General US Politics

[Life]

All types of abortions should be legal and subsidized. In my opinion, abortion, regardless of the time when it's done, is murder but I feel like the pros outweigh the cons, especially for lower class citizens who can't afford to raise a child. Also, supporting these abortion programs probably costs the state less money than providing welfare to raise children (most of which would have single mothers) who would have otherwise not existed.

Abortion has to be legal but it doesn't mean that it should be legal past 24 weeks (where it is possible that fetuses can actually live).

Abortion has to be legal because making it illegal will not stop abortion. It'll simply make it unsafe and dangerous. That's a simple notion.

It also should not be publically funded because that is a violation of someone's right to religious beliefs. You are forcing someone who does not agree to the concept on the basis of a religious belief to fund it. That is a violation of rights.

Really, the whole thing comes down to social responsibility. Maybe promiscuity isn't the smartest thing.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[UNLEASH IT]

Abortion has to be legal but it doesn't mean that it should be legal past 24 weeks (where it is possible that fetuses can actually live).

Abortion has to be legal because making it illegal will not stop abortion. It'll simply make it unsafe and dangerous. That's a simple notion.

But what's the alternative? Adoption isn't as viable as people make it out to be

[Life]

But what's the alternative? Adoption isn't as viable as people make it out to be

The alternative is to not be socially irresponsible.

Why should my hard earned tax dollars pay for someone else's promiscuity and mistake?

Note: I am arguing for abortion to not be publically funded. Even if Roe v. Wade never happened, I'd still say abortion has to be legal.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[UNLEASH IT]

The alternative is to not be socially irresponsible.

Why should my hard earned tax dollars pay for someone else's promiscuity and mistake?

But won't your tax dollars end up paying for their mistake anyway, in the form of welfare? Unless you're saying that we should cut welfare to single mothers altogether, in which case, I kind of agree with you

[Life]

But won't your tax dollars end up paying for their mistake anyway, in the form of welfare? Unless you're saying that we should cut welfare to single mothers altogether, in which case, I kind of agree with you

I have already stated that I don't believe in welfare.

[Lord Raven]

I mean, just because a couple is getting an abortion doesn't mean they're being promiscuous or they made a mistake. It's not like having a child is easy or an easy decision to make, and not all abortions are teenagers who have sex without a condom.

[Life]

I mean, just because a couple is getting an abortion doesn't mean they're being promiscuous or they made a mistake. It's not like having a child is easy or an easy decision to make, and not all abortions are teenagers who have sex without a condom.

Of course not all.

But the vast majority of abortions are done on the poorer class who cannot afford to raise a child.

I get that. It's why I say that abortion has to be legal. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Criminalizing abortion will not remove it entirely. It will simply make it unsafe and dangerous. Again, Gosnell is your proof. He killed a woman. The number of babies that he kills may have been in the thousands. Baby Boy A was 30.5 weeks old. That shit was evil and criminalizing abortion will lead to more Kermit Gosnells.

There is also another factor at play. According to Abby Johnson (a director at Planned Parenthood for 8 years and she wrote a book about it), PP apparently would deliberately give women a form of contraceptive that would lead to failure and pregnancy, thus requiring an abortion. According to her, over 90% of pregnant women walking into PP would end up getting an abortion. If that is true, that is shady as shit.

I know that you hate Crowder but I think he has excellent guests on his show (and I agree with most of his opinions). And this video literally made my blood run cold.

Every word that Ann McElhinney says here is 100% true. The first two lines of the grand jury's report are as follows:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.

It's not an argument against abortion but rather an argument against criminalizing abortion because this will happen as a result.

The argument on abortion needs to be "when is the cut-off date". That number needs to sit between 11 and 23 weeks (babies born at 23 weeks are 25~30% viable). And that's a hard debate. I lean more towards 21/22 (5 months in) because it's very unlikely that the baby is viable at that point but 11 is an accept position to hold if someone wants to argue that the killing of a fetus is already infanticide.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Phoenix Wright]

It also should not be publically funded because that is a violation of someone's right to religious beliefs. You are forcing someone who does not agree to the concept on the basis of a religious belief to fund it. That is a violation of rights.

war is against my beliefs, but 60% of every tax dollar goes to defense.

you guys are placing way too much emphasis on "religious beliefs" like they actually matter that much. they don't. if they did, we'd still be living in a puritan society.

[eclipse]

as was said, your religious freedom begins and ends with your ability to worship freely. if you intend to use your religious freedom to trample another's rights in the name of faith, then you simply don't get to do it. the simplest way to put it is that you aren't granted extra freedoms because you're religious. as an agnostic, if i can't turn away homosexuals, as a christian you cannot.

Buying a cake is a right?

I'm gonna point at what I told Phillius earlier, as well as just about everything else I said. I appreciate discussion, but I get the feeling that you're either unwilling or unable to tell yourself "gee perhaps the other side has a point", and go from there.

Speaking of, Phillius, I'll wait 'til you come back.

