Some questions to those who want abortion to be illegal
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should simply allow the courts and the research institutes and universities to govern our society for us on all issues.
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
And I think your argument is as much of a straman argument as you implied mine was. I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history. I do agree that the US is following a very predictable path towards a much more centralized, tyrannical kind of society. That is due primarily to the inevitable flaws that will exist in any complex system, but I also think it is remarkable that it has taken this long to achieve. That speaks well to the original design. But I think it is time for we, the people, to reconsider the entire framework. Primarily, I think the entire notion of 'judicial review' has turned out to be precisely what Jefferson warned it would become - judicial tyranny. I think it may well be time for the various sections of this country to go their own ways. I don't wish to force my views on the people of California and New England, but I am getting damned tired of them forcing theirs on me. I no longer even think of them as being my countrymen. They are an alien society which I would very much like to be liberated from. I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Because if a fetus is a human life, is not something that can be decided by emotion or convenience. What you suggest is the tyranny of the majority. That's fine if we're deciding things like, should we have socialised medicine, or should the government spend more money on public transport or on highways. But, if you're talking about taking a life, then surely the question of if you have killed a human or not should not be decided in ignorance ? Would you prefer people take a vote to decide if prayer is a better option than open heart surgery ( and thus to deny you access to the latter ) ? Or is it acceptable for there to still be experts in some fields of human endeavour ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because if a fetus is a human life, is not something that can be decided by emotion or convenience. What you suggest is the tyranny of the majority. That's fine if we're deciding things like, should we have socialised medicine, or should the government spend more money on public transport or on highways. But, if you're talking about taking a life, then surely the question of if you have killed a human or not should not be decided in ignorance ? Would you prefer people take a vote to decide if prayer is a better option than open heart surgery ( and thus to deny you access to the latter ) ? Or is it acceptable for there to still be experts in some fields of human endeavour ?
And what you suggest is tyranny by a minority. The notion that a scientific answer is even possible is incorrect. Is a fetus able to survive outside the womb in the first few weeks following conception. No. That is a scientific conclusion. On the other hand, science would also suggest that its odds of surviving are vastly improved by not removing it from the womb. Someone has to make a moral distinction between those two alternative conclusions. To defer to the courts on such an important issue to fundamentally flawed reasoning. It belongs to the people to decide as they best see fit.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
And I think your argument is as much of a straman argument as you implied mine was. I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history. I do agree that the US is following a very predictable path towards a much more centralized, tyrannical kind of society. That is due primarily to the inevitable flaws that will exist in any complex system, but I also think it is remarkable that it has taken this long to achieve. That speaks well to the original design. But I think it is time for we, the people, to reconsider the entire framework. Primarily, I think the entire notion of 'judicial review' has turned out to be precisely what Jefferson warned it would become - judicial tyranny. I think it may well be time for the various sections of this country to go their own ways. I don't wish to force my views on the people of California and New England, but I am getting damned tired of them forcing theirs on me. I no longer even think of them as being my countrymen. They are an alien society which I would very much like to be liberated from. I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history.
Yesterday you proved, more than once, that you didn't understand what the word, oligarchy, meant. So it it somewhat difficult to think that your acceptance or lack of it is meaningful. Your entire second paragraph shows that you do agree that we are now ruled by one, you simply quibble as to when it started. Since you have shown a great propensity for denying that you are wrong, even with the truth slaps you alongside the head, I shan't argue the point any longer. Wallow in your own ignorance if it makes you happy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Yes. I am sure you are drawing on the example of 1933 to buoy your belief that financial crises tend to shrink the size of government. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history.
