"willfully ignorant"

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: definition of conception

*the event that occured at the beginning of something*
(wordnet 1997 princton university)

It seems rather redundant to say that life *begins* at conception doesn't it?

Not to mention, self contradictory to say that it does not.

and from webster: 1996 (definition #1)

The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.

*the even that occured at the beginning of something*

This is very ambiguous.

Besides which, no one is saying that conception has not occured, merely that a full bill of rights is not automatically granted a sperm and an egg as a wedding present upon consummation of their wigglings.

*The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.*

Again, no one is arguing that the embryo is not alive. Colly pointed out that it is very much alive. The debate stands on whether or not the 'embryonic animal life' receives all tools and benefits of life, even when they may violate the mother's in the process.

~lucky (entering into this, again, with total disbelief)

 

[Pure]

hi amicus,

i'm only teasing a *little, since there is a sense in which 'less government' is often desirable. You did not answer my argument on abortion.

You say,
Fetus...not being religious..there is no God factor here, but I regard a sexual relationship between a man and a woman as a very serious and intimate encounter. I think it should remain so, recreational sex tends to lessen the value, I think...insofar as whether an embryo or fetus is life....what else is it? It is human, it does live and has the potential to become an independent human being...it can be nothing else but life....and if we regard 'life' as the ultimate and founding value for all other ethical and moral considerations, life, all human life, must be respected and protected....

I don't intend to re fight this old conundrum. Yes, the fetus, like the conceptus (entity formed at conception) has a human life potential.

I simply point out that many people do NOT agree with any limits on a woman's having an abortion in the first ten weeks. YOU may not like it, but a good many people approve (of there being that option as a last resort, decided by the woman.)

Of course there are cases where large majorities have passed laws criminalizing abortion or 'protecting fetuses.' But that's true of public education and bank regulation too. By your approach 'large majority' simply does not 'cut it.' It's insufficient.

Further, even where there is near universal "official" condemnation of abortion, as in highly Catholic areas, frequently your 'free market' takes care of the issue. When abortion was NOT protected in Canada, the easiest place to get one was in Catholic Quebec. This 'backdoor' phenomenon--like the violations of 'prohibition' of alcohol--tends to suggest the gov overextends itself by getting into this area.

By two of your criteria there should be NO law in this area-- and this situation, which some thought bizarre or dangerous, exists in Canada.

1) You said ALL should benefit, and ALL should approve.
Clearly you can't get a 'prolife' law passed on that basis (i.e., one that would criminalize early abortion, either on the dr's or the woman's part.).

2) Your approach puts the onus (burden of proof) on anyone proposing a new function of government or new regulatory or suppressive task for it. (Iow, in gray looking or doubtful cases, we should always assume the gov should NOT undertake the additional function and thereby raise taxes, hire more enforcers, etc.) For example, looking back, someone(s) might have said, according to you, "Public schools should NOT be undertaken. I/We do not benefit. Prove the universality of benefit (or as you put it, that the new system would be superior, for everyone)."

So for govt, esp federal to get involved in regulating abortion is a new function NOT to be added without overwhelming support and universal benefit. And regardless how you see it, lots of women don't see it that way.

Historically, too, considerations are against you. Many societies simply did not pay much attention to abortion. It's not mentioned in the OT. St. Thomas put 'quickening' in week 20. Iow, the blank slate, after police and military, was generally left that way. The New England 'blue laws', e.g, against contraception, are not, I believe original to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Just as there were no laws against marijuana and cocaine.)

So please explain, NOT your view on this moral issue, but why you think it's a function of *minimal government to get involved where there's clearly no (near) universal perception of (near) universal benefit.

I suspect you don't want doctors regulated by the government; i.e., you favor professional self-policing. Absence of legislation in the areas of contraception and abortion is consistent with self-regulation.

Let me put it simple terms such as you employ. I will let the gov reach into my pocket and appropriate funds to keep fellows from killing my granny. I do NOT want the gov dipping in my pocket to get funds to go after providers of early abortions. And even if only 10% agree with me (it's actually over 40%), you must respect that. If you dont want to be 'robbed' for public schools
(a view of 10%) I don't want to be robbed to police 'fetal rights.'


J.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: definition of conception

*the even that occured at the beginning of something*

This is very ambiguous.[/B]

I dont' think it's ambiguous. Seems perfectly clear cut to me.

[B
Again, no one is arguing that the embryo is not alive.
[/B]

Last I saw there was a raging debate over when life begins.

Well, if he said it was human life then he is either religious or has delusions of omnipotence.

you already "know" it's life although there isn't a shred of proof that it is,

no one, save perhaps God, knows for certain when life begins.

Making the ASSUMPTION that life begins at conception and then treating anyone who makes a different assumption as if we are not intelligent is the height of pomposity and arrogance.[/B]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Debating with you is pointless. Simply a waste of words and time.

I enter into debates with an open mind. I have freely admitted life could begin at conception. There is room with me to prove or disprove or leave the question unresolved. You enter into this debate with a closed mind. You know the answer. There is no room for a possiblity of changing your mind or even for an acceptance that no one knows.

I hope you are young. I really do, because if you are as old as I am then your habits are so ingraniend by now you won't change them. So I am going to say a few things, then put you on ignore and let it drop.

1. You faced the choice of having children or not. You made your decision and it was a comendable one. What isn't comendable is your decision that since you made that choice, it's the right choice and other women shouldn't have the same option you did. They shouldn't be allowed to search their own concience and come to the decision that is right for them with their families and physicians. The law should make them make your choice.