As for Eggclipse, I see your point, you believe that a privately owned business should have the choice to do whatever they want. While that's *somewhat* true, there are STILL things that they should have to come back to-- health regulations, payment standards etc. The question is where "service towards a customer" actually falls under. It's certainly not lethal for claiming to not serve someone , and if you own the business, you can't exactly be fired from yourself. I can see how an argument can be made that the woman in question would be able to say "no" to someone she did not wish to serve. Specifically because she said that it was for religious reasons. Heck, the government can't make you serve in the draft if you claim you don't believe in fighting for religious reasons, so when you look at it that way, it IS a bit odd and does seem like a bit of a double standard. And to even remark on that situation, I did wonder why they felt the government needed to be involved with that. If someone wouldn't serve me-- whether it's because of my physiological aspects or not, my response would be : "you're loss" and I'd go somewhere else.

Up to a point, IMO. I have no issues with the likes of OSHA, for example. But this specific incident is over the sale of something which IMO is a luxury item. That's why I disagree with the law. A wedding can go on without a cake. If it was something else, I'd evaluate it based on the context of the situation.

I think your response is perfectly normal. If I was the shop owner, I'd direct you to a bakery that would be happy to serve you. I may not want to do things due to my religious beliefs, but it doesn't mean that I have to be a dick about it.

---

Past 24 weeks has to be illegal. Period. End stop. I'll simply point to Kermit Gosnell and say "that's why".

What Gosnell did to babies was first degree murder. The only difference between that and a late term abortion is that Elizabeth Warren says that as long as the fetus is still in the womb, it's legal. Outside the womb? It's probably a crime worse than rape and I abhor rape more anything.

What is your stance on an abortion, if the procedure is done to save the mother's life? I have no idea if I'll get pregnant in the future, but if I do, this is something I'll need to consider.

EDIT: And WHY wasn't the Philadelphia Department of Health named as one of the culprits in that case?!

Edited August 27, 2016 by eggclipse

[Phoenix Wright]

Buying a cake is a right?

I'm gonna point at what I told Phillius earlier, as well as just about everything else I said. I appreciate discussion, but I get the feeling that you're either unwilling or unable to tell yourself "gee perhaps the other side has a point", and go from there.

errr no. that isn't the point. the right in question is the demand of service. businesses don't get to refuse to people for orientation, gender, race, or ethnicity. and so, be it a cake or a tv, homosexuals should be able to walk into any shop and buy what they want.

it's quite the opposite. i think possibly the most important point i've made thus far is

the simplest way to put it is that you aren't granted extra freedoms because you're religious.

religious people don't get to dictate the rules because they're religious. if you're born into something that defines who you are, be it black or white, straight or gay, male or female, and everything else under those umbrellas, people shouldn't get to tell you you're unwelcome because you were born a certain way.

so again i say it's quite the opposite. i think religion is stopping people from seeing how destructive the perspective is.

[tuvarkz]

What is your stance on an abortion, if the procedure is done to save the mother's life? I have no idea if I'll get pregnant in the future, but if I do, this is something I'll need to consider.

Pro-Lifer here. I believe that saving the mother's life is one of the two scenarios where abortion is justified (As it's taking one life that may not survive to ensure the survival of another), the other one being a condition (whether it be genetic, caused by illness, or any other sort) in the fetus bad enough to cause either extreme mental defficiency or to cause the future child to have to life its whole life hooked to machines (EDIT: as in needing a machine to help the child breathe-tier of bad; stuff like needing a permanent insulin dispenser shouldn't be justified cause)/not be able to live at all after birth. If the adoption system is bad, then the adoption system is due for a reform and a much-needed upgrade.

Edited August 27, 2016 by tuvarkz

[eclipse]

errr no. that isn't the point. the right in question is the demand of service. businesses don't get to refuse to people for orientation, gender, race, or ethnicity. and so, be it a cake or a tv, homosexuals should be able to walk into any shop and buy what they want.

it's quite the opposite. i think possibly the most important point i've made thus far is

religious people don't get to dictate the rules because they're religious. if you're born into something that defines who you are, be it black or white, straight or gay, male or female, and everything else under those umbrellas, people shouldn't get to tell you you're unwelcome because you were born a certain way.

so again i say it's quite the opposite. i think religion is stopping people from seeing how destructive the perspective is.

And I think it's the opposite - as a customer, you're making a request. I should not be compelled to fulfill that request.

But at this point, I don't think you're going to listen, because you ignored what I said about context. In other words, I'm wasting my time with this. I've made my point, and it stands. Argue if you must, but what you've said has only cemented my own stance in my mind.

[Res]

Should a business be able to refuse a request for any reason, or would a defined list of reasons have to be explicitly laid out? I'm curious because the bakery at the center of the Oregon lawsuit, Sweet Cakes, would apparently bake a cake for various other celebrations that many Christians would be against.

Unless you're saying that we should cut welfare to single mothers altogether, in which case, I kind of agree with you

I'd love to know why it's single mothers that are usually singled out in arguments against welfare.

