US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Anyway, here are your people -

 

Enjoy rubbing elbows with them.

Did you even read my post? I’m beginning to think you did not.

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I would 100% agree if there were no other life involved. Serious moral question: why can’t a mother choose to end her child’s life when it’s a week outside vs. inside? If it’s completely fucking up her life, health, income, career, etc. and can’t sustain itself…what’s the moral difference?

Yup. Tell that to a 10 year old girl.  Whose vagina can't take labor.  Whose body can't take pregnancy.

Additionally, throughout history, women have killed that child they were forced to carry that they couldn't care for.  Sometimes they did it by themselves, but more often the moral society did it for them -- infanticide legal and expected, sending the newborn off to a 'mother's milk farm' where they were starved to death.  So on and so forth.  Utter ignorance as to how forced birth has ALWAYS been handled

I have no question you believe YOU are speaking in the most moral, ethical, spiritual manner in the world. But it is effed when it comes to the life of the person YOU believe must carry a clump of cells into when it becomes viable w/o the womb, and then be brought into the world by people who are unable to care for it -- who already, even, have more children than can be fed already.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Yup. Tell that to a 10 year old girl.  Whose vagina can't take labor.  Whose body can't take pregnancy.

I have no question you believe YOU are speaking in the most moral, ethical, spiritual manner in the world. But it is effed when it comes to the life of the person YOU believe must carry a clump of cells into when it becomes viable w/o the womb, and then be brought into the world by people who are unable to care for it -- who already, even, have more children than can be fed already.

I am not speaking in any spiritual manner whatsoever, and I addressed the 10 year old girl. My initial post was long, but it included such things as the 10 year old girl, religion (or lack thereof)…and it included my sense that people are so entrenched in their positions on this that they don’t really address the positions that oppose them but just relegate them to talking points. A lot of people responding to my post don’t seem to have read it, which is kinda what I was getting at. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

A sincere one. 

The question I replied to is deeply flawed my friend. By phrasing it as: "why can’t a mother choose to end her child’s life when it’s a week outside vs. inside?" just completely misses the point. For starters what you're describing doesn't happen in the developed world. It's just like voter fraud, sure there may be a few examples you can point to if you want, but it's scale is so small that it's not even worth discussing. And by adopting this language you're taking the most extreme example and using it as a justification against all abortions. 

 

[JGP]

 

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Life does, imo. It doesn’t for you? Where does the right to live rank for you? For me it’s our first, most basic right. 

But if not, if the right to choose is paramount to the right to live, if abortion is ever legalized again you will fully support the right of the mother to kill anyone who tries to prevent her abortion?

Sounds like an absurd play to enact, conflating things like that. 

I'm not religious. A human being should enjoy all rights over their own body. It's up to them. They'll decide to do it, or not, not anyone else damn business.  

[Zorral]

21 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

think someone else’s rights were involved, and you don’t. 

There are no rights here.  It's a clump of cells.  It is not a person.  

And when people like you insist that clump of cells trumps the right of the woman who must bring that clump of cells to forced birth, you get babies deliberately left to die in many, many ways.  Who are then babies. But they are not babies when they are a clump of cells, that actually, as they grow, eat the woman's life away, unless  she is well nourished and well cared for, and even then, might yet kill her -- and it is dead too.  Gosh, your ignorance of pregnancy and birth is equal to the idiots who overturn roe.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Yep doing secret negotiations with Manchin is great

....and you think public negotiations would have been better because?

Honestly from what I remember you've really turned around on this.  When Manchin killed the bill right before Christmas, and even in the weeks leading up to that, my recollection is we were in agreement that the public negotiations were doing more harm than good and Schumer et al. should just go along with whatever Manchin will give them.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but, well, this delay and specifications is the realization of going along with whatever Manchin will give them - which, btw, I maintained at the time his apparent openness to any climate provisions was a flop of horseshit.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The question I replied to is deeply flawed my friend. By phrasing it as: "why can’t a mother choose to end her child’s life when it’s a week outside vs. inside?" just completely misses the point. For starters what you're describing doesn't happen in the developed world. It's just like voter fraud, sure there may be a few examples you can point to if you want, but it's scale is so small that it's not even worth discussing. And by adopting this language you're taking the most extreme example and using it as a justification against all abortions. 

 

Sorry, what doesn’t happen in the developed world? What point am I missing? I am simply asking why the prioritization of the effect the child has on the parent supercedes that child’s right to live ends, and when, and why then? I really don’t understand what you’re saying about extreme examples…what examples did I give that are extreme? In fact what examples did I give?

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

Sounds like an absurd play to enact, conflating things like that. 

I'm not religious. A human being should enjoy all rights over their own body. It's up to them. They'll decide to do it, or not, not anyone else damn business.  

I’m not religious either. Okay, I’m giving up, no one actually read my post and is just slotting me into pre-worn attributions and talking points. I tried. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Yep doing secret negotiations with Manchin is great

 

I will again reiterate Biden's biggest failing overall is his unwillingness to use the bully pulpit, to publicly pressure people as is required and to twist every arm necessary behind closed doors. His passiveness is incredibly frustrating. 

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

1) There are no rights here.  It's a clump of cells.  It is not a person.  

2) Gosh, your ignorance of pregnancy and birth is equal to the idiots who overturn roe.

1) You are speaking for the scientific/medical world here? Great! At what point exactly does life scientifically begin?