2. In open debate with freinds there are lines you shouldn't cross. When you do cross them, you should apologize, retreat, rethink what you wanted to say and approach it from a differnt angle. You called Mindy,one of the sweetest, most lovelavle and compasionate people on this site a murderer. You crossed a line that anyone should know is inappropraite for a freindly debate. Rather than retreat, you rubbed salt into that wound by declaring it wasn't her fault she was a murderer, she was too stupid to know she was commiting murder. Do you have the slighest conception of how popmpous, arrogant and holier than thou that sounded?

3. Right, wrong or indifferent, it is always to your detriment to be a pompous ass. One day read your comments in the abortion thread. So popmpous and arrogant you make Pat Buchanan look like the model of humility. Most of the folks here are too nice to tell you to your face, but a lot saw it and said something about it in pm.

4. Know when you are defending an undefendable position. You don't have to abandon the position, but for god's sake admit it isn't unassialable and quit acting like royalty defending the castle from a peasant revolt. If there were any concnecus, among scientists or the medical community that life began at conception there would be no legal abortion. No one in thier right mind would be fore legalized murder of innocnets, and that most defintely includes me. The simple fact is, there isn't a concensus. Nobody freaking knows and that includes you. Defend your beilef as strongly as you wish, but don't set it in stone as the truth and defend by attacking anyone who disagrees or dismising them as unintelligent or irrelevant.

5. Perhaps most importantly, realize that when you debate with freinds there is no dishonor in agreeing to disagree. It dosen't weaken your position to admit other's might have a point. A debate with friends should be an enlightening experience where you challenge your own beliefs and come through it more sure of your position or willing to investigate further with an open mind. To my knowledge I am one of the few on this site who has softened my position after hearing what others have to say and in one case changed my stance completely. The people here are intelligent and if you listen to them with an open mind you just might find your position isn't as strong as you thought, I did and am a much better person for it. I didn't learn about the issue so much as I learned about myself. That's a gift beyond reckoning and I have the poeple here to thank for it, and you may believe I have thanked them. All you do by taking a hard line I am right, you are wrong stance is anger people who should be your freinds and hurt the feelings of others. Strong defense of your beliefs is one thing, dogmatic defense of a point that can't be proven, up to and beyond the point of hurting people's feelings is self defeating, no matter how strongly you believe. That has ceased to be debate, it has become a simple argument and no one ever wins one of those. And rarely do all the participants walk away still freinds.

I hope you will read this post and consider it. You may decide it's all rubbish, in which case you can toss it, but you may find a pearl or two among the trash.

Sincerely

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Sweet, in relation to amicus approach, a kind of skepticism about how much the gov. can legitimately undertake, it simply does not matter where you think life begins. Just as it does not matter if you think marijuana (or smoking) is bad for health. There is simply no basis for govt involvement here since there's far from universal perception of benefit.

And it doesn't matter that you consider the issue *extremely important. For enough others do not. End of discussion _within the framework of minimal gov. proposed by amicus_.


J.

 

[Pure]

I'd sure be interested in knowing who the 'you' is, that Colleen is talking to.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Re: definition of conception

I dont' think it's ambiguous. Seems perfectly clear cut to me.

SnP,

Colly's post was speaking of life as I was, in reference to when life (meaning life as you and I know it, not as functioning cell masses) becomes something that merits all legal benefits. That post of hers shows clearly that she's speaking of when 'life' is granted status as a person, protected by the same laws and rules that you and I are.

Taking things out of context to prove a point as it benefits you isn't really very productive.

And I'm sure the quote does make perfectly clear cut sense to you. It suits your cause to think so, and I guess I can't fault you for that. But it leaves a lot to be desired where the openness of debating with you (on this particular topic) is concerned.

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'd sure be interested in knowing who the 'you' is, that Colleen is talking to.

Sn&P Pure. I should have quoted, but I didn't feel like posting my own words cut and pasted out of context and giving than any validity. Sorry for any confusion.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: definition of conception

I don't understand this argument of 'it's life, but it's not life.' I appologize if you feel that what she said was taken out of context or misrepresented. That was not my intent. I guess I just don't understand how you can say that a human fetus is alive but not alive, human but not human- mearly a clump of cells (what *kind* of cells?) I'm sorry if this makes me close minded, but I don't see how it can be both. Instead it seems like whatever point is under attack is quickly abandoned and the other adopted in order to make the pro-choice stance to slippery to hold onto and attempt to debate.

She insists that there is not one scrap of evidence, and then proceeds to ignore any evidence given. I concieded that perhaps it was not conclusive evidence in her view, but that it was evidence- to the contrary of her repeated statements that there is *not one scrap of evidence*

The only thing that I can even begin to think that you mean is that the fetus is indeed alive, but not as worthy as you or I of life and protection- too which I cannot agree. If I say that it is worthy I am being accused of thinking I have a direct line to God- but for others to say that it is not worthy that is openminded and fair.

I feel backed into a corner. Just as Colleen sugested, I have learned a lot about people. The same people who think that you are intellegent, brilliant, insiteful and openminded when you agree with you and you stick by your convictions are the same ones who think that you are closeminded, arrogent, and beligerant when they disagree with you and you and you stick by them.

IN regards to my decision to have children, each of them were concieved in less than ideal conditions. Abortion was not a choice for me, because I do not believe in it. I didn't *choose* not to have an abortion- I never even considered it. I wanted my baby, and if I had not wanted them, I would have found somebody who did. Had I not wanted my baby- I still would not have believed in abortion as an option.

