2016 Republican Thread

[farmteam]

Explain how abortion is used to oppress women.

 

I understand the moral argument against abortion - an argument that stems from a basic distinction regarding when life begins. I may have a different interpretation, but I understand the argument and I understand why people are so passionate on that point.

 

To be quite honest, I would take the anti-abortion argument more seriously if those who wanted to stop abortions would give greater funding/access toward birth control and other means of stopping unplanned pregnancies. But it seems to me that the most vocal abortion opponents are also the ones who want to teach abstinence only and want to keep condoms and birth control out of people's hands...

First bold: Agree. This is why, echoing Pettie's point, the overarching value guiding most of my policy positions is freedom of choice. I also admit that my perspective on this may change once I have kids. But I'm just going to give the mom the maximum amount of choice.

 

Second bold: 100% agree with this. But, as HH said, maybe it's mostly loud politicians espousing this (which is still really bad, since they're the ones actually setting policy).

[cabiness42]

First bold: Agree. This is why, echoing Pettie's point, the overarching value guiding most of my policy positions is freedom of choice. I also admit that my perspective on this may change once I have kids. But I'm just going to give the mom the maximum amount of choice.

 

Second bold: 100% agree with this. But, as HH said, maybe it's mostly loud politicians espousing this (which is still really bad, since they're the ones actually setting policy).

 

So are rape, murder, theft OK because the perpetrator should be given freedom of choice? Or does human life have value that outweighs the freedom of choice? Or do we arbitrarily decide when the value of human life matters more or the value of freedom of choice matter more based on what NOW says?

 

I just see this as a complete hypocrisy by liberals. They stand up for the rights of minorities, women, gays, etc., but when it comes to the most vulnerable and defenseless class of human beings that exist, suddenly a woman's right to choose becomes more important because that's what gets them votes. It's equal to, if not worse than the conservative hypocrisy of being against abortion but refusing to support any sort of benefits or support for women in crisis pregnancies.

Edited January 26, 2016 by HickoryHuskers

[farmteam]

So are rape, murder, theft OK because the perpetrator should be given freedom of choice? Or does human life have value that outweighs the freedom of choice? Or do we arbitrarily decide when the value of human life matters more or the value of freedom of choice matter more based on what NOW says?

 

I just see this as a complete hypocrisy by liberals. They stand up for the rights of minorities, women, gays, etc., but when it comes to the most vulnerable and defenseless class of human beings that exist, suddenly a woman's right to choose becomes more important because that's what gets them votes. It's equal to, if not worse than the conservative hypocrisy of being against abortion but refusing to support any sort of benefits or support for women in crisis pregnancies.

You say that like there's a universally accepted definition of "human beings that exist" when it comes to abortion. There's not. I'm going to subjugate a fetus to the woman's right to choose for a hell of a lot longer than you based on that distinction.

 

And I'm skeptical of the claim that there's greater demand than supply of adoptees. I don't have hard data either way, nor have you presented any, but it doesn't seen intuitively correct.

[caulfield12]

It would be interesting to see the actual percentage of children adopted vs. those under state supervision...

 

For babies who are born with mothers addicted to drugs:

Cases of rape and incest:

Babies that are born with birth defects, mentally-challenged:

Babies that are white vs. non-white:

How many international adoptions vs. non-white adoptions among US couples (straight and gay):

Babies who come up for adoption when their mother dies while giving birth:

[cabiness42]

You say that like there's a universally accepted definition of "human beings that exist" when it comes to abortion. There's not. I'm going to subjugate a fetus to the woman's right to choose for a hell of a lot longer than you based on that distinction.

 

And I'm skeptical of the claim that there's greater demand than supply of adoptees. I don't have hard data either way, nor have you presented any, but it doesn't seen intuitively correct.

 

I didn't say there is a universally accepted definition. Clearly there are plenty of people with their heads in the sand. Read the original link that started this conversation. You have to have some pretty strong blinders on to not see the 18-week fetus as human.

 

I don't have data either, I just know plenty of couples who have either not been able to adopt at all or had to adopt internationally because there were no babies available.

[cabiness42]

It would be interesting to see the actual percentage of children adopted vs. those under state supervision...

