Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 27 Feb 2017, 9:25 am

Good question. As a military member you make a pledge to follow the orders of those above you. If you choose to do that, you must be willing to accept the punishments thereof.

Same as the segregated laws in the 1960s. My mother did get chased out of Pensacola in 1960 because she served a black before a white at a perfume counter. The KKK hassled her until she returned to Idaho (Ironic, isn't it!). She made the choice and would not take the easy road. Good for her, I say.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Feb 2017, 10:00 am

Nice story.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 27 Feb 2017, 11:03 am

freeman3 wrote:Not sure where to put this so I'll put it here. Chris Long's responses to people on Twitter criticizing him for not going to the White House to celebrate New England's Super Bowl win. Hilarious.

http://www.vocativ.com/falsestart/40346 ... e=outbrain


They are cute ... but as someone who has watched every Pats game this year, I didn't even recognize his name..
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Feb 2017, 12:31 pm

Please stop changing your story.
The original quote:
If the law is demonstrably bad, then popular opinion would have changed over 40 years. because if it is demonstrably bad, people should be persuadable...


not what you say now:
The poll I referenced asks about Roe Versus Wade...Roe versus Wade would need to be over turned for any change in abortion law.


The polls very clearly show exactly as you say does not exist. People have been persuaded the law was a bad one over time. The polls show exactly as you say does not exist and you try to fine tune what was said to suit your point of view. Don't move the goalposts, people do not support it as they did at one time.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Feb 2017, 1:29 pm

tom
The polls very clearly show exactly as you say does not exist. People have been persuaded the law was a bad one over time. The polls show exactly as you say does not exist and you try to fine tune what was said to suit your point of view. Don't move the goalposts, people do not support it as they did at one time

I can understand why you may find the Gallop poll confusing...
Perhaps the way Pew measures attitudes is clearer?

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (59%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 37% who say it should be illegal all or most of the time. Public support for legal abortion is now as high as it’s been in two decades of polling.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -abortion/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 02 Mar 2017, 1:44 pm

That's it, when the polling data YOU supply doesn't work for you, search for something else that does...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2017, 2:50 pm

rickyp wrote:tom
The polls very clearly show exactly as you say does not exist. People have been persuaded the law was a bad one over time. The polls show exactly as you say does not exist and you try to fine tune what was said to suit your point of view. Don't move the goalposts, people do not support it as they did at one time

I can understand why you may find the Gallop poll confusing...
Perhaps the way Pew measures attitudes is clearer?

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (59%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 37% who say it should be illegal all or most of the time. Public support for legal abortion is now as high as it’s been in two decades of polling.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -abortion/


One of the drawbacks of Roe v. Wade is that the law making has been mostly taken away Congress and the people. If we had 40+ years of legislative process amongst 50 different states we would have a much more robust sense of the views, and changing views, of the American people. We all know that polls can be misleading and often don't carry through to the ballot box.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Mar 2017, 3:41 pm

I just find it hard to see any reasonable argument that with regard to the ability to terminate a pregnancy--which is as about fundamental a concern as there is-- that one-half of the population gets to vote on something they will never face themselves. The right to make a decision regarding whether to terminate a pregnancy or not is in need of protection from government more than any other right because it is uniquely unfit to be decided politically as it is something only one-half of the population faces. Moral suasion? Within limits...yes. Governmental coercion? No.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 02 Mar 2017, 3:58 pm

Freeman, I do not agree with your premise. If a man can be made to provide for a child he did not want, but the mother has the choice as to terminate; well, that is unfair. If the mother could sign her as sole custody and support of the child, then I could agree with your argument.

If the father does not have rights, he should not have responsibilities.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2017, 4:45 pm

freeman3 wrote:I just find it hard to see any reasonable argument that with regard to the ability to terminate a pregnancy--which is as about fundamental a concern as there is-- that one-half of the population gets to vote on something they will never face themselves. The right to make a decision regarding whether to terminate a pregnancy or not is in need of protection from government more than any other right because it is uniquely unfit to be decided politically as it is something only one-half of the population faces. Moral suasion? Within limits...yes. Governmental coercion? No.


Hypothetically, what if only women voted, but on a state-by-state basis; No doubt blue states would keep abortion legal, but I bet you some red states would vote right to life. Would you accept those results?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Mar 2017, 5:28 pm

Interesting hypothetical RJ and I could probably live with it even though I would prefer that the right be protected everywhere. If we did that what you hypothesized it would probably reduce a major component of the culture wars.

Brad, so the reason...men should have a say in whether a woman can terminate a pregnancy is that they have to fork over some dough. Let's put it this way: if technology could do it would you rather carry a child for 9 months and have power over terminating the pregnancy or would you rather not have the power to terminate the pregnancy for 9 months and have parental support obligations?

I await your answer...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 02 Mar 2017, 6:06 pm

I would rather that nobody has the right to terminate.

If the man could carry the child and charge the woman, I am just as fine as the other way around. I am just saying that it is not fair that the woman has all the rights, and the man has none.

If she wants to keep it, and the man does not, what is the reason that he should be paying, when the woman has the ability to terminate, and the man does not.

I hope that answered your question. Been a long day...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 7:58 am

I just find it hard to see any reasonable argument that with regard to the ability to terminate a pregnancy--which is as about fundamental a concern as there is-- that one-half of the population gets to vote on something they will never face themselves.

Part of your problem is your inability to see any opposing view. Killing a living being can be considered murder. I know YOU don't see it that way of course but your failure to think it even a possibility clouds your judgement.
And the part about why half the people can vote on something that they will never face themselves...
Let's use your position and do away with Gun rights. Your liberal position would like this? Less than half the population owns guns so let's make them illegal.
But if you agree with that then we need to do away with Gay rights / Gay Marriage? Most of us are not gay so it would affect only a very small part of the population, why should this minority have any rights at all? Let's stone them instead???
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2017, 8:32 am

Pregnancy is sui generis. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

With gun rights all of us CAN own guns so that analogy does not apply.

As for gay rights you are looking at the most particular--gay rights-- as opposed to the general issue of equality which applies to everyone.

Pregnancy involves an enormous burden placed on half the population that the other does not have to go through. It is not just a 9 month burden either. There are unique burdens placed on women with early child rearing--e.g. Breast feeding--and more extensive obligations at that time due to a child being more closely bonded to the mother. Pregnancy also makes women more dependent on men which is part of the reason that they have through eons of time have had to make the call as to whether to go through with having the child or not. There is no analogy to it because it is unique. It is just friggin' too easy for men to make the call on what women should do with regard to that situation because they don't have to go through it themselves. Fact that men continue to have say in this area almost certainly just means that women do not have full equality, yet.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 8:38 am

tom
Killing a living being can be considered murder.


So when is a fetus living? A fetus can't survive outside the womb until at least 24 weeks and then only rarely till about 29 weeks... And then with significant medical assistance for some time.

Until a fetus can survive outside the womb it is considered part of the woman. It is the only reasonable argument to discern when "life" or the "potential to be alive" could be recognized.

The argument that life begins at conception seems odd when you consider that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term (spontaneously abort) (38 to 42 weeks) .