AS to room for change, I *have* changed my mind since the first thread on this topic. I *was* quite a bit more liberal about it when I started, but forcing me to really think through my stand has led me to hold an even stronger position than before.

I respect Colly's intellegence, and others here as well. If I didn't I wouldn't even try to explain my position, I'd just say your all too dumb to understand. I never have and never would say that. It's very difficult not to try to get people to see things the way you see them. Certainly Colly does the same thing. And I have considered her points, but have not found any which are persuasive. Claiming that there is not one scrap of evidence when I know that there is scientific basis for my claim does not deter me. Claiming that I have no right to say that one life has equal value to another if she deams otherwise does not convince me either. Arguments over autonomy do not for me win out over arguments of life. IN short she has not presented me with 'one scrap' or convincing evidence or argument that it is ok to kill an unborn child- and she considers me arrogant and self-righeous for even stating or suggesting that those are the terms which I consider this argument in. I am sorry for that, but that is how I see it. I don't see life as a religious concept, but a scientific concept- but I am wrong for this too.

She is putting words in my mouth. I never called Mindy a murderer or stupid. what I said was that abortion doctors comit murder and lie to there patients. being lied to does not make one stupid. She makes her conclusions, -puting words in my mouth- and then gets angry when I quote her directly and make the only conclusion that even comes close to making sence for me.

[When pushed into a corner on a preveos thread I said that I felt abortion was murder. I do believe that it was stated as my oppinion, not absolute fact. That belief is important to understanding why I do not think certain arguments are sufficient, and in fact seem callous and selfish from my point of view. I actually did try to retreat from that hardline stance, as Coleen suggests here, but she would not let me, and repeatedly brings it up. She also repeatedly accuses me for oppinions I do not hold- and for all the sins of the religious right. She refuses to believe people who say that their anti-abortion stance is not bases on religious beliefs, despite the fact that most people who's stance is based on religious beliefs use those beliefs often and hard as a selling point, right down to quoting bible verses- none of which I have ever done.]

People here are to nice to tell me to my face that I am pompos and arrogant- but not to nice to talk about it behind my back? Let me just say this- any body who wants to call me pompos, arrogant or anything else- don't hold back.

As to me attacking those who disagree- I have not done that. I don't attack people, I attack positions. I try to argue to the best of my ability, using the best logic I can come up with. I have not dismissed anyone as unintellegent or irrelevant as indeed, others here have. I have not called any names- including pompas and arrogant, which others here, such as Colly have. Ok, I rolled my eyes at seaknight earlier, but I told him I was going to do that before I even did it. and no one really gave a crap back then, because I was on the liberal side against the Bush supporter.

I also have learned much about myself and others. Colleen should know that the way that she sees me, is the same way that I see her. While I try to show my arguments, she insults me for not backing down, brings up things long layed to rest, and finally decides that I am not worth her time. Because I continue to present an opposing viewpoint, and match her point for point, she puts me on ignore. Perhaps I have hurt her feelings by the conclusions she has drawn from my post- but she has hurt mine with the way that she has directly treated me. I never told her that she was not worth my time or just shut her out because she refused to agree with me, or understand me, or stop throwing the murder coment in my face.

I have in fact been defending her intellegence to another poster, who seems to think as she does that if poeple don't agree with you they must be idiots. If she thinks that I have said that anywere, I would sure like to know where. I'd like to see were I've made a direct insult to anyone, and not something where you have to make a bunch of assumptions to arive at the insult. Sure, I've shown frustration when people didn't seem to be getting my points, but I'm pretty sure I haven't called anyone any names.

She tells me I'm not worth her time, and then I take the time to reply. Although I replied to your post and not hers because I didn't think that it was going to be this long, and she has me on ignore anyway.

I am close minded, but she is blocking me off? She is the one who has thrown up a wall and refused to hear me. Someone please show me where I have hurled insults at her like she has at me? I am not angry, I am just incredibly hurt.

Although I am the idiot for letting myself get sucked into this conversation, I am not the one stalking off because I dont' like the way it's going.

If you all think I'm wrong in this- that I have said things that are out of line- I would be more than happy to have them pointed out. Because I am completly in the dark. Please quote the personal attacks that I have made. I am tempted to release the evil me, and show what bad behavior is all about. I'm really sick of trying to act with decorum anymore which is not afforded back to me.

SnP,

Colly's post was speaking of life as I was, in reference to when life (meaning life as you and I know it, not as functioning cell masses) becomes something that merits all legal benefits. That post of hers shows clearly that she's speaking of when 'life' is granted status as a person, protected by the same laws and rules that you and I are.

Taking things out of context to prove a point as it benefits you isn't really very productive.

And I'm sure the quote does make perfectly clear cut sense to you. It suits your cause to think so, and I guess I can't fault you for that. But it leaves a lot to be desired where the openness of debating with you (on this particular topic) is concerned.

~lucky

 

[Pure]

SP, just cool out for a bit. I'm not commenting on anyones conduct (though I have views on issues), but if you made unwise or excessive statements, you are not the first person in the Hangout to do so. Put interacting with CT on hold for a bit. Then everyone move on. These are emotional issues.

I don't know of anyone who desires that you cease the calm and usually intelligent presentations of your views. Of even the effusive impassioned ones.

 

[Pure]

Colly,

I think the silence of amicus on abortion tells us something.

Would you agree with these two points:
1)A person wanting to set up a theocracy can surely be expected to put various 'morals' legislation on the books, be it abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc.

2)But a genuine conservative (a la Adam Smith) of the minimal or small government type, without a religious allegiance, cannot plausibly argue for state interference in the life of any woman in the first half of a pregnancy.

