The Political Discussion Thread

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

what about people on oxygen? they can't take an independent breath....so by that argument people on oxygen could be deprived of that necessary gaseous diatomic molecule

by that same token it is morally repugnant to justify the murder of an unborn child at any stage.....consider an infant....this infant, save for oxygen is still dependent on his mother for all other aspects of his livelihood....so what makes it OK to justify the murder of an unborn infant simply because there is a more physically real sign of that dependence on the mother for food, drink, and use of the mother as an oxygen tank when inside the womb?

I was just saying that the law in England says that you can't murder a fetus. For examaple there was case where a pregnant woman was stabbed and lost her baby, he couldn't be charged with murder. I was talking legally not morally.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

what about people on oxygen? they can't take an independent breath....so by that argument people on oxygen could be deprived of that necessary gaseous diatomic molecule

by that same token it is morally repugnant to justify the murder of an unborn child at any stage.....consider an infant....this infant, save for oxygen is still dependent on his mother for all other aspects of his livelihood....so what makes it OK to justify the murder of an unborn infant simply because there is a more physically real sign of that dependence on the mother for food, drink, and use of the mother as an oxygen tank when inside the womb?

I was just saying that the law in England says that you can't murder a fetus. For examaple there was case where a pregnant woman was stabbed and lost her baby, he couldn't be charged with murder. I was talking legally not morally.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

for one thing....I am a guy.....to save you some typing...and I'm Catholic....one who's actually considering the priesthood (awaits the usual tarring of all priests with the same brush that they tar the jacka$$ priests with)....and I did clarify myself.....left out a bit of a keyword "intended"....chalk it up to me not feeling too well atm...been dealing with a scratchy throat since yesterday

Oops, sorry, chalk that up to the internet. And secondly and as I pointed you clarified your position, I don't agree with you now, but your logic is there. That first post however was still imo was pretty much out there though.

[SF_and_Coffee]

the problem of abortion is unique; it involves something with the potential to be a person growing inside a person. In that case the person's rights have to trump any potential rights of the potential person. Add to that all the other argument such as bodily rights and unsafe 'backstreet' abortions, then it is clear to me that abortions should be legal, accessible and freely available.

^This.

[jmoz]

If I had a wife whose life was in jeopardy then while I would grieve for the loss....I know I do not have the right to play God and decide who lives and who dies.....I could not intentionally murder another innocent person....not even to save the life of my wife........that would require me to deny my own humanity.......my own propensity for compassion for all life

LMAO, such irony. You would not have the baby be aborted because that's murder, but would let both of them die as a result of your non-interference. That's not murder? lol

Sorry Shipper Hannah, I agree with you during the initial stages, but after a certain point, she kept the baby that long, she should just carry it out. I'm on the side that the woman has the right to abort (barring extreme circumstances), until that baby gains L.W. Sumner's sentience criterion.

[shipper hannah]

Sorry Shipper Hannah, I agree with you during the initial stages, but after a certain point, she kept the baby that long, she should just carry it out. I'm on the side that the woman has the right to abort (barring extreme circumstances), until that baby gains L.W. Sumner's sentience criterion.

I agree with the law the way it is, i.e. as long as the foetus is not viable. So I suppose my argument has limitations in that sense.

[SoulReaver]

even if it's 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23h old, if health complications arise then she should retain the right to choose whatever it takes to save herself, no exceptions (so if aborting is the only way then so be it)
at later stages triggering a premature delivery is probably way safer than aborting anyway

[shipper hannah]

even if it's 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23h old, if health complications arise then she should retain the right to choose whatever it takes to save herself, no exceptions (so if aborting is the only way then so be it)
at later stages triggering a premature delivery is probably safer than aborting anyway

I agree with this.

[SF_and_Coffee]

even if it's 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23h old, if health complications arise then she should retain the right to choose whatever it takes to save herself, no exceptions (so if aborting is the only way then so be it)
at later stages triggering a premature delivery is probably way safer than aborting anyway

I also agree with this. A premature delivery also has the added advantage of being unlikely to actually result in the death of the offspring anyway. Win-win. But even if that were not so, the rights of the woman should always trump anything else in this type of scenario.

