The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

Unless it is your kid...

Try having a kid with a woman who'd like to have one with you.

[StrangeSox]

You think abortions are fine and guns are evil. I'm the opposite. That's literally the only difference here.

 

Nope. I don't think guns are evil. I think some things done with guns are evil and would like to take steps to address those problems. Some of those steps will result in increased burdens on gun owners. That's distinctly different from these abortion policies which are designed to limit abortions themselves.

 

I've agreed with you that an ultrasound is too intrusive, but a waiting period, for example, is not. You'll disagree with me there and argue that's unnecessary and a punishment, but that's only because you believe a woman's right to an abortion is absolute. Well guess what, I think the same thing about gun ownership. Making a woman wait for an abortion would have the same incredibly small limited effect in changing the outcome as making someone wait 5 days instead of 3 days to get a gun. There will be a very minor change, but otherwise the result is the exact same.

 

No, still not the same. The waiting period may seem that way superficially, but not when you dig down into what's actually at stake and what the restrictions actually impose. Buying a material good isn't the same as obtaining medical care, and a (medically unnecessary) waiting period can significantly complicate issues. This is especially true in rural areas where a woman may need to drive several hours to get to the nearest clinic; requiring a waiting period extends this trip into an overnight stay, producing a substantial burden on someone who is young, working, poor or all three. These same restrictions don't apply in the same way to purchasing a gun for a variety of reasons, but a key one would be the density of federal firearms dealers vs. licensed abortion clinics, especially in rural and conservative states.

 

See how easy that was? You can keep saying that's different, but it's not. It's a barrier placed by society in an attempt to lessen the number of incidents that we don't like. It's the exact same f***ing logic.

 

No, you're still confusing direct and indirect.

[Jenksismyhero]

Nope. I don't think guns are evil. I think some things done with guns are evil and would like to take steps to address those problems. Some of those steps will result in increased burdens on gun owners. That's distinctly different from these abortion policies which are designed to limit abortions themselves.

 

What is the goal of gun restrictions? To limit the purchase of guns and gun violence. How is that any different than wanting to limit abortions?

 

No, still not the same. The waiting period may seem that way superficially, but not when you dig down into what's actually at stake and what the restrictions actually impose. Buying a material good isn't the same as obtaining medical care, and a (medically unnecessary) waiting period can significantly complicate issues. This is especially true in rural areas where a woman may need to drive several hours to get to the nearest clinic; requiring a waiting period extends this trip into an overnight stay, producing a substantial burden on someone who is young, working, poor or all three. These same restrictions don't apply in the same way to purchasing a gun for a variety of reasons, but a key one would be the density of federal firearms dealers vs. licensed abortion clinics, especially in rural and conservative states.

 

You're buying a pill just like you're buying a gun. That's a good, and you're fine with putting restrictions on the availability of that good so why the hell can't I?

 

 

No, you're still confusing direct and indirect.

 

No, i'm really not. You're refusing to admit that the means and the ends are the same. You want it in one instance, and you don't one it in the other. That's the only difference between the two.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Can the state put limits on people's rights to have kids? I.e. require them to do things (get off drugs, clean up their life) or the kids will be taken away?

[StrangeSox]

I want to put restrictions on guns because I want to limit gun violence, not because I want to limit guns themselves. You want to put restrictions on abortions because you want to eliminate abortions themselves. The purpose of these pills or procedures is to get an abortion, which is what you want to stop. Unless you're going to argue that the purpose of owning a gun is to commit gun violence, then your analogy fails.

 

Here's a more explicit difference: I'm not interested in eliminating guns because I have a moral problem with guns themselves. I actually think we could do more to address the gun violence in this country by focusing on poverty and would rather follow those means anyway. This doesn't hold up when you switch to abortions, because your end is to restrict abortions themselves. Means vs. ends, direct vs. indirect.

 

By all means, though, keep comparing a woman's bodily autonomy to purchasing firearms. Convince your congressional candidates to do the same, too.

[Jenksismyhero]

Can the state put limits on people's rights to have kids? I.e. require them to do things (get off drugs, clean up their life) or the kids will be taken away?

 

To have kids? No. To keep the kids? Yes.

[Balta1701]

To have kids? No. To keep the kids? Yes.

So then...can the state put limits on people's rights to keep guns for the same reason? That certain people shouldn't have them?