It is simply a personal 'glitch' in amicus' belief system that he inserts, 'DO police abortions' into a list of items such as "don't police marijuana; don't police smoking; don't police gay sex" not to speak of "don't build or repair roads," "don't build public schools," "don't regulate banks" "don't regulate meat packers" etc.

J.

 

[minsue]

Here we go round the mulberry bush again

In the last thread that this was discussed I tried to keep myself out of it, since no good ever comes of this disucssion and no one is going to convince anyone else, but felt the need to respond to this post:

I dont understand why that was called for. You asked for murder to be proved, Pure put for his evidence and you responded with vulgarity.

If you have *had* an abortion, Colly, I don't hold it against you. However if the issue is that emotionally close, I should think you would want to avoid this debate altogether. I don't think that your response was fair or polite. And it certainly didn't win any debate points. The only thing I can figure is that you are interpreting it to say that Pure has called you personally a murderer.

For anyone who had not read the other thread, yes, I had intertpreted that Pure called me a murderer as well as SnP. As I've explained, I cannot interpret 'abortion is murder' any other way. My response to that post was

Speaking not for Colly, but for myself here. I have avoided this discussion, SnP, ever since you called me a murderer. Yes, this issue is damned emotionally close to me. Every fucking person who calls me a murderer brings up emotions you could never understand.

I am sorry I tried to read this thread. I apologize if I offended just now, but to be honest I am not sorry for writing what I wrote. I won't be writing anything more on this thread, though, so at least I won't offend any further.

This would be the condescending reply

I am truly not trying to be an ass either, but I have a few things that need saying. And I'm having a pretty hard time formulating my thoughts.

I don't know what to say. Suddenly I'm not allowed to give my oppinion on the matter any more, because all of the people who have become my friends here -

Serioulsy, I get halfway through a sentance and don't know what to say.

If you are all so sure that it is not murder, that you did the right thing, then why should you get all emotional and have to leave the debate? Your shooting your own argument in the foot. YOur running from the truth. Even if it IS proved, you can't accept it because of your personal involvement.

If you really feel that bad about having had an abortion- maybe you should change your "pro-choice" stance, and try to help other woman avoid the pain that you are experienceing, like my one friend did.

Otherwise, there is really no reason for this conversation to cause you pain. I keep hereing about these women who "never had any regrets" If that is the case, then I don't understand your reaction.l


I do not think that any one here is a murderer for having an abortion. IF you've had an abortion, you probably believed that the "fetus" inside you was not alive. However, all of the oppinions in the world have not pissed anybody off more than Pure stating some biological information to back up his oppinion.

I believe that doctors- who understand biology and human development better than the average person considering an abortion- do in fact know that the procedure they are performing results in the death of a human life. I believe that the people who perform those abortions, are lyers and murderers. I believe that the patient has been decieved and I do not blame her.

When you want to keep your baby, doctors and books paint a very different picture of the life inside. They explain how the embreo an fetus is developing, how the heart is beating, the brain is developing, the spinal cord and nervous system are develping. When you choose to undergo an abortion, you are lied to and told that none of this is happening, that it doens't qualify as life.

Colly put a challeng out there "Prove it is murder" she never should have asked. She thought that it couldn't be proven, but apparently it was proven enough that she felt personally attacked. Look, I know no one wants to face the biology of the fact after they've involved themselves to that extent. But maybe, just maybe you should face the fact that wrong was done to you, and switch sides.

Logic will never apply here, biology doesn't matter, because you all refuse to listen when a valid point is made against your argument, because it hurts to much to even consider that you could be wrong.

Now, I'm the bitch and eveyone is going to hate me- becuase I spoke my true beliefs that a fetus is a life. It's really not fair that the pro-choice side gets to have there say, but they always withdrawl as soon as the debate heats up, and it might look like they could be wrong.

I feel bad, but I'm also pissed. I'm really pissed. This is an emotional issue for me too, I have three children, all of which were once fetuses. I'm as personallly insulted for someoen to say that they were not alive when I know damn well that they were, as some of you are when I say that abortion is murder.

I'm just ranting insanely at this point and pissing everybody off, so I'm just going to go.

But if you want to enter into a debate about Abortion and not have your feelilngs hurt, then maybe you should clear from the begining and then we can all hold back on how we really feel about the topic, and decide if we want to handle the issue from the point of view of a debate, or the point of view of a freind. Because if you read my posts, you will see that I have stated repeatedly that I have friend who have had abortions, and I do not confront them with biological evidence against it. I try to support them, as a friend since it is over and there is nothing that can be gained by making them feel bad. But this is not a support thread, it has been a debate thread from the begining. This is not a thread about *your* abortion or *her* abortion. If it were a hand holding thread i would hold your hand.

But if you tell me I'm wrong, and ask me to prove it- dont' get pissed off when I do.

The coloring of certain parts was not done by me, but it does help to highlight.

As I stated in response on the other thread, it was not my intention to stifle debate and I apologized. I don't feel like quoting my entire lengthy reply or the rest of the thread. If anyone really wants to go through it all over again, https://forum.literotica.com/showth...230761&perpage=25&highlight=wade&pagenumber=6

The arrogant, holier than thou is found in statements like:

But maybe, just maybe you should face the fact that wrong was done to you, and switch sides.

And I did call you on it at the time. I called you self-righteous and let it go at that to keep it from getting any more personal than it already had.

