of the pro-choicers. This is something you don't often see; usually the extremism is more 50/50.


Count yourself lucky. I have seen it.

I do of course agree that most extremism on the subject of abortion tends to come from Christian conservatives. I myself am Roman Catholic, but really not very devout. All things being equal, I do like to think there is something more to this world than it seems, and something more to us as humans than simply muscle tissue urged to action by the flashing of synapses. But that doesn't mean I believe every last word in the Bible. Far from it. I generally think its heart is in the right place, but I don't take it as fact.

I remember in my Philosophy of Law class, we were discussing a theoretical case of a man who thought he'd committed adultery simply by lusting after a woman who was not his wife, since there is at least one passage in the Bible that says this is how it works. Somebody said something like "The Pope says x, y, and z," to which I responded openly, "Yeah, well the Pope says a lot of things." Big laugh, but it's true. Before all Christians are branded crazy-people, there are those of us who can look at an issue and make up our own minds.

(Long story short, anyway, I don't really think my position on abortion has anything to do with my religion.)

But I digress - I've met people who are not only pro-choice extremists, they in fact openly identified themselves as pro-abortion. One of them (one of the truest jackasses I ever did meet by the way), insisted that the world was so overcrowded with humans that only a select few in the next few generations should be allowed to procreate. All others should be required to take birth control or have abortions.

The other was a member of the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance (which as far as I can tell is nearly a militant pro-choice group). She stood up on a table in our dorm's common room and gave an impromptu speech once about how having children forces women into stereotyped gender roles, which represents a social step back for all women everywhere, and therefore all women everywhere should have abortions regardless of whether they (selfishly) want to keep the child or not.

This girl was incredibly annoying. Thankfully, she transferred out of my school after a year because it wasn't liberal enough for her. I can't really conceive of this, of course, because the school was the single most stiflingly liberal, PC place I have ever been in my life. We're talking 1984, thoughtcrime levels of social conditioning. I try to see both sides of an argument (and I hope that has come across in the discussion so far), but at this place I couldn't, because there were never two sides to any argument. Dissenters were afraid to speak.

So yeah. Didn't exactly love the school I went to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1:59 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mugtwaine,

Generally speaking, the punish all convenience store robbers equally is a 'rule by example,' so it's not really vengeance.

I happen to think 'rule by example' justice is an inherently flawed system. It creates fear in the populous, so they more or less obey you, but fear breeds hatred.

The Chinese justice system is almost exclusively based on 'rule by example.' The end effect of this is the Chinese keep pretty much in line, the crime rate is low, and everyone in China hates the govt. to the point that any random citizen if they could just push a button and kill them all, they might do it. I think this is not a condition you would ever want your country to be in. Since the Chinese govt. has a strong hand, it can keep order. But as people saw in 1989, whenever that hand slips, all out revolution may ensue. China is currently very close to that with their takeover of Taiwan. They need to be very carefu. If Taiwan should come to a conflict, and Godlessness forbid they were to lose said conflict, the empire might come down like a house of cards.

I think overall our legal and justice system is horribly flawed. It rehabilitates no one, costs a fortune, and holds a population of millions while generating no benefit for society from these people. It's pretty close to a total loss. Designing a better one would be another thread which I'd be up for if you want to start it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 2:14 PM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

We do listen to radiohead in the states, or some of us do. We're not all trapped inside a metal box of Britney and Fitty.

Quote:
usually the extremism is more 50/50.


Activism, violent and not, used to be almost entirely a thing of the left. Now more and more I would think that it is right. I would confess that Osama Bin Laden is a right wing extremist, something I say with a fair amount of shame, but I think it's true. He's not at all socialist or pro-govt., and his arguments are all based on "protection of a way of life" which is probably the signature right wing framework, and not focussed on "universal equality" the signature left wing framework. So yeah, I think this sort of activity is becoming part of the right, and ceasing to be so much part of the left. I don't really know what this says.

Quote:

I would label you as a pro-choicer, Dreamtrove, if that helps your understanding of my stance any.


Did you read my posts?! Hmm. I'm not sure it does. I'm solidly RTL. Pro-choice to me pretty much falls within the spectrum of 'right to kill' to me, not a position I ever support. I may disagree with the Christian extremists on the most effective means to stop abortion, but I definitely agree with them on the goal. I don't think I'm even a moderate on RTL, because I wouldn't support the 'rape and incest' exemption. I do support the 'life of the mother' exemption.

Quote:

Such I see the banning of abortion could very well be counterproductive to the RTL campaign.


This is very possible. It would merit a great deal of study. If done, 'twould be best that 'twere done slowly. I think most RTLers get that no one is pro abortion. Well, I have a cousin who is pro-abortion, but he's a freak. He's to the right of me, too. He just wants to limit the number of humans.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 2:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance


Clever name. Did you report her to the Paternal Educators for Non-Intervention Society?