[Jenksismyhero]

I want to put restrictions on guns because I want to limit gun violence, not because I want to limit guns themselves. You want to put restrictions on abortions because you want to eliminate abortions themselves. The purpose of these pills or procedures is to get an abortion, which is what you want to stop. Unless you're going to argue that the purpose of owning a gun is to commit gun violence, then your analogy fails.

 

Here's a more explicit difference: I'm not interested in eliminating guns because I have a moral problem with guns themselves. I actually think we could do more to address the gun violence in this country by focusing on poverty and would rather follow those means anyway. This doesn't hold up when you switch to abortions, because your end is to restrict abortions themselves. Means vs. ends, direct vs. indirect.

 

By all means, though, keep comparing a woman's bodily autonomy to purchasing firearms. Convince your congressional candidates to do the same, too.

 

So a handgun or assault weapon ban isn't limiting the availability of the guns themselves, it's limiting gun violence? Gotcha.

 

[StrangeSox]

Credit to George Will for this good column on solitary confinement

 

 

America, with 5 percent of the world’s population, has 25 percent of its prisoners. Mass incarceration, which means a perpetual crisis of prisoners re-entering society, has generated understanding of solitary confinement’s consequences when used as a long-term condition for an estimated 25,000 inmates in federal and state “supermax” prisons — and perhaps 80,000 others in isolation sections within regular prisons. Clearly, solitary confinement involves much more than the isolation of incorrigibly violent individuals for the protection of other inmates or prison personnel.

 

Two centuries ago, solitary confinement was considered a humane reform, promoting reflection, repentance — penitence; hence penitentiaries — and rehabilitation. Quakerism influenced the design of Philadelphia’s Eastern State Penitentiary, which opened in 1829 with a regime of strict solitude. In 1842, Charles Dickens visited it:

 

“I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body: and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore I the more denounce it, as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay.”

 

Our whole penal system is pretty broken, but this is a particularly bad practice.

[Jenksismyhero]

So then...can the state put limits on people's rights to keep guns for the same reason? That certain people shouldn't have them?

 

I've never argued otherwise. Criminals shouldn't have guns. What's your point?

 

 

[Balta1701]

I've never argued otherwise. Criminals shouldn't have guns. What's your point?

So then, can the state put a requirement on gun ownership solely for the purpose of shaming the owners?

 

Not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but just to make everyone who wants a gun go through some embarrassing test to make sure they feel appropriately bad about making the decision to get one.

[StrangeSox]

So a handgun or assault weapon ban isn't limiting the availability of the guns themselves, it's limiting gun violence? Gotcha.

 

Still confusing direct and indirect effects and means vs. ends. Gun control laws are attempts to limit gun violence via limiting, controlling, or allowing for the tracking of firearms. They are not put in place as punitive laws to discourage gun ownership itself.

 

Not every law that you don't like is intentionally antagonistic to you. Anti-abortion laws, like the proposed law in Indiana or dozens of others passed recently, are intentionally antagonistic.

[Jenksismyhero]

Still confusing direct and indirect effects and means vs. ends. Gun control laws are attempts to limit gun violence via limiting, controlling, or allowing for the tracking of firearms. They are not put in place as punitive laws to discourage gun ownership itself.

 

Not every law that you don't like is intentionally antagonistic to you. Anti-abortion laws, like the proposed law in Indiana or dozens of others passed recently, are intentionally antagonistic.

 

That's a distinction without a difference. Direclty or indirectly you're punishing everyone that owns a gun and discouraging gun ownership by placing BANS on certain types of weapons and restrictions on others. The nature of the two are different sure, but the idea that society can place barriers in the way of people performing acts we don't want them to perform is the exact same.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

So then, can the state put a requirement on gun ownership solely for the purpose of shaming the owners?

 

Not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but just to make everyone who wants a gun go through some embarrassing test to make sure they feel appropriately bad about making the decision to get one.

 

Abortion restrictions aren't about shaming, they're attempting to lessen the number of abortions.

 

I love too how "waiting periods" and "doctor visits" is akin to a walk of shame where everyone in the world now knows you've just had an abortion. GMAB.

[Balta1701]

Abortion restrictions aren't about shaming, they're attempting to lessen the number of abortions.

 

I love too how "waiting periods" and "doctor visits" is akin to a walk of shame where everyone in the world now knows you've just had an abortion. GMAB.

They're attempting to lesson the number of abortions through shame. Forcing people to go through an unnecessary procedure and absorb a lecture.

 

That's the difference you're ignoring in your previous post.

 

If I require everyone buying a gun to undergo a colonoscopy, fewer people will have guns, and that will save lives. Of course, it would never stand up to any reasonable person's muster, because why the bleep are you sticking things into people's colon as a requirement for a gun?

 

And I love how "performing an ultrasound at a point where only an internal ultrasound is an option" = a doctor's visit.

[Jenksismyhero]

They're attempting to lesson the number of abortions through shame. Forcing people to go through an unnecessary procedure and absorb a lecture.

 

That's the difference you're ignoring in your previous post.

 

If I require everyone buying a gun to undergo a colonoscopy, fewer people will have guns, and that will save lives. Of course, it would never stand up to any reasonable person's muster, because why the bleep are you sticking things into people's colon as a requirement for a gun?

 

And I love how "performing an ultrasound at a point where only an internal ultrasound is an option" = a doctor's visit.

 

Well, sorry, I don't buy that being forced to talk to a doctor is a "lecture" or "shaming." It's educational. It's a requirement with any other prescription drug you get for the first time. You can't just go to Walgreens and ask for a bottle of anti-biotics because you've read an article on WebMD.

 

And I've already said an internal ultrasound is too invasive. Waiting periods, a doctor visit, informing your parents....those aren't IMO.

[StrangeSox]

No, there's an important difference there. The act I don't want people to perform is "gun violence," and gun control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, like addressing poverty.

 

The act you don't want people to perform is "abortions," and you are more than happy to allow the government to override what a patient and a doctor deem to be medically necessary and sufficient. Your end is restricting abortions, so there's not some alternative policy you could hypothetically support that gets around restricting abortions.

[Balta1701]

You can't just go to Walgreens and ask for a bottle of anti-biotics because you've read an article on WebMD.

Actually...I really think I could. (assuming of course I had some symptoms of having a cold).

[StrangeSox]

Abortion restrictions aren't about shaming, they're attempting to lessen the number of abortions.

 

via shaming

 

I love too how "waiting periods" and "doctor visits" is akin to a walk of shame where everyone in the world now knows you've just had an abortion. GMAB.

 

There's a clinic I pass every day on my way to work. More often than not, there's some anti-abortion group protesting out there.

 

But "unnecessary medical procedures where a large wand is shoved up your genitals" is all about shaming as are numerous other reporting requirements.

[StrangeSox]

Well, sorry, I don't buy that being forced to talk to a doctor is a "lecture" or "shaming." It's educational. It's a requirement with any other prescription drug you get for the first time. You can't just go to Walgreens and ask for a bottle of anti-biotics because you've read an article on WebMD.

 

If these drugs require a prescription for good, medical reasons, fine. That's different from what these laws require. They require unnecessary procedures and require that a doctor lectures the patient with very specific anti-abortion language.

 

And I've already said an internal ultrasound is too invasive. Waiting periods, a doctor visit, informing your parents....those aren't IMO.

 

that's a pretty big invasion of privacy.

Edited February 22, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Actually...I really think I could. (assuming of course I had some symptoms of having a cold).

Antibiotics? No, those require a prescription, at least in this country, to cut down on their use. The "morning after" pill requires a prescription as well under current HHS rules.

[Balta1701]

Antibiotics? No, those require a prescription, at least in this country, to cut down on their use. The "morning after" pill requires a prescription as well under current HHS rules.

Yeah, but I can get the prescription for that from the medical staff at Walgreens here. It would take an extra 10 minutes of waiting.

[StrangeSox]

Ah, right, a lot of Walgreens have NP's on staff now.

 

Jenks, it's not the doctors' visits themselves that people have an issue with. Like with birth control, there are medical reasons to control access with prescriptions. Some of these are debatable, like the morning-after pill, but there's well-informed medical debate there. That doesn't apply to these laws that force doctors to administer medically unnecessary procedures and to 'console' their patients with anti-abortion rhetoric.

Edited February 22, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

No, there's an important difference there. The act I don't want people to perform is "gun violence," and gun control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, like addressing poverty.

 

The act you don't want people to perform is "abortions," and you are more than happy to allow the government to override what a patient and a doctor deem to be medically necessary and sufficient. Your end is restricting abortions, so there's not some alternative policy you could hypothetically support that gets around restricting abortions.

 

Fine, the act I want to control is "murder" and abortion control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, including poverty, education and the like.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Fine, the act I want to control is "murder" and abortion control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, including poverty, education and the like.

Awesome, so you're on board with repealing the 2nd amendment!