I don't want this to turn into another attack thread, but I have one more to add:

I DO NOT THINK THAT WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS ARE MURDERERS.I AM SORRY THAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS. WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS ARE BEING TOLD THAT IT IS NOT MURDER, AND I FULLY BEILEVE THAT THEY DID NOT BELIEVE OTHERWISE, OR ELSE THEY WOULDNT' HAVE DONE IT. I DON'T HAVE ANY FRIENDS WHO ARE ABORTION DOCTORS. I WOULD NOT BE FRIENDS WITH SUCH A PERSON, AS I DO FEEL THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND THEY KNOW THAT IT'S WRONG.

That is the kind of sentiment that comes across as highly condescending. You may not have said I was stupid in so many words, SnP, but saying I just don't know no better is the same damn thing.

- Mindy, stopping now before I rehash the entire 14 page thread

 

[amicus]

Life, the essential value

Hello again, Pure...my apologies for the brief absence...I have been many hours downloading and uploading files from one old computer to a new one...still muddling through...

I mentioned earlier that I did not want to get into the abortion debate...I responded to this thread early on when the Bush Bashers were in force.

I have not and will not ever vote either Republican or Democrat, I do not like many things this country has become and I do not have a great deal of pride in what it stands for today.

That being said...I have always had a marvelous love affair with the concept of individual human freedom. To me, the amount of liberty a nation has, is a benchmark for its place in history.

But I feel drawn to offer comments on the abortion issue as it necessarily deals with the foundation of a rational, logical, non contradictory system of ethics, values and morality.

I offer a conclusion that the 'rational, thinking' person desires a code of ethics that one can understand and adhere to. Is that a given?

Probably not....alas...human action is determined and chosen by human thought. The thinking process is a cascading combination of processes described by big words; suffice it to say, we perceive that which is, classify it, arrange it, compartmentalize it and keep adding to it as we grow and learn.

As with any other function in life, like rules to a game, or parts to an internal combustion engine, the human mind, to remain healthy, in psychological terms, requires information that can be filed in the proper place, information that expands or broadens that which was learned before and most importantly, information that is not in direct conflict with other information accepted as valid, real, true....(I know, you will quibble with words, that is why I used a few extra ones...)

A is A...a thing is that which it is. And that my friends, is an axiom, a 'self evident truth'.

"I am." "I exist" Concepts undeniably axiomatic, self evident, until the Existentialists began to question whether they really did exist at all. Philosophy has gone downhill since that time.

To doubt one's existence, to question the existence of reality, to deny universal truth, to deny absolutes, is a manifestation of a dysfunctional mind. You should make reservations for the nearest looney bin. Or mentally challenged institution, to be politically correct.

A bit of humor makes the medicine go down, thank you Pollyanna, or was that the Everly Brothers?

There is no supreme being..no great guru in the sky that placed mankind on Sol 3. But here we are.

What are we?

A 'rational animal' they tell me. Okay.

The only critter above or below the deep blue sea that is sentient and aware of its own mortality. That be us.

And so we ask and have asked and will ask all the questions, over and over again. Who are we? And why?


Rats...an interruption...I will endeavor to perservere (Josie Wales)

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

I think the silence of amicus on abortion tells us something.

Would you agree with these two points:
1)A person wanting to set up a theocracy can surely be expected to put various 'morals' legislation on the books, be it abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc.

2)But a genuine conservative (a la Adam Smith) of the minimal or small government type, without a religious allegiance, cannot plausibly argue for state interference in the life of any woman in the first half of a pregnancy.

It is simply a personal 'glitch' in amicus' belief system that he inserts, 'DO police abortions' into a list of items such as "don't police marijuana; don't police smoking; don't police gay sex" not to speak of "don't build or repair roads," "don't build public schools," "don't regulate banks" "don't regulate meat packers" etc.

J.

I would say you are pretty close to dead on with Amicus. He postulates an almost libertarian stance, but then adds a stipulation that limits the rights of women to make choices about their own bodies. I can't tell you if the cravet to an otherwise pretty libertarian format is misogyny creeping out or just a personal dislike of abortion that is strong enough to make him feel adding it as a contradiction to his stated position is internally viable for him on some level.

In any case it harms the intenral continuity of his arguments on a purely rational level. On a more human level all prolifers will not see it as a contridiction, since it falls in line with the governemnt's obligation to protect citizens from crime. If you defne abortion as murder, it actually fits pretty seamlessly within the argument he makes.

I would say his recalictrance at approaching the issue is based more on his understanding that he cannot support defining abortion as murder. Like a single thread in a piece of fabric if you start unraveling it the whole of the piece of fabric will eventually become nothing more than a lot of individual threads. In his puported world view that's the thread most easily pulled out first and thus he would prefer to approach it obliquely, presenting abortion being murder as a fait accompli within the internal structure of his world view.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Colleen

I hate to change the topic, but I saw no where in the patriot act, the real one that's available from the Library of Congress, or the one you posted, where if remove Judicial oversight from the USC.

So I ask you. Where in the PATRIOT act does it do this. No more rambling. I want to see a specific reference to a section in the PATRIOT act where it does this. If it doesn't remove it specifically remove it, that means it's still there.

 

[Guest]

I keep hearing about the rights of the mother, but nothing about the rights of the father. Aafter all the PERSON growing inside the woman is partly his, and yet he has no say in what happens to it. This makes no sense to me. All anyone thinks about is the rights of the mother, but not the father. I had a friend whose girlfriend had an abortion without even asking him. She said it was in her best interest, but never gave any thought to his. And trust me had she not wanted to have any part of raising the child he would have done himself. With his new wife he has two chilldren, last I knew, and he's a great father.