For those who misses it:
Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance
Fe.Ma.Le. All.

BTW, yes, education has been taken over by the 1984 left, we on the true right must act. Bush is of course the 1984 left. For those who don't see it, and don't know about PNAC and it's communist origins, it should be enough to say that Bush is lockstep with Tony Bliar on all his policies.

But I don't want to simply attack the left because then they'll fight back :) So appologies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 3:14 PM

CITIZEN


Mugtwaine:
Yeah, the 'nutjob' contingent of any argument. Like the animal rights protesters who dig up the dead bodies of old women to protest. They most likely don't care one bit about animal rights.
I imagine your FMLA 'friend' liked to play the part of the repressed minority somewhat...
What I meant was that the radical extremists planting bombs in abortion clinics are on the pro-life side, and I don't see that level of violence on the side of pro-choice.

Your school, btw, doesn’t sound too liberal, more like a PC tyranny...

Dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
We do listen to radiohead in the states, or some of us do. We're not all trapped inside a metal box of Britney and Fitty.

You mean you guys don't all listen to gangsta rap ? I just hadn't realised that Radiohead was all that pervasive within America.

I did indeed read your posts, and your approach seemed very much toward, give people the choice but educate them not to use it. Hence what I meant by pro choice.

I see a ban on abortion, even if there are extreme circumstance excemptions, in ending up back where we were before legalised abortions, and I see that very much as a 'bad' backwards step.

I'd be careful making distinctions like pro-choice being right to kill.
Sure, from a right to life position it may seem like pro-choice is right to death, but from a pro-choice stance right to life could very well seem like anti-choice, and these distinctions could be part of the reason these discussions degenerate.
In other words, I'm pro choice for some (I think) very good practical reasons, not because I'm pro-death.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 3:23 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Paternal Educators for Non-Intervention Society?

LOL!


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 3:51 PM

MUGTWAINE


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I happen to think 'rule by example' justice is an inherently flawed system. It creates fear in the populous, so they more or less obey you, but fear breeds hatred.


Interesting that you see it that way. It's true that most people become aware of a law by witnessing the example of people who have already broken it. But the laws are there before they are broken.

In fact, there are usually well defined guidelines within which a sentence can fall - guidelines that are outlined and approved through a somewhat flawed but mostly reasonable democratic system. A judge can't simply decide on a whim that certain behavior is illegal and punish it arbitrarily. A high profile example of this would be how Napster and other file sharing software was perfectly legal until only a few years ago - people were scrambling to put the legislation together because in the meantime they were essentially being robbed legally.

This is where I think we as a country differ from China. I don't know how their legislative system works, but I'd wager ours is a bit more public-input friendly. I agree that if unreasonably harsh laws were imposed upon us without representation, our country would be headed toward an eventual revolt. That is after all how the country began in the first place.

As it is, I believe our laws do instill an appropriate fear of wrongdoing. The point of criminal laws is to discourage bad behavior. I have no problem obeying those laws when I had a hand in deciding what they are. We obey the state, but if our democracy is functioning then we're really only obeying ourselves anyway. We shouldn't have a problem playing by the rules if we're the ones who made up the game.

Sorry if I've rambled or said the same thing six times in only slightly different ways. I'm tired.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 3:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It's been an interesting thread. But I come back to my original concept, which is that in general people are in love with the IDEA of a human but that the actuality is, alas, much more complex. There is a lady in our lab - a good Catholic- who carried a trisomy 18 baby to term. She, her husband, and the doctors all knew that the baby was doomed to die a horrible, struggling, gasping death- the only question was whether it would die in childbirth or live for a few days. Was giving birth to this baby mercy, or torture? And then there was my MIL who was mentally incompetent and riddled with cancer and consumed with pain and fear near the end of her life. Is overdosing a tad with morphine (and potentially hastening her death) a bad thing or good thing?

I struggle with the specifics each time. For me there seem to be no clear-cut answers. But I know I have seen ONE good death and that was- ironically- my cat's. He had an incurable case of megacolon, he was vomitting stool and starving. So I took him to the vet's where he had been treated many times before and they sedated him, as if for surgery. In his experience this had always led to relief and he died, purring, under my hands.



---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 5:14 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

I'd wager ours is a bit more public-input friendly


I wasn't quite sure what this was supposed to mean. There are several things about the chinese justice system which would seem bizarre or even unfair to us.

