over reach or tyranny?

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 64
#31
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
so what?
So, just to be clear, because you appear to still combat the point, people don't just walk into a fog and break the law. They choose to do it, even by claiming ignorance, which is not a legal excuse by the way.

Are you arguing that unless we can get 100% compliance that we shouldn't bother with laws? 
Nope. You have not carefully read my commentary. I've said that our expectation should not be that by merely legislating law, we expect that the legislation, alone, solves the problem of people killing other people wth guns. Ban guns, we'll use knives. Ban knives, we'll use spoons. Ban spoons, we'll use thumbs. Ban those, my friend. You can try. I'm saying the ban-guns crowd is not thinking through the consequences of their myopic vision of a social solution.

By the way, on that theme of banning anything, I do not support the cry of universal ban of abortion, for exactly the same reason. Women are still going to seek abortion, but many for the wrong reason. Yes, there should be unacceptable reasons. What I'm saying is that a better course is to allow abortion in special circumstances, such as a qualified endangerment to the mother, but not on a whim of inconvenience. After all, with 99% cases of pregnancy, the woman willing engaged in sexual congress, and should bear the responsibility of consequence. "I don't want it," doesn't cut it. She wanted the sex, and should be responsible for that choice. Yes. CHOICE.
#32
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
One of the responsibilities of a state is to protect its Citizens.  To that end, they regulate the spread of viruses consistent with their virulence.  I don't see this as a civil rights issue but a temporary, common-sense, regulation for the maintenance of public health to protect the state and its Citizens.
#33
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
On the other hand, is it in the purview of the state to institute regulations that require someone to look out for their own safety, their health or their life ?  That is, of course, unless the loss of a life or an illness is a burden on the state or her Citizens in some way.
#34
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
I've said that our expectation should not be that by merely legislating law, we expect that the legislation, alone, solves the problem of people killing other people wth guns.
no one has ever suggested that it would, so why you are making that point I do not know. 

 Ban guns, we'll use knives. Ban knives, we'll use spoons. Ban spoons, we'll use thumbs.
true. you cannot stop people from wanting to harm other people. but you can prevent them from having access to deadly weaponry. It's alot harder to kill people with a knife than with a gun. Therefore, criminals are unable to get guns, alot less people would die. Gun control is not about stopping all crime, it is about reducing the damage of that crime.

By the way, on that theme of banning anything,
no one is advocating for banning all guns. So that is another strawman argument

 What I'm saying is that a better course is to allow abortion in special circumstances, such as a qualified endangerment to the mother, but not on a whim of inconvenience. After all, with 99% cases of pregnancy, the woman willing engaged in sexual congress, and should bear the responsibility of consequence. "I don't want it," doesn't cut it. She wanted the sex, and should be responsible for that choice. Yes. CHOICE.
here we fundamentally disagree. You should not have the right to legislate what she can do with her own body. If she wants an abortion, she should have a right to do so. But the comparison between this issue and guns is extremely tenuous at best. 
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 You should not have the right to legislate what she can do with her own body.

There is a point where it is no longer permissible for a woman to claim a fetus as property.
#36
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw
the woman willing engaged in sexual congress, and should bear the responsibility of consequence.
To characterize a pregnancy, with a human outcome, as a consequence objectifies, indeed, dehumanizes the child, as well as penalizes the woman and the child, doesn't it ?  A child is not a consequence ; she's a life with feelings and agency.

  If it would be dangerous or tragic to bring a child into the world unwanted and unloved, without adequate resources for a fulfilling life, often with debilitating handicaps or maladies.  The child's future welfare should be considered.

  It would be unfair and mean-spirited to bring a child into the World just to suffer a horrible deprived life with two strikes against her from the start.  Better not to subject her to the suffering to begin with.

#37
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There is a point where it is no longer permissible for a woman to claim a fetus as property.
that's fair. At some point between conception and birth a fetus becomes a person. I don't pretend that I know exactly where that line is. but lots of right wing people would say there is no line, at the moment of conception that tiny cluster of cells is a fully realized human being with human rights, which is obvious nonsense. 