Yesterday you proved, more than once, that you didn't understand what the word, oligarchy, meant. So it it somewhat difficult to think that your acceptance or lack of it is meaningful. Your entire second paragraph shows that you do agree that we are now ruled by one, you simply quibble as to when it started. Since you have shown a great propensity for denying that you are wrong, even with the truth slaps you alongside the head, I shan't argue the point any longer. Wallow in your own ignorance if it makes you happy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Yes. I am sure you are drawing on the example of 1933 to buoy your belief that financial crises tend to shrink the size of government. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Yesterday you proved, more than once, that you didn't understand what the word, oligarchy, meant. So it it somewhat difficult to think that your acceptance or lack of it is meaningful. Your entire second paragraph shows that you do agree that we are now ruled by one, you simply quibble as to when it started. Since you have shown a great propensity for denying that you are wrong, even with the truth slaps you alongside the head, I shan't argue the point any longer. Wallow in your own ignorance if it makes you happy.
Once again, Jon, you demonstrate an arrogance that apparently knows no bounds. I reject your definition of oligarchy. The notion that the hundreds of thousands of land owning white males who voted in the early decades of our national history were an 'oligarchy' is ludicrous. If that is an accurate definition of the term, than it is a ridiculous, useless term. It would be meaningless, and reflective of little more than your own prejudices. To whatever extent that local politics in a community represents oligarchy, than it is at least a very distributed, innocuous form of it. The supreme court, on the other hand, represent a most dangerous, centralized, form of oligarchy.
Oakman wrote:
Yes. I am sure you are drawing on the example of 1933 to buoy your belief that financial crises tend to shrink the size of government.
But we are a very different nation now then we were in 1933. We had a national culture with common traditions and beliefs from coast to coast. We are no longer that. A similar economic disruption would probably have very different consequencies than those that played out in the 1930's.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yesterday you proved, more than once, that you didn't understand what the word, oligarchy, meant. So it it somewhat difficult to think that your acceptance or lack of it is meaningful. Your entire second paragraph shows that you do agree that we are now ruled by one, you simply quibble as to when it started. Since you have shown a great propensity for denying that you are wrong, even with the truth slaps you alongside the head, I shan't argue the point any longer. Wallow in your own ignorance if it makes you happy.
Once again, Jon, you demonstrate an arrogance that apparently knows no bounds. I reject your definition of oligarchy. The notion that the hundreds of thousands of land owning white males who voted in the early decades of our national history were an 'oligarchy' is ludicrous. If that is an accurate definition of the term, than it is a ridiculous, useless term. It would be meaningless, and reflective of little more than your own prejudices. To whatever extent that local politics in a community represents oligarchy, than it is at least a very distributed, innocuous form of it. The supreme court, on the other hand, represent a most dangerous, centralized, form of oligarchy.
Oakman wrote:
Yes. I am sure you are drawing on the example of 1933 to buoy your belief that financial crises tend to shrink the size of government.
But we are a very different nation now then we were in 1933. We had a national culture with common traditions and beliefs from coast to coast. We are no longer that. A similar economic disruption would probably have very different consequencies than those that played out in the 1930's.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once again, Jon, you demonstrate an arrogance that apparently knows no bounds.
I'm actually quite humble when I am talking to my peers.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I reject your definition of oligarchy
Not my definition - the world's. It's really simple, Stan: the rule of the many by the few. Look it up rather than making up a whole new language on your own.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If that is an accurate definition of the term, than it is a ridiculous, useless term.
I've noticed that people who don't understand things very often call them names like that. I guess it make you feel better, is that right?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The supreme court, on the other hand, represent a most dangerous, centralized, form of oligarchy.
The Supremes are part of the oligarchy, but so is Obama, and Pelosi, Bush, and Paulson.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once again, Jon, you demonstrate an arrogance that apparently knows no bounds.
I'm actually quite humble when I am talking to my peers.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I reject your definition of oligarchy
Not my definition - the world's. It's really simple, Stan: the rule of the many by the few. Look it up rather than making up a whole new language on your own.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If that is an accurate definition of the term, than it is a ridiculous, useless term.
I've noticed that people who don't understand things very often call them names like that. I guess it make you feel better, is that right?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The supreme court, on the other hand, represent a most dangerous, centralized, form of oligarchy.
The Supremes are part of the oligarchy, but so is Obama, and Pelosi, Bush, and Paulson.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
my peers.
The guys at the bar?