1. It's the extreme 'rule by example' society. Often such systems do have the laws written in advance because they know they'll be broken. In China they sometimes see a behavior as undesirable, pass a law, and then execute people that day on the street for the same crime.
2. All charged are assumed guilty. Everything after that is a plea bargain. The state is supreme, and if you deny their claims, you are thwarting the state. This is what I get from Chinese people. They don't hate their country at all, but some prefer not to live there. I know two who live there now, but say this sort of stuff. Lately they don't say it now because the govt. has started tapping email.

My sister in law is Chinese also, and both her parents spent many years in prison. Her mothers jaw was broken in a torture chamber, and never rehealed. They were career communists, but they opposed some genocidal policy of the party during the cultural revolution, so they were sentenced to decades in prison and torture. They've told me stories over the years, including quite recently, there's been basically no change in the concept of law and rule in the upper eschelons. They still see their goal as a nation to dominate the world, but it's a long term plan, conquering just a tiny bit at a time.

The takeover of Taiwan has been concurrent with the annexation of Iraq by us. The two have many parallels, not just that they're both wealthy first world countries with populations of 23 million each.

The differences will be clear when it's all said and done, Taiwan's chance of freedom might head for zero. Iraq's chances depend on who succeeds Bush. It might very well fall to Al Qaeda, or become a lifeless US puppet state. Taiwan is almost certainly headed for lifeless puppet state.

I'm not at all anti-Chinese, and you may have seen that in my posts blasting the ideas that China is to blame for our economic state. I do have serious problems with the commies. And Bush, whose supporters really do fall into that group.

We're definitely very different from communist China, but I just like to use my imagination of where something like the Patriot Act might ultimately lead, were all its provisions to be ultimately enforces. I think it's good to do this. It's bad to be a tyrannical dictatorship. It's good not to even be on the road towards that destination.

Quote:

As it is, I believe our laws do instill an appropriate fear of wrongdoing. The point of criminal laws is to discourage bad behavior. I have no problem obeying those laws when I had a hand in deciding what they are. We obey the state, but if our democracy is functioning then we're really only obeying ourselves anyway. We shouldn't have a problem playing by the rules if we're the ones who made up the game.


I'm not sure. I guess I basically agree we're okay behaviorwise. I think that not much would change if law disappeared. Not here anyway. Some laws people ignore all the time, other ones they obey. I don't think anyone really knows the law. Not here. If law disappeared, the catskills would remain the same. People would be just as decent tomorrow as today. I don't know how it might effect life in the city.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 5:16 PM

DREAMTROVE


Signym

I think all of these are right-to-die issues. I don't support RTD, but I think it's an entirely separate issue, somewhere within the realm of right ot liberty. I guess right to die probably requires some belief in afterlife which my chosen faith doesn't really accord. My cat, therefore, died horribly, yet lived much longer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
I don't support RTD, but I think it's an entirely separate issue
Now this is where I get confused. What does RTL mean? That no postive action- too much morphine perhaps- will be taken to end a life? Does RTL mean that all efforts will be taken to preserve life? ANY life? At any quality? It seems that RTL will inevitably conflict with RTD in certain circumstances. Death and life are two sides of the same coin: inseparable. You can't discuss one w/o the other IMHO.

BTW, this is more than theoretical to me. The forum where I've been hanging out for the past seven years deals w/ neurocompromised children. Some children just have easily controlled seizures. Others are in pain, fully dependent, able to react only on a primitive level. One mom had a daughter die prematurely (in her opinion, due to doctor's persuasion) of mito disease. With her NEXT daugher she fought tooth and nail through multiple organ failures, total parenteral nutrition, several central line infections, experimental nutritional regimens... in the end, she had to let that daughter go, too. Fight for life? Choose death? It all depends on the actual circumstances.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:02 AM

DREAMTROVE


RTL is your personal right to live that no one else can take from you. for us RTLers, that starts at the moment that your life becomes likely if no one else intervenes to stop it. For the pro-choices it begins either at birth, or the point you can survive if tranfered to an incubator, depending.

Right to die is the right of you to choose to end your own life. To me it's a silly argument since all life is better than no life.

All of the conditions you describe are ultimately curable. The decisions you choose seem simple ones. Life is a challenge, and life for the terminally ill is a larger one. If you have a condition that no one can cure, that's probably just a matter of people in the medical community not having had people they care about with the condition. But now you do, so it actually falls upon you to cure it. I know this may seem like a rough gig, and it is. But that's the challenge that you're faced with. Sure, you can give up, but you will get no support from me for doing so. I am aware of how rough this sounds, but since I was in this position myself, and I know a fair amount about the subject, I'm sure it can be done. Most of these inherited problems come from the breakdown of some enzymatic function. Is it possible that in such a battle, you would lose? Yes, it's even probable. But does that mean it's not worth fighting? Not IMHO.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:47 - 7513 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL