team politics talking points.

[shabtek]

I am flippantly attempting to call attention to the irony :

mostly men deciding a very personal and exclusively female issue.

does that fit the limited govt. principle?

i think individuals should be able to do what they decide is best in their given situation.

I guess the world needs more guns like it needs more babies.

or maybe we could do better with fewer liabilities

"...nothin' without a woman or a baby girl."

 

[john12ax7]

perfect example of why limited government don't work

I think it works quite well, when it's actually practiced. The issue is picking and choosing the role of government based on political positions (both sides do this).

Autonomy of body is a perfect example of limited government. But how can the same person both oppose mandatory vaccines yet support the imprisonment of non-violent drug offenders?

Limited government is not the issue. It's the appalling lack of any sort of logical consistency.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I am flippantly attempting to call attention to the irony :

mostly men deciding a very personal and exclusively female issue.

Men are born just the same as women. The key point is when a person is extant and due the same rights and protections as the rest of us.

does that fit the limited govt. principle?

We have laws to prosecute those who perpetrate crimes against others, many crimes deprive the victim of property, liberty, or life which it is the duty of our government to protect.

i think individuals should be able to do what they decide is best in their given situation.

So long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

I guess the world needs more guns like it needs more babies.

Illogical.

or maybe we could do better with fewer liabilities

In what sense? Debt? If so, I agree.

"...nothin' without a woman or a baby girl."

 

[boji]

mostly men deciding a very personal and exclusively female issue.

The problem with treating it as an exclusively female issue is that it may very well promote conditions that give rise to unwanted pregnancies.
There are men who deeply love their partners, and therefore have a brain buzzing with mirror neurons. They too can experience a sense of deep loss, guilt and anxiety over such decisions. Yet they have no moral veto power; only the power to affirm their partner's choice, whatever that is. This can corrupt relationships over time if the choice was never actually anything but unilateral.

Saying a zygote is different than a full-fledged newborn shouldn't be controversial.

True, but that avoids the whole spirit (pun) of the question. I need a refresh on moral-objectivism.

Which side are you asking this of?

Any earthling (or otherwise) who might improve the question or attempt a direct answer is desired, preferably without using strawman redirects.

 

[hodad]

he problem with treating it as an exclusively female issue

Not what he said. He said "mostly men" are deciding this issue. He said absolutely nothing about "exclusively female."

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Try this for a healthy discussion about originalism featuring both liberal and conservative law profs. It is long, but very interesting, IMO.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You guys would argue about the date....

try to enjoy the 4th before it gets cancelled by the wokesters.

JR

 

[hodad]

cancelled by the wokesters.

Seriously?

Troll.

 

[boji]

Thought this was funny:




Happy 4th yall

 

[JohnRoberts]

Seriously?

Troll.

?

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Thought this was funny:

Happy 4th yall

attachments broken

 

[JohnRoberts]

attachments broken

It was so funny the web links cracked up....

JR

 

[hodad]

try to enjoy the 4th before it gets cancelled by the wokesters.

Let's skip celebrating the 4th before the Supreme Court fascists make it mandatory.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Let's skip celebrating the 4th before the Supreme Court fascists make it mandatory.

Lighten up with the hyperbole. You don't seem to appreciate how good you've got it in the sweep of human history.

 

[hodad]

Lighten up with the hyperbole.

Apparently you don't think JR's comment was hyperbole?

You don't seem to appreciate how good you've got it in the sweep of human history.

Sure. And that's a great reason to cede more of our rights to GOP fascists. That way, in the future we'll be more appreciative of what we have now.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I apologize to the forum for triggering Hodad yet again.... That was not my intent, my displeasure with the left is philosophical not personal.
======
Watching the left attack our institutions, including POTUS attacking the supreme court from Spain, makes me suspect that the 4th of July holiday could be in play... Since it hasn't happened yet I can wait for the examples from wingnuts to prove me prescient... or not.
===

Today I found a penny laying in the road in front of my house and I was going to leave it, but it had a likeness of one of out better presidents on it. I picked it up but don't remember what I did with it (it was only a penny after all). For the last several years I have been buying gas for my lawnmower with rolls of pocket change I accumulated over the decades. Today I bought $10 gas with 5 rolls of nickels, after the nickels run out I'll be down to my stash of pennies.

JR

 

[boji]

Attachments broken.

Oops. Silly memes fixed, I think.

He said absolutely nothing about "exclusively female."

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Apparently you don't think JR's comment was hyperbole?

Nope. After the 1619 project and other similar attempts to lie about history it was a completely plausible statement.

Sure. And that's a great reason to cede more of our rights to GOP fascists. That way, in the future we'll be more appreciative of what we have now.

Fascists wouldn't have reduced centralized authority/power by (Constitutionally) returning it to the states. Fascists wouldn't have (Constitutionally) overturned gun control. Fascists wouldn't have put the already too powerful EPA partway back in its designated box. Fascists want centralized power and enjoy cooperation from powerful corporations (say, Apple, Google, Facebook, Pfizer, etc).

While there are some in the GOP who are far too entrenched and enamored with their power, the opposition party certainly seems less restrained in their use of authoritarian means (lock downs, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, designating "essential businesses," expanding government in general).

 

[hodad]

Nope. After the 1619 project and other similar attempts to lie about history it was a completely plausible statement.

Yawn. It must be pretty in your little rainbow bubble of conservatism.

Fascists wouldn't have reduced centralized authority/power by (Constitutionally) returning it to the states.

Fascists want more control over people's lives (in this case, women's lives especially.) First the red states go fascist on their ladies, and then (as some in DC have already expressed eagerness to do) enact similarly fascist legislation on a national scale. Enabling local fascism (with an eye to the future) still=fascism.

Fascists wouldn't have put the already too powerful EPA partway back in its designated box.

Actually, you're wrong. Insomuch as fascism is a synergy between big corporations and govt., that fits right in.

Fascists wouldn't have (Constitutionally) overturned gun control.

Of course, despite what the laws might say, the rules are different for black and brown people. That's been proven time and time again. So yay for wypipo, amiright?

And of course you ignored the horrible ruling on school prayer, and the ruling that tax $$$$ can now go to support schools run by (tax-exempt) religious institutions.
Separation of church & state my azz.

 

[hodad]

That was not my intent,

Sadly, it probably wasn't. You're probably just as oblivious to the propaganda you've swallowed (hook, line and sinker) as AP is. I feel bad for you guys.