Oakman wrote:
the rule of the many by the few
How few? Based on what criteria?
Oakman wrote:
The Supremes are part of the oligarchy, but so is Obama, and Pelosi, Bush, and Paulson.
Than could you possibly define a form of government which would not be considered an oligarchy? It would certain include any form of republic one could mention. As near as I can determine, oligarchy and government mean precisely the same thing to you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
my peers.
The guys at the bar?
Oakman wrote:
the rule of the many by the few
How few? Based on what criteria?
Oakman wrote:
The Supremes are part of the oligarchy, but so is Obama, and Pelosi, Bush, and Paulson.
Than could you possibly define a form of government which would not be considered an oligarchy? It would certain include any form of republic one could mention. As near as I can determine, oligarchy and government mean precisely the same thing to you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guys at the bar?
I consider very few lawyers to be my peers. However, the statement I made was pure trolling pretending to be funny. I apologise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How few? Based on what criteria?
Depends, but I'd say anything under 10% as a WAG. They rule, or at least their family does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than could you possibly define a form of government which would not be considered an oligarchy?
I suspect that some tribes and clans have had other structures. But that's about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It would certain include any form of republic one could mention.
Of course, Republics are very obvious about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As near as I can determine, oligarchy and government mean precisely the same thing to you.
Think of oligarchy as the base class and the various other -archies as inheriting from it. The trick now is for you to examine history and begin to see the founding fathers as an oligarchy just as much as Lenin and his cohorts. If you let their differences blind you to their similarities, you end up exclaiming about the Emperor's New Clothes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guys at the bar?
I consider very few lawyers to be my peers. However, the statement I made was pure trolling pretending to be funny. I apologise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How few? Based on what criteria?
Depends, but I'd say anything under 10% as a WAG. They rule, or at least their family does.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than could you possibly define a form of government which would not be considered an oligarchy?
I suspect that some tribes and clans have had other structures. But that's about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It would certain include any form of republic one could mention.
Of course, Republics are very obvious about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As near as I can determine, oligarchy and government mean precisely the same thing to you.
Think of oligarchy as the base class and the various other -archies as inheriting from it. The trick now is for you to examine history and begin to see the founding fathers as an oligarchy just as much as Lenin and his cohorts. If you let their differences blind you to their similarities, you end up exclaiming about the Emperor's New Clothes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I suspect that some tribes and clans have had other structures. But that's about it.
Than obviously you believe that every concievable possible form of government is an oligarchy. I think that position is ridiculous.
Oakman wrote:
The trick now is for you to examine history and begin to see the founding fathers as an oligarchy just as much as Lenin and his cohorts. If you let their differences blind you to their similarities,
If two revolutions are both oligarchies but produce such radically different results, than clearly oligarchy is not the issue one way or another. So why even bother bringing it up?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I suspect that some tribes and clans have had other structures. But that's about it.
Than obviously you believe that every concievable possible form of government is an oligarchy. I think that position is ridiculous.
Oakman wrote:
The trick now is for you to examine history and begin to see the founding fathers as an oligarchy just as much as Lenin and his cohorts. If you let their differences blind you to their similarities,
If two revolutions are both oligarchies but produce such radically different results, than clearly oligarchy is not the issue one way or another. So why even bother bringing it up?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think that position is ridiculous
Nope. You believe it is. If you thought about it instead, you'd, at the least agree that it had some truth in it and then try to show why it failed to predict all available facts.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So why even bother bringing it up?
On the off hand chance you hadn't been suckered into thinking the Emperor had new clothes. I guess they've got you snowed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion?
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it. fyi - I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread, but that doesn't mean that the abortionist shouldn't be punished for murder. The sad fact is that there are families that would adopt babies brought to term. That makes the killing, and it is killing, more abhorent. fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it.
It is not necessary for a doctor to facilitate it, and even if it was it would be inappropriate to only punish one side of a crime. If you really believe that abortion is murder, how do you justify only punishing the hit man and allowing the person who commissioned the murder to go free?