[s09119]

So I take it the lack of response indicates consensus that the rights of the living/women trump the rights of the fetus/religious groups?

Excellent, moving on. Wisconsin governor has sealed the capitol building in Madison to lock remaining protesters inside and bar any additional ones from entering as of Monday morning. Thoughts?

[SF_and_Coffee]

So I take it the lack of response indicates consensus that the rights of the living/women trump the rights of the fetus/religious groups?

Excellent, moving on. Wisconsin governor has sealed the capitol building in Madison to lock remaining protesters inside and bar any additional ones from entering as of Monday morning. Thoughts?

Yes.
1) He should be recalled
2) Anyone idiotic enough to have voted for him should be publicly flogged.

[Col.Foley]

So I take it the lack of response indicates consensus that the rights of the living/women trump the rights of the fetus/religious groups?

Excellent, moving on. Wisconsin governor has sealed the capitol building in Madison to lock remaining protesters inside and bar any additional ones from entering as of Monday morning. Thoughts?

No there is no such consensus. Especially on the religious groups. Since they are specifically protected under the first Amendment, they have rights too.

Have the protestors be moved to the Rotunda, at the least, where they can be.

Yes.
1) He should be recalled
2) Anyone idiotic enough to have voted for him should be publicly flogged.

Wow what an AWESOME launching off point for reasonable debate.

[SF_and_Coffee]

1) The Capitol building is a public building, built and maintained with public monies. The public is peaceably assembling in it to exercise their First Amendment rights. Ergo, locking them in or out is wrong.

2) The request was for thoughts. My first thought was that I do not suffer fools gladly, and there almost has to have been some indication during the campaign season that this governor, when he was a candidate, didn't completely grok the Bill of Rights, the Constitution (either state or Federal), or history either, for that matter. Flogging might be a bit harsh, I'll grant you. But seriously, the stupidity it takes to vote someone into office who you almost have to know will then do his level best to work against the best interests of the people of his state (because once you are elected, everyone is your constituent, not just the people who voted for you) needs to be punished. Severely.

[Col.Foley]

1) The Capitol building is a public building, built and maintained with public monies. The public is peaceably assembling in it to exercise their First Amendment rights. Ergo, locking them in or out is wrong.

2) The request was for thoughts. My first thought was that I do not suffer fools gladly, and there almost has to have been some indication during the campaign season that this governor, when he was a candidate, didn't completely grok the Bill of Rights, the Constitution (either state or Federal), or history either, for that matter. Flogging might be a bit harsh, I'll grant you. But seriously, the stupidity it takes to vote someone into office who you almost have to know will then do his level best to work against the best interests of the people of his state (because once you are elected, everyone is your constituent, not just the people who voted for you) needs to be punished. Severely.

Sure but what reasonable protestor, or peaceful protestor, for that matter what go onto the floor of the House and yell SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME. What reasonable protestor what do that? Not me and not anyone I would know. In fact if anyone asked me to leave from the situation I would. Especially given the violence that has happened these protests have not exactly been peaceful have they. What gives them the right to interfere with the legitimate buisness of their elected representatives?

Like Barack Obama for instance?

And this is just over someone who disagrees with you mind you, that they should be flogged, and or punished. That A. they disagree with you, and B. they are concerned about the future of their country and their state. For that they should be punished, or flogged. And how exactly is Scott walker violating the Bill of Rights? Is Collective Bargaining a right and mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? And everyone is his constituent but also the state, which is why he needs to balance the buget, or hey, there will be no money left for unions. Imagine that.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Dude, for one thing you need to learn to see sarcasm, even when it isn't tagged. I mean, I really didn't think it was that subtle. If you really think I was dead serious about flogging, then... just, whoa. Dude.

As for the rest, two things: the Constitution/Bill of Rights thing I mentioned pertains to free speech and assembly, not to collective bargaining. Walker has been on record since the get-go of this as not wanting to honor the right of protesters to protest, when it is clearly their right to do so. Secondly, unions are paid for by their members' dues, not by state budgets.