 

For babies who are born with mothers addicted to drugs:

Cases of rape and incest:

Babies that are born with birth defects, mentally-challenged:

Babies that are white vs. non-white:

How many international adoptions vs. non-white adoptions among US couples (straight and gay):

Babies who come up for adoption when their mother dies while giving birth:

 

Sure it would be interesting, but how would any of that data change the reality that abortion is killing a human being?

[pettie4sox]

H^2.

 

I would like to ask, what policies you would like implemented?

 

Once you're pregnant no matter how early, no abortions?

 

[EvilMonkey]

It would be interesting to see the actual percentage of children adopted vs. those under state supervision...

 

For babies who are born with mothers addicted to drugs:

Cases of rape and incest:

Babies that are born with birth defects, mentally-challenged:

Babies that are white vs. non-white:

How many international adoptions vs. non-white adoptions among US couples (straight and gay):

Babies who come up for adoption when their mother dies while giving birth:

Adoptions rules need to be streamlined to have any positive effect. Easier to go adopt a baby from Africa than to adopt one born to someone here.

[cabiness42]

H^2.

 

I would like to ask, what policies you would like implemented?

 

Once you're pregnant no matter how early, no abortions?

 

I think the difficulty is determining any specific developmental event between conception and birth that crosses a line from "pre-human" to human. I do admit it gets harder to make the "fully human" argument before the 14-18 week range, so while I personally wouldn't like that to be the law, I can at least see that as a reasonable argument from a scientific standpoint.

 

With the exception that any time is OK when the mother's life is in danger. When you get to the point where a life is going to be lost either way, I think the family should be allowed to decide which one.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I think the difficulty is determining any specific developmental event between conception and birth that crosses a line from "pre-human" to human. I do admit it gets harder to make the "fully human" argument before the 14-18 week range, so while I personally wouldn't like that to be the law, I can at least see that as a reasonable argument from a scientific standpoint.

 

With the exception that any time is OK when the mother's life is in danger. When you get to the point where a life is going to be lost either way, I think the family should be allowed to decide which one.

 

This is basically where I fall as well. I would allow for other cases as exceptions as well and unlike many right wing politicians, completely oppose their antiquated stances on birth control and support more funding towards organizations that support BC methods.

[greg775]

greg, I know you just LOVE Hillary so much, thought you might enjoy this.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team...erver-to-email/

Thank you for the great article! I missed that one.

I have a question for the Hillary supporters ... why do you want this kind of behavior rewarded? She's a proven liar (this is not opinion but fact). If you have to have a Democrat in office, then for gosh sakes vote for Sanders. Let the Clinton's quietly go away finally. You may call Greg a moron, but Chelsea is also out there and if Hillary wins you just know Chelsea will be waiting in the wings in 8 years to run herself. No more.

[pettie4sox]

Thank you for the great article! I missed that one.

I have a question for the Hillary supporters ... why do you want this kind of behavior rewarded? She's a proven liar (this is not opinion but fact). If you have to have a Democrat in office, then for gosh sakes vote for Sanders. Let the Clinton's quietly go away finally. You may call Greg a moron, but Chelsea is also out there and if Hillary wins you just know Chelsea will be waiting in the wings in 8 years to run herself. No more.

 

No more Clintons or Bushes. I'm down with that.

[EvilMonkey]

Thank you for the great article! I missed that one.

I have a question for the Hillary supporters ... why do you want this kind of behavior rewarded? She's a proven liar (this is not opinion but fact). If you have to have a Democrat in office, then for gosh sakes vote for Sanders. Let the Clinton's quietly go away finally. You may call Greg a moron, but Chelsea is also out there and if Hillary wins you just know Chelsea will be waiting in the wings in 8 years to run herself. No more.

greg, nobody likes Chelsea, so you don't have to worry about that. She has ZERO political skills, at least shown so far. Somehow the Clintons have got people willing to go to jail for them, but I don't see that kind of loyalty extending to the spawn of evil. Besides, if they extend the Federal probes into dealing of the Foundation, she could be in for some trouble herself.

[EvilMonkey]

No more Clintons or Bushes. I'm down with that.

Hell got colder, we agree!

[pettie4sox]

Hell got colder, we agree!