 

[rgraham666]

Amicus? Perhaps a little Edmund Burke will enlighten you on my perception of freedom

Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice…but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.

In an essay I wrote several years ago I suggested that maybe we should change the name of our species to Homo Instrumenta, tool using man. I argued that everything people have created is a tool of some type. This can range from simple, solid things like hammers and saws, to complicated, abstract things like government and society.

There are two things about tools. They have no goals. They may have a purpose, but never a goal. And they cannot act on their own. They can only act as their users want them.

I can use a hammer to build a house. Or I can brain a man with it. A government can help the people living in it to have prosperous, happy lives or it can grind those people beneath it's heel. In neither case is it the tool's fault. It is the fault of the people that use it.

So assuming that government is at best a necessary evil, seems to me to be a major conceptual leap. And an unproven one.

We'll never agree, amicus. We'll probably never even understand each other. The main reason I think is doubt. I doubt things. I'm not at all convinced that I know very much. I'm not certain that what I do know is true or even close to true. It's why I act with restraint. Restraint makes it less likely I will do any harm to individuals, my species or the planet.

You, amicus, come across as absolutely certain of yourself. You act as though your beliefs are hermetically sealed against change and doubt. You might be wise to remember the aphorism, "It's what you learn after you know it all that really counts."

Oh, and my quote isn't a joke. It is my way of saying that we don't know enough to be certain.

____________

As far as abortion goes, my stance remains unchanged. I would rather it didn't happen. I can't say at what point a fetus passes from a potential person to a real person, but ending that potentiality removes a miracle from the universe.

But it's not my choice. It's the choice of the woman involved. And if she does chose to abort, I would prefer it is done in a manner that ends only the potential but does not risk destroying both the potential and the real.

Christ, I'm a wordy bastard sometime.

____________

Colleen? Sweet? Please don't fight. It hurts to watch people I like to rip chunks out of each other in that way.

____________

Sweet? Damn!!! I'm poor as a church mouse. Years of living on a disability will do that to a person.

Sigh.

 

[Guest]

Another one for Colleen

I've read a lot of SnP's posts and I've never seen her call anyone names. However I notice you do it a lot.

I've also notice that you are the one who seems to not be open minded to other's points of view. When ever you're asked a question that is hard you seem to just start calling names, and ignoring the asker.

SnP has told me numerous times that she thinks you're an intelligent person, I havn't seen it myself, but I haven't known you that long.

I read the abortion thread, and I come to the conclusion that SnP called anyone but the doctors murderers. It look like your trying to make others look mean spirited just to make yourself look better, and have others agree with you. To me your actions are the ones that don't belong in a friendly debate not Sweetnpetite's

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen

I hate to change the topic, but I saw no where in the patriot act, the real one that's available from the Library of Congress, or the one you posted, where if remove Judicial oversight from the USC.

So I ask you. Where in the PATRIOT act does it do this. No more rambling. I want to see a specific reference to a section in the PATRIOT act where it does this. If it doesn't remove it specifically remove it, that means it's still there.

The position the USA Patriot endangers our civil liberites is not a far left propositions. It is held by the moderate left, centrist, moderate right and even some old school conservatives. In most debates the person presenting a position that runs counter to the majority position is required to provide proofs of his or her assertion. In this case however, I am going out of town for a while and won't be posting. Expecting you to furnish such proof is obviously something I would ahve to wait on a long long time. So here, for everyone's viewing pleasure are selected excerpts of USA Patriot as posted at the Library of Congress.




`Sec. 626. Disclosures to governmental agencies for counterterrorism purposes
`(a) DISCLOSURE- Notwithstanding section 604 or any other provision of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall furnish a consumer report of a consumer and all other information in a consumer's file to a government agency authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence activities or analysis related to, international terrorism when presented with a written certification by such government agency that such information is necessary for the agency's conduct or such investigation, activity or analysis.
`(b) FORM OF CERTIFICATION- The certification described in subsection (a) shall be signed by a supervisory official designated by the head of a Federal agency or an officer of a Federal agency whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
`(c) CONFIDENTIALITY- No consumer reporting agency, or officer, employee, or agent of such consumer reporting agency, shall disclose to any person, or specify in any consumer report, that a government agency has sought or obtained access to information under subsection (a).

Last time I checked, to gain all information on a consumer you needed a court order. Now you just need a note from the FBI. And the person who gives the information is not only not required to inform the consumer, but is forbidden to.


`(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.

Habeus Corpous. No court shall have jurisdiction to review any such detention.


(a) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall establish such regional computer forensic laboratories as the Attorney General considers appropriate, and provide support to existing computer forensic laboratories, in order that all such computer forensic laboratories have the capability--
(1) to provide forensic examinations with respect to seized or intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity (including cyberterrorism);

Notice here that any criminal activity, including cyber terrorism is included. Back up a little ways you will find a nice fact subsection with notices like Insert this into para 18 or sunsection etc. Run through enough and the result is expanded ability on the part of the FBI to monitor and inttercept private comminucations without obtaining a court order and to share that information with the CIA.

I have wasted a good deal of my time wading through this act. I don't expect it to make the slightest bit of difference to you, but this is the second time I have provided information to suppot my view and you have yet to provide any. Pray don't trouble yourself with running over to the heritage foundation's site and posting some of what they have to say. I wouldn't want to put you to any trouble. Just keep aserting I am wrong and you are right. It's easier on everyone that way.