#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I suppose, but 200 years ago people would have said it was nonsense to consider an animal with human DNA from Africa to be a person and not property. Times change.
#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I suppose, but 200 years ago people would have said it was nonsense to consider an animal with human DNA from Africa to be a person and not property. Times change.
they do. And I have no doubt thinking on this issue will continue to move over time, as it does for all issues. But asking a woman to give up control of her body because she has a cluster of cells that might one day become a person is a bit ridiculous. 
#40
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,626
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@HistoryBuff
God is OK with abortion.  About 1/3 to 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 10 to 20% of women who know they are pregnant will miscarry. A miscarriage is most likely to occur within the first 3 months of pregnancy, before 20 weeks' gestation.
#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@FLRW
God is OK with abortion.  About 1/3 to 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 10 to 20% of women who know they are pregnant will miscarry. A miscarriage is most likely to occur within the first 3 months of pregnancy, before 20 weeks' gestation.
yeah, and most "religious" people who use that as a justification to be against abortion claim to do it because they are "pro-life". But many of these same people would fight to the death to prevent paying taxes to actually support unwanted children that are born. And they would fight against any program that is designed to prevent these unwanted pregnancies in the 1st place. 

They basically just don't want to allow an abortion, but don't want to do anything to try to prevent it being necessary, or to deal with the consequences if a woman can't get one. 

#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
But asking a woman to give up control of her body because she has a cluster of cells that might one day become a person is a bit ridiculous. 


200 years ago people thought the idea of slave owners being forced to give up control of clumps of African bioform property was ridiculous as well.
#43
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
200 years ago people thought the idea of slave owners being forced to give up control of clumps of African bioform property was ridiculous as well.
true. they saw a fully formed human being and decided it wasn't a human being. People who want to take a woman's right to control her body away from her see a cluster of cells and claim it's a human being. both were wrong for doing that. 

Here's hoping in 200 years people won't believe either of these any more. 
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's not for you to decide. If cultures wanna anthropomorphize a fetus, they are going to do it. Cultures have anthropomorphized far more ridiculous things.

200 years from now they will likely label your thinking as typical of a backward ignoramus, just as we today mock the rubes of the past.
#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not for you to decide. If cultures wanna anthropomorphize a fetus, they are going to do it. Cultures have anthropomorphized far more ridiculous things.
no, it is for society to decide. and the majority of society supports a woman's right to control her body. There needs to be a limit somewhere, ie aborting the day before birth would be wrong, but it sure as hell isn't the moment of conception. 

#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
There needs to be a limit somewhere

200 years ago, the rubes of the past thought the same exact thing about Africans. You have to "draw the line"

History has proven that lines are arbitrary. Especially where it comes to cultures anthropomorphizing things. Did you know Americans spend over 75 Billion dollars annually on dogs simply because their doggie faces remind them of a person? In other cultures, dogs are just flat out tasty.
#47
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
200 years ago, the rubes of the past thought the same exact thing about Africans. You have to "draw the line"
of course you do. humans are humans, horses are not. We do have to draw the line somewhere. That hasn't changed. 

History has proven that lines are arbitrary
they aren't arbitrary. They are determined by cultural and/or logical reasons. Over times the culture and circumstances change requiring the lines to change. 

Religious people have, for centuries, argued that women don't have the same rights as men. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, etc. That same culture is still telling women they don't have the right to control their body when someone else's religious "principles" say they shouldn't. That outdated way of thinking needs to die out. 

#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
One day it may be fashionable to eat your human-looking dog too, but don't count on it.

#49
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
One day it may be fashionable to eat your human-looking dog too, but don't count on it.
Yeah, stamping out prejudice and long outdated thinking is hard. Lots of people hide behind religion to avoid really having to think about the world or what they are doing. it is hard to reach people like that. But that doesn't mean we need to bow to them and let them steal people's rights from them. 
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
What's the religion that makes people spend 75 billion on dogs? Oh, you're talking out of your ass again, my bad.
#51
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
Regardless of your feelings, and that is what is at work here, sexual congress has consequences, and they do not stop at pregnancy. Have a care to understand that, and stop stopping at a bleeding heart. Your bleeding heart apparently, while complaining that I'm not considering the life of a child as a consequence, you seem to stop at having that bleeding heart when a choice is to abort. At least I favor keeping the life of a child if conceived.

Adoption is still an available option for an unwanted child who was the consequence of carelessness beforehand. And, before you present an argument that some children are never adopted, check the stats. That is a far lower stat than the number of wold-be children, for who you selectively bleed, than those who are aborted. So, who's course has te better feelings? Let's think about that before careless sex. Abstention is still the only 100% effective contraceptive out there. Period.


#52
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw

  faux, well, despite your high minded admonitions of careless sex, it won't end.  Nature has instilled in us the desire and the means to have sex.  It won't stop despite societal browbeating.  It's just too ingrained in us humans.  It happens.

  As a reality, we must be pragmatic and, while cautioning people to avoid sex without the desire to have children is good practice, it's only a start.  We must also plan for undesired outcomes.

  Over 100,000 children go unadopted each year.  Most of these children live difficult, needy, unfulfilled, insecure, often violent, painful and short lives.  Unwanted and unloved children often cling to gangs because that's the only place where they can get some semblance of family.  Its a tragedy and an unforgivable malignity to make these children live these lives.