 

Come on now. We might disagree with a few things but all in all we're more aligned than you might think.

 

[greg775]

greg, nobody likes Chelsea, so you don't have to worry about that. She has ZERO political skills, at least shown so far. Somehow the Clintons have got people willing to go to jail for them, but I don't see that kind of loyalty extending to the spawn of evil. Besides, if they extend the Federal probes into dealing of the Foundation, she could be in for some trouble herself.

Alpha, it doesn't seem to matter chelsea has no politico skills yet. Donald Trump is running remember?

[farmteam]

I didn't say there is a universally accepted definition. Clearly there are plenty of people with their heads in the sand. Read the original link that started this conversation. You have to have some pretty strong blinders on to not see the 18-week fetus as human.

 

I don't have data either, I just know plenty of couples who have either not been able to adopt at all or had to adopt internationally because there were no babies available.

You don't see the disconnect with those two sentences?

 

And I did read the article. Doesn't change anything. There were some interesting points on the societal repercussions for women who have abortions, or the expectations that condition them to have abortions. The rest, about at what point is OK for an abortion and the point at which a fetus is life/human/etc., was just the same tired old lines. Did nothing to impact seeing a fetus as human or not.

[Brian]

I'd bet money Trump shows up Thursday despite saying he won't since Megyn Kelly is moderating.

[greg775]

I'd bet money Trump shows up Thursday despite saying he won't since Megyn Kelly is moderating.

I don't think he will. I believe he scheduled something else for charity in Iowa that night. If he was smart he'd do that event at the exact same time as the debate. Very hilarious it's a standoff between Trump and Fox. I mean Fox is giving up incredible ratings for its reporter. Very noble, very, but Fox has to know people do not care about Kelly compared to Trump. They should just cancel the debate. Why give the TV time to people nobody cares to listen to without Trump on the same stage.

Very compelling story, though. I disagree. I do not think Trump will debate.

[caulfield12]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-d...ed-to-win-iowa/

 

Does Trump have to win Iowa or New Hampshire?

[cabiness42]

You don't see the disconnect with those two sentences?

 

And I did read the article. Doesn't change anything. There were some interesting points on the societal repercussions for women who have abortions, or the expectations that condition them to have abortions. The rest, about at what point is OK for an abortion and the point at which a fetus is life/human/etc., was just the same tired old lines. Did nothing to impact seeing a fetus as human or not.

 

An 18-week old fetus squirms around to avoid the death needle. Doesn't impact whether or not you believe it's human?

[Brian]

I don't think he will. I believe he scheduled something else for charity in Iowa that night. If he was smart he'd do that event at the exact same time as the debate. Very hilarious it's a standoff between Trump and Fox. I mean Fox is giving up incredible ratings for its reporter. Very noble, very, but Fox has to know people do not care about Kelly compared to Trump. They should just cancel the debate. Why give the TV time to people nobody cares to listen to without Trump on the same stage.

Very compelling story, though. I disagree. I do not think Trump will debate.

 

He announced the thing for wounded warriors after I posted, so you're probably right. Just think it makes him look like a baby and everyone will pile on him w/o him there to try to defend himself.

[CB2.0]

He announced the thing for wounded warriors after I posted, so you're probably right. Just think it makes him look like a baby and everyone will pile on him w/o him there to try to defend himself.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if it really makes him look like a baby. He's dominating the group, and he has a point about Kelly - she even invited Michael Moore on her show last night to bash him.

 

MICHAEL MOORE!

 

That's awfully petty.

 

The reality is that Fox needs Trump more than Trump needs Fox - he's done fine in polling even with the obvious attempts to prop up Rubio/Cruz and bash him.

 

I think it's Fox making the bad move here - nobody goes to games to watch the umpires.

Edited January 27, 2016 by CB2.0

[caulfield12]

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-do...-twitter-2016-1

 

Fox News had quite the clever retort...

[CrimsonWeltall]

An 18-week old fetus squirms around to avoid the death needle. Doesn't impact whether or not you believe it's human?

 

You're assigning willful intent to actions that are merely automatic reflex (nociception). An 18-week fetus does not have the necessary level of brain development to be conscious, and lives in a state of sedation and anesthesia.