-Colly

 

[Pure]

Nice posting Colly. Good research. There are several sites with extensive analyses of the Patriot Act. The persons you are arguing with are just 'dittoing' alleged information, ie., justification and 'spin' for it. Let us also not forget Patriot Act II!
(so called) which plugs some 'holes' from the gov pov.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Another one for Colleen

I've read a lot of SnP's posts and I've never seen her call anyone names. However I notice you do it a lot.

I've also notice that you are the one who seems to not be open minded to other's points of view. When ever you're asked a question that is hard you seem to just start calling names, and ignoring the asker.

SnP has told me numerous times that she thinks you're an intelligent person, I havn't seen it myself, but I haven't known you that long.

I read the abortion thread, and I come to the conclusion that SnP called anyone but the doctors murderers. It look like your trying to make others look mean spirited just to make yourself look better, and have others agree with you. To me your actions are the ones that don't belong in a friendly debate not Sweetnpetite's

In point of fact, when asked questions I generally provide answeres when I can.

When proven wrong I have never had the slightest problem admitting I was wrong and in general thank whoever provided the proof. I do value knowledge.

Your opinon on what her remarks conveyed don't make one whit of difference. Nor do mine really. The one person who I know for sure has a stake in those statements that is real saw them the way I did and her opinion does count, because she is the one who those remarks were adressed to, albeit unintentionally.

SnP is well loved here. I do not think her intent was to cause pain. I do not think her follow up statements were intended to be insulting. She did cause pain however and she was insulting, not just to one person, but to anyone who has had an abortion. And she needs to realize when she expouses her views in the way she did in that thread she runs the very real risk of hurting others.

You don't see Snp calling anyone names, but I do. I haven't called anyone a murdered yet. Think about it.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Another one for Colleen

I've read a lot of SnP's posts and I've never seen her call anyone names. However I notice you do it a lot.

I've also notice that you are the one who seems to not be open minded to other's points of view. When ever you're asked a question that is hard you seem to just start calling names, and ignoring the asker.

SnP has told me numerous times that she thinks you're an intelligent person, I havn't seen it myself, but I haven't known you that long.

I read the abortion thread, and I come to the conclusion that SnP called anyone but the doctors murderers. It look like your trying to make others look mean spirited just to make yourself look better, and have others agree with you. To me your actions are the ones that don't belong in a friendly debate not Sweetnpetite's

I've had a long day and I'm currently a bit drugged so forgive me if I ramble or don't make sense.

I was the one who originally took offence and accused SnP of calling me a murderer. I still feel that way, but I do recognize that it was not her intent to do so and that she can reconcile her beliefs that abortion is murder, the doctors that perform abortions are murderers, and the womem who have abortions are just poor naive souls who have been lied to be the great abortion conspiricy.

In all of the time that I have known Colly and the untold times I have argued politics with her, I have never known her to shy from a hard question or from facts. The problem with this particular debate is that neither side agrees on what constitues a fact of abortion. Each side has their own 'facts' and feels that the other side is ignoring facts and stating opinions.

And you didn't need to state that you don't know Colly well. That much is obvious by the ignorant remark you made in the same sentence. In the future, you might want to refrain from questioning a person's intelligence until you have any sort of basis for that assertion. It would save you from saying utterly idiotic things like your belief that Colly isn't intelligent. (and, yes, we've already established that I call people names. At this point, I'm a tad too pissed to tell you yours.)

- Mindy

 

[Pure]

R Graham said,

"Amicus? Perhaps a little Edmund Burke will enlighten you on my perception of freedom"



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Burke:]Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice…but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.
[end Burke]

RG:"In an essay I wrote several years ago I suggested that maybe we should change the name of our species to Homo Instrumenta, tool using man. I argued that everything people have created is a tool of some type. This can range from simple, solid things like hammers and saws, to complicated, abstract things like government and society.

There are two things about tools. They have no goals. They may have a purpose, but never a goal. And they cannot act on their own. They can only act as their users want them.

I can use a hammer to build a house. Or I can brain a man with it. A government can help the people living in it to have prosperous, happy lives or it can grind those people beneath it's heel. In neither case is it the tool's fault. It is the fault of the people that use it."
===

RG, that's an excellent posting in several ways.

1) It reminds of the nature of classic Burkean conservatism, which among other things does NOT endorse the principle of absolute minimal government (providing police, courts, and army, but no roads, post office, or schools) set out by amicus.

2) Nor does Burke endorse government hating ("starve the beast") and 'government as the enemy' found in part of the American right, esp. those with AK-47s stashed in the cellar.

3) Yet he is aware of govt oppression, as I recall in his writing against the French Revolution, whose govs got pretty nasty; guillotining their own leaders.

I have not read much Burke but it's clear he's willing to conceive of some social goals, including justice, which *might include doing something about poor and unemployed, besides letting the 'free market,' hunger, and no minimum wage settle the matter. Maybe you can enlighten us??

I agree that tools show a social nature of humans, since their use depends on culture; how to make and use them is passed along, from older to younger. Some social animals have them, by the way.

There's also a clear biological argument or two for the social nature of humans:
A) Our nearest relatives are generally pretty social, in some way or other, from orangs to bonobos.

B) It's clear that hunting and gathering, early human activities, are social. Iow, humans, in that way, are more akin to wolves and elephants than to the odd solitary (usually) predators.

===
So it's clear that the majority US conservatives are not really such; some are closer to anarchists (minimal gov); some want an Adam Smith unrestrained capitalism; some are closer to fascistic models ('true Americanism for white males'); some are close to Calvinist theocratic models (10 Commandments posted in every school; sodomites executed).

Conservatism was, until Thatcher, very alive in Britain. It was somewhat alive in Canada, though the move to the Christian right is happening.