2) Cheers for the insults, and all I can say is I’m relieved my ignorance got me through our miscarriages, pregnancies and births. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I’m not religious either. Okay, I’m giving up, no one actually read my post and is just slotting me into pre-worn attributions and talking points. I tried. 

I read every word of your post.

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Sorry, what doesn’t happen in the developed world? What point am I missing? I am simply asking why the prioritization of the effect the child has on the parent supercedes that child’s right to live ends, and when, and why then? I really don’t understand what you’re saying about extreme examples…what examples did I give that are extreme? In fact what examples did I give?

Because you framed it as being a newborn, a week before or after birth, and then just applied that to every step of a woman's pregnancy. 

[JGP]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’m not religious either. Okay, I’m giving up, no one actually read my post and is just slotting me into pre-worn attributions and talking points. I tried. 

Come on. I guess I'm questioning why you think you [and yours] viewpoints should matter more than what you believe and have done by. You're welcome to it. And everyone is welcome to their own. 

The right to choose. For all. That's it. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I will again reiterate Biden's biggest failing overall is his unwillingness to use the bully pulpit, to publicly pressure people as is required and to twist every arm necessary behind closed doors.

When Biden amped up pressure on Manchin to support BBB, that's exactly when Manchin went on TV and said he couldn't support it.  Indeed, Manchin's people cited the administration pressuring him as his reasoning for doing so.  Now I don't believe that's actually the case - it just gave Manchin a good out and excuse - but bottomline is the bully pulpit and/or Neustadt's power of persuasion didn't work.  And it was always pretty clear it wasn't going to with Manchin.

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I read every word of your post.

Because you framed it as being a newborn, a week before or after birth, and then just applied that to every step of a woman's pregnancy. 

No, I only framed it as a child. Newborn was only mentioned re: suicide rates of patents of newborns. You are seriously misreading what I said. I was very clear in the post you read every word of that I do not know when life begins, so more than just misattributing, you are saying I’m being inconsistent. But can you please, finally, address my question? At what point and why does the impact the child/child-if-but-for-intercession has on the parent cease to supersede the child’s right to live? If the suffering a parent endures post-natal can even exceed the pre-natal, why does that suffering not continue to supersede the child’s right to live? 
 

edit: to clarify, I meant people are not reading my initial, long post on this subject, which is made very evident by trying to counter me with religion, 10 year olds, ‘my people’, etc. 

edit2: gotta crash because my 2 year old twins will be awake and trying to survive my ignorance of childbirth in less than 7 hours…and I’m the primary carer, the poor dears/albatross cell conglomerations. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I was very clear in the post you read every word of that I do not know when life begins

I'm really not interested in this debate but this is the one thing I was going to ask when reading your initial post - if you aren't sure when life begins, why do you think the government should be making that decision for people that are pregnant?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

When Biden amped up pressure on Manchin to support BBB, that's exactly when Manchin went on TV and said he couldn't support it.  Indeed, Manchin's people cited the administration pressuring him as his reasoning for doing so.  Now I don't believe that's actually the case - it just gave Manchin a good out and excuse - but bottomline is the bully pulpit and/or Neustadt's power of persuasion didn't work.  And it was always pretty clear it wasn't going to with Manchin.

I'm not that interested in relitigating this. I just think Biden decided to step back and not play a serious role until shit was starting to get real and I don't think during that time he did a very good job. What we cannot say is that there is a clear and obvious way how Biden could have fixed things because there's not, but I think it's also fair to say that he hasn't exactly done a great job for a number of reasons. His presidency isn't going well.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, JGP said:

Come on. I guess I'm questioning why you think you [and yours] viewpoints should matter more than what you believe and have done by. You're welcome to it. And everyone is welcome to their own. 

The right to choose. For all. That's it. 

I answered those questions in my original post. Right to choose is incredibly fundamental and important, but superseded by right to life. And if the question of the right to choose supersedes the child’s right to live, why and when does that end? Post-natal children cause incalculable damage on their parents, suicides, dead careers, mental and physical anguish, income depletion, etc. So why doesn’t that suffering still carry over? 

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm really not interested in this debate but this is the one thing I was going to ask when reading your initial post - if you aren't sure when life begins, why do you think the government should be making that decision for people that are pregnant?

Because I feel that 

1) as we don’t know when life begins, we should err on the side of not killing humans until we do. The downside of erring one way and getting it wrong results in countless suffering, a horrible outcome. But erring the other way and getting it wrong means countless death, an even worse outcome. 

2) it’s partly a semantic argument because, barring intervention or disaster, we know for certain it will pass any and all standards for human life given time.

3) The government regularly constrains our choices when those choices result in the death of a human life.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I would 100% agree if there were no other life involved. Serious moral question: why can’t a mother choose to end her child’s life when it’s a week outside vs. inside? If it’s completely fucking up her life, health, income, career, etc. and can’t sustain itself…what’s the moral difference?

 

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I answered those questions in my original post. Right to choose is incredibly fundamental and important, but superseded by right to life. And if the question of the right to choose supersedes the child’s right to live, why and when does that end? Post-natal children cause incalculable damage on their parents, suicides, dead careers, mental and physical anguish, income depletion, etc. So why doesn’t that suffering still carry over? 

Query: what is the basis for your totalist non-sanctified sanctification of life of any nature? 

I don't want to dog pile on you, I'm curious. Why do you think that a human's life is intrinsically... let's say worthy of the severity of your stance on its defense against (almost) any occurrence?