  Abortion is a kindness for, not only scared, unwilling, unprepared young women, lacking the resources to provide a child with a meaningful, safe and fulfilled life, but for unborn children, as well, who would suffer these lives.

  faux, please have some compassion and think of the future well beings of the as yet unborn children.  Why would you want to bring them into the World to suffer ?
#53
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
3.75M births per year
135K adoptions per year
You do not cite your source for 100k not adopted each year, but they are mostly in foster care. Yes, abuses occur
91% of children in foster care are placed in permanent homes [adoption] each year

Meanwhile, > 600k abortions occur each year. You've a 6:1 ration of unborn deaths each year to unadopted children.
Bleed somewhere else. You have a bigger problem with causing death to more children than have a 91% chance of a happy home by 6:1. Cry for the larger population that isn't a population at all. You seem to ignore them.
Yes, humanity is what it is, and will succumb to carnal pleasures. But then, in how many schools now teaching sex [and abortion] to grade school children are not being taught that there is a 100% successful contraception by not giving opportunity. to conceive in the first place by just keeping zippers zipped rather than popping pills and wearing a condom, both of which have failure rates? With the most successful method of teaching not taught, no wonder we're raising generations of sex-hungry and enabled kids. 
#54
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw

  faux, it's impossible to discuss an issue with someone who, despite making it as plain as I can, refuses to see or acknowledge the issue at hand.  I'm concerned for the difficult, heartbreaking lives of children being forced to be born counter to more humane practices.

  Also, your careless admonishments don't help your argument.  They only display your lack of reason and seriousness.  They never help an argument.

  I'm not going to promote my compassion for disadvantaged children again while you ignore the issue and hurl unrelated blather.  There's no more to this discussion.

#55
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
I find it just as impossible to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge that abortion kills more children annually than are not adopted, at a 6:1 rartio [they ARE human, and no other species, they are, from before conception, alive [the male and female gametes are alive, so life does not "begin" even at conception], and, therefore, by definition are PERSONS].
Your selective compassion is not realistic.
Congratulations for citing your stat., Should have done so in the first place. You'll notice I do.
#56
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw

  faux, I do acknowledge the large number of abortions.  ..But you seems to press it as if it's a bad thing.  Every abortion saves an embryo or fetus from a difficult, painful, unfulfilled life as a human.  We don't have to subject them to that.  We don't have to treat them that way.  Let's be compassionate.  Let's be humane.  Let's not be so mean-spirited as to bring a life into the World just so they can suffer.

  Abortion is a kindness for both the unprepared woman and the unwitting fetus.  Sometimes death is a blessing.  We euthanize animals to "put them out of their misery".  It's why we have advance health directives, to speed up our deaths when life becomes too painful.  It's a tool in our tool bag of choices.

  Again, you don't have to acidify your comments to make a point.
#57
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
Every abortion saves an embryo or fetus from a difficult, painful, unfulfilled life as a human.
Every one of them? Don't be obtuse. That's like saying every time I stub my toe, I should cut it off so it doesn't hurt when I do it again. You're kidding, yeah? That is as heartless as anything you have said so far. That's supposed to be compassionate to all living things? Pardon me while I set-up my perpetual laughing machine 
#58
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
NYC closes school w/o any cdc or science recommendations (remember believe the science/scientist?)
CDC recommends State governments work with their local health agencies to determine when it is appropriate to open/close schools.

NYC Health has pretty well defined criteria on opening and closing schools.

So what are you talking about?
#59
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw

  Naturally, I disagree, faux.  I believe you're the one lacking compassion.

  Stubbing your toe is a temporary pain.  Being born into lifelong, painful, shameful, difficult, barely-escapable disadvantages is permanent for both the unfortunately-born child and the family that can't supply the basic needs for a meaningful human life.  I would wish that condition on no one and I would try to save them from those circumstances if I could.

  Please re-think, faux.  Open your heart.  Can't you feel at least some compassion for the agony of a family lacking the wherewithal to provide adequate sustenance for a child to live a normal life and for the child that must endure the void and the degradation ?


Topic's author
#60
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
CDC director Robert Redfield said they do not recommend closing schools days after reports of CDC removing guidance pushing for reopenings

I'm just wondering which health expert and or scientist determined the school closing outweighed the negatives of closing.  Or do governors, mayors etc know all this because they are so well informed and knowledgeable?  
from what I've read there are a multitude of mitigation policy and procedures.  Where all of those implemented and exhausted leaving closing the only real option?  Seems that is a last resort kind of option.  I'm just asking, rather than accepting these things like some sheeple do.