Conservatives who speak of real liberty, those of Colleen T's persuasion, are few. As a simple test, how many conservative or Republicans have expressed ANY misgivings about the Patriot Act, and other anti-terrorism legislation. I believe Safire has, but that's a pretty damn short list. Mc Cain? Help me, anyone!!

Thanks RG for opening an interesting topic!

J.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

R Graham said,

"Amicus? Perhaps a little Edmund Burke will enlighten you on my perception of freedom"



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Burke:]Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice…but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.
[end Burke]

RG:"In an essay I wrote several years ago I suggested that maybe we should change the name of our species to Homo Instrumenta, tool using man. I argued that everything people have created is a tool of some type. This can range from simple, solid things like hammers and saws, to complicated, abstract things like government and society.

There are two things about tools. They have no goals. They may have a purpose, but never a goal. And they cannot act on their own. They can only act as their users want them.

I can use a hammer to build a house. Or I can brain a man with it. A government can help the people living in it to have prosperous, happy lives or it can grind those people beneath it's heel. In neither case is it the tool's fault. It is the fault of the people that use it."
===

RG, that's an excellent posting in several ways.

1) It reminds of the nature of classic Burkean conservatism, which among other things does NOT endorse the principle of absolute minimal government (providing police, courts, and army, but no roads, post office, or schools) set out by amicus.

2) Nor does Burke endorse government hating ("starve the beast") and 'government as the enemy' found in part of the American right, esp. those with AK-47s stashed in the cellar.

3) Yet he is aware of govt oppression, as I recall in his writing against the French Revolution, whose govs got pretty nasty; guillotining their own leaders.

I have not read much Burke but it's clear he's willing to conceive of some social goals, including justice, which *might include doing something about poor and unemployed, besides letting the 'free market,' hunger, and no minimum wage settle the matter. Maybe you can enlighten us??

I agree that tools show a social nature of humans, since their use depends on culture; how to make and use them is passed along, from older to younger. Some social animals have them, by the way.

There's also a clear biological argument or two for the social nature of humans:
A) Our nearest relatives are generally pretty social, in some way or other, from orangs to bonobos.

B) It's clear that hunting and gathering, early human activities, are social. Iow, humans, in that way, are more akin to wolves and elephants than to the odd solitary (usually) predators.

===
So it's clear that the majority US conservatives are not really such; some are closer to anarchists (minimal gov); some want an Adam Smith unrestrained capitalism; some are closer to fascistic models ('true Americanism for white males'); some are close to Calvinist theocratic models (10 Commandments posted in every school; sodomites executed).

Conservatism was, until Thatcher, very alive in Britain. It was somewhat alive in Canada, though the move to the Christian right is happening.

Conservatives who speak of real liberty, those of Colleen T's persuasion, are few. As a simple test, how many conservative or Republicans have expressed ANY misgivings about the Patriot Act, and other anti-terrorism legislation. I believe Safire has, but that's a pretty damn short list. Mc Cain? Help me, anyone!!

Thanks RG for opening an interesting topic!

J.

McCain at least has reservations:

"The fix is in." So said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) of the mammoth new Homeland Security Act, which was signed into law last week.


From an article titled taking liberites with our freedom by Lauren Weinstien.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Command Economies

Colleen, Pure, rgraham..and all who still follow the thread...

Some very knowledgeable, intense and well researched individuals participating...it is a pleasure to share thoughts with you.

"Burke:]Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom..."

Yes, amicus has the arrogance and audacity to dare to debate, disagree and even chastize quotable personages from the past, even the great Edmund Burke...

You make a good point, we do not exist in a vacuum, the nature of our existence is complex and even parasitic and symbiotic at times and yes, 'social freedom' is a way to look at the whole of the issue. But in opposition to Burke, existence is solitary, individual and not, selfish, a pejorative term, but egoistic, directed at the survival and pleasure of number one. That be me, and you and you and even you.

That we are so alone, in our separate, individual minds, staring out at the vast, hostile and chaotic universe has been the driving force for man to find answers, to create a God or a dozen gods, and legends and spirits...all seeking to fill that vast empty lonliness of the individual mind.

Your so called 'social freedoms' are worthy of study, but it is an A priori, cause and effect, there is first the individual and freedom, then there 'may' be social freedom.

All I am really trying to say is that all things begin in the, 'individual' human mind and that one mind, one person, is the first cause and as such must be respected.


"Nor does Burke endorse government hating ("starve the beast") and 'government as the enemy' found in part of the American right, esp. those with AK-47s stashed in the cellar."

"I have not read much Burke but it's clear he's willing to conceive of some social goals, including justice, which *might include doing something about poor and unemployed, besides letting the 'free market,' hunger, and no minimum wage settle the matter. Maybe you can enlighten us??"

The above are from Colleen preceding post....

It is at this point, when the advocates of command government begin to deride those who do not see how right they are about the, 'poor' 'unemployed' 'hunger' 'no minimum wage' and a hundred other examples that makes a rational response come forth with clenched teeth.

They seem to think that it is clearly obvious to anyone but stupid me, that is government controls all the resources of the population, government will solve all the problems of mankind. You look down your nose at those of us who advocate freedom and choice from your position of 'knowing' you and your government could manage our lives much better than we can if left alone. Are you really serious?

Government takes your money, your time, your energy and then tells you how to live your life. And you have the gall to lecture me on how well the government does this and how appreciative I should be? Come now, get real.

Now I have gone off on a rant....I can either delete this and start again...or try again later....

later...regards....amicus