Ending the "Mexico City Policy" - Obama's Hope Begins

[Red Ranger]

Your apparent presumption only proves your own arrogance.

Touche. You're welcome to join the debate when and if you tire of one liners. I'm happy to listen.

@Red Ranger: My intent obviously isn't to solve the debate for good and always. The problem is that both sides tend to demonize the positions of the other, which is too bad. I hope I've presented a slightly more humane treatment of the pro-life position than you've heard before. At the same time, I'm always open to hearing what pro-choicers have to say. I understand that pro-choicers don't hate babies any more than I hate women. Not hardly. Finding solutions together is the only way we'll get out of this.

Strider: Thanks for raising the level of discourse. Much appreciated, given the usual devolution of such debates on this board. I think the best way to stop abortion is to increase contraceptive options for women, pure and simple. Maybe what's needed is a national promise: "We promise not to have abortions if you promise not to cut off access to contraception and family planning." A detente of sorts between both sides. -- RR

 

[RyanKCR]

I stand by my statement that the pro-choice option, as implied by the word, means there are options.

Why not be prochoice about other things like life itself? Let people have the option to kill someone that inconviences them or creates a hardship for them?

Your portrayal of pro-life people is so far from reality that you need to get out more and really see who they are, especially all the women who are pro-life. And check out the organizations out there to help women in need.

 

[Strider]

Your portrayal of pro-life people is so far from reality that you need to get out more and really see who they are, especially all the women who are pro-life. And check out the organizations out there to help women in need.

Ooh that's a good one. Here's a link to a chain of pregnancy resource centers in my area: http://www.portlandprc.org/services.asp

I was just talking to a guy who the other day who told me how he and his wife were really helped by a pregnancy resource center when they were almost too poor to support their first kid. It's so exciting to be involved with, I gotta tell ya.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'll at least commend you for being consistent on being not only against abortion but the death penalty. That makes you unique.

Not exactly.

It's so funny you would mention Jefferson and Hamilton in the same breath like that and then use these two examples as evidence. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other. Jefferson hated the national bank and really agonized about the Louisiana Purchase precisely because he felt it to be an abuse of power by the executive. He was probably right, even though it was likely the best decision at the time. The fact is, you are using some pretty outstanding examples of departures from what many of the founders believed to be the Constitution's original intent.

It's not funny at all. I was showing that, despite being on the far ends of the spectrum amongst the Founding Fathers, both men understood the concept of the Implied Powers of the Constitution.

Provide one that pertains to providing funds of a nature relating to abortion.

Since you're the one who brought it up, I assume we have these on hand.

We don't need to use the vagueness of the implied powers to justify the building of roads.

There's nothing in the Constitution about an interstate highway system.

You're not hijacking the thread, because at the root is the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

No, the root is pro-Abortion/anti-Abortion. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political obfuscations designed to distract people from two unsupportable or hypocritical ideological positions.

 

[USS Triumphant]

The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political obfuscations designed to distract people from two unsupportable or hypocritical ideological positions.

Right off hand, I'd say that "pro-life" is a PR-based selection - people generally think somewhere in their minds that life=good, and might therefore be more sympathetic to people who are "pro-life". The name is a little hypocritical, perhaps, for those who are also for the death penalty, but I'll give 'em that. We all know by now what the term means, just like we know that your cable or DSL router isn't really a "modem", but people call them that out of custom, anyway.

"Pro-choice", OTOH, is meant to respect the fact that not everyone who supports a woman's right to choose actually supports abortion. I'm pro-choice, and I sure as hell am not pro-abortion - I abhor the practice, personally. I just honestly don't believe that, for the most part, it is a decision that a government should try to legislate, since a law is a sledgehammer and these individual decisions in any given woman's life require a scalpel. There's nothing hypocritical about it. It's just a matter of priortization - I see her right to decide as much more important than my uninvolved disgust. After all, if she doesn't get an abortion and has the baby, I know I'M not going to take it and raise it. That right there, if nothing else, puts a halt to how much input I feel I should have in the situation.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

It's so funny you would mention Jefferson and Hamilton in the same breath like that and then use these two examples as evidence. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other. Jefferson hated the national bank and really agonized about the Louisiana Purchase precisely because he felt it to be an abuse of power by the executive. He was probably right, even though it was likely the best decision at the time. The fact is, you are using some pretty outstanding examples of departures from what many of the founders believed to be the Constitution's original intent.

It's not funny at all. I was showing that, despite being on the far ends of the spectrum amongst the Founding Fathers, both men understood the concept of the Implied Powers of the Constitution.

Both understood that those powers were in themselves limited, or else they would have had no qualms about performing certain actions.

Since you're the one who brought it up, I assume we have these on hand.

I did not bring up treaties. You did.

We don't need to use the vagueness of the implied powers to justify the building of roads.

There's nothing in the Constitution about an interstate highway system.

Does the post office use them for transportation? Yes. They are constitutional then.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political obfuscations designed to distract people from two unsupportable or hypocritical ideological positions.

Right off hand, I'd say that "pro-life" is a PR-based selection - people generally think somewhere in their minds that life=good, and might therefore be more sympathetic to people who are "pro-life". The name is a little hypocritical, perhaps, for those who are also for the death penalty, but I'll give 'em that. We all know by now what the term means, just like we know that your cable or DSL router isn't really a "modem", but people call them that out of custom, anyway.

"Pro-choice", OTOH, is meant to respect the fact that not everyone who supports a woman's right to choose actually supports abortion. I'm pro-choice, and I sure as hell am not pro-abortion - I abhor the practice, personally. I just honestly don't believe that, for the most part, it is a decision that a government should try to legislate, since a law is a sledgehammer and these individual decisions in any given woman's life require a scalpel. There's nothing hypocritical about it. It's just a matter of priortization - I see her right to decide as much more important than my uninvolved disgust. After all, if she doesn't get an abortion and has the baby, I know I'M not going to take it and raise it. That right there, if nothing else, puts a halt to how much input I feel I should have in the situation.

I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't represent the crux of the issue, which has nothing to do with choice; it has to do with how old you have to be before you're considered Human. The term Pro-Choice-- whether you in particular use it this way or not-- is intended to redefine whose Rights are at stake.

 

[Red Ranger]

You're not hijacking the thread, because at the root is the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

No, the root is pro-Abortion/anti-Abortion. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political obfuscations designed to distract people from two unsupportable or hypocritical ideological positions.

That would be news to both sides. I proudly refer to myself as pro-choice, despite the possibility that PR considerations influenced the names "pro-life" and "pro-choice." And I strongly disagree that my position is either hypocritical or unsupportable. But you're welcome to your own obfuscations, as they seem to be disagreeing to be disagreeable. -- RR