There is also another factor at play. According to Abby Johnson (a director at Planned Parenthood for 8 years and she wrote a book about it), PP apparently would deliberately give women a form of contraceptive that would lead to failure and pregnancy, thus requiring an abortion. According to her, over 90% of pregnant women walking into PP would end up getting an abortion. If that is true, that is shady as shit.

So I looked up what Abby Johnson said, which was: "So why do they provide contraceptive services to women? Because they know that eventually that contraceptive will fail; 54 percent of women who have abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant.

"They know that method is going to fail and because they've already developed a relationship with that woman then that woman will come back to Planned Parenthood whenever that method did fail and they will be able to sell her on an abortion."

That doesn't mean that Planned Parenthood gave the contraception.

No method of contraception is 100% foolproof. And yes, I would expect that a large percentage of women seeking abortion were using contraception, because people who don't want to be pregnant are going to be likely to use contraception, and similarly, people who are using contraception aren't wanting a pregnancy - so if the contraception fails, they're more likely to seek an abortion. It doesn't mean Planned Parenthood was sabotaging a type of contraception, or pushing a method with a high failure rate onto people.

Abby Johnson's experience also only speaks for one Planned Parenthood clinic. Perhaps that clinic did operate shadily; it says nothing about the clinics in the rest of the country. Additionally, Abby Johnson isn't without an agenda; she converted to Catholicism and is now pro-life, so she's not exactly without bias.

There is evidence to suggest that when Planned Parenthoods disappear, the pregnancy rate goes up.

Late-term abortions, which are already extremely rare, really don't happen unless either the mother's life is endangered, or the baby is incompatible with life.

war is against my beliefs, but 60% of every tax dollar goes to defense.

Indeed.

I abhor rape more anything.

That's interesting, given your earlier statement that you don't believe in rape culture. I actually had a super long post in reply to this (in conjunction with the public healthcare post) with a ton of links typed up yesterday, but auto-save lost it. I can elaborate on it if anyone feels it's worth discussing, but it'd probably be better off in a separate topic.

[Phoenix Wright]

And I think it's the opposite - as a customer, you're making a request. I should not be compelled to fulfill that request.

But at this point, I don't think you're going to listen, because you ignored what I said about context. In other words, I'm wasting my time with this. I've made my point, and it stands. Argue if you must, but what you've said has only cemented my own stance in my mind.

let me break this down: initially, it is a request. and businesses can indeed reject service for a host of reasons. however, there exist some instances where a person can demand service if the reason for rejection is based on character traits that they're born with.

you said businesses shouldn't be able to reject service if they're the "only option." so if this was the only bakery for 100 miles, suddenly they'd have to sell the cake? why??

i didn't ignore the thing about context. you were talking to someone else so i just didn't read it. but i can respond to it: context only needlessly complicates the law. so businesses can't reject homosexuals from getting gas or something important, but they can refer you to a different coffee shop or candy store?? i'm just trying to understand your logic because it seems like a maze.

like, let's set up a scenario. imagine a gay person living in a religious town in alabama. down the block there's a coffee shop, but they don't sell to gays because they're christians and selling to gays is against their beliefs. the next coffee shop is a mile and a half away, and the owner says to go there every morning instead. that's morally just?

Edited August 27, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Time the Crestfallen]

Speaking of, Phillius, I'll wait 'til you come back.

Present.

That's interesting, given your earlier statement that you don't believe in rape culture. I actually had a super long post in reply to this (in conjunction with the public healthcare post) with a ton of links typed up yesterday, but auto-save lost it. I can elaborate on it if anyone feels it's worth discussing, but it'd probably be better off in a separate topic.

I'm not seeing the connection here. How are hating rape and not believing in rape culture related?

[Life]

war is against my beliefs, but 60% of every tax dollar goes to defense.

you guys are placing way too much emphasis on "religious beliefs" like they actually matter that much. they don't. if they did, we'd still be living in a puritan society.

Belief against war is not a "God-given right". It is an opinion and malleable. If the USA was attacked, I believe that for the sake of your own livelihood, you'd be happy that the military was funded so well.

The right to freedom of religion is about freedom. If you don't believe in religion, that is fine. But you have no right to curtail someone else's belief by attempting to pass laws that would force someone to do something against their religion.

Here's a hypothetical example. Would you pass a law saying that every single citizen must eat bacon?

like, let's set up a scenario. imagine a gay person living in a religious town in alabama. down the block there's a coffee shop, but they don't sell to gays because they're christians and selling to gays is against they're beliefs. the next coffee shop is a mile and a half away, and the owner says to go there every morning instead. that's morally just?

It's not "morally just" but imposing the government's will on the business against religious beliefs is a form of tyranny.

In your example, the coffee shop would eventually go out of business because eclipse already brought forth evidence showing that businesses that discriminate usually fail.

Even if it the only coffee shop around, coffee is not a fundamental need. Now if you were talking about a fundamental need like food, electricity or hydro, you'd have a point. But since you decided to use the example of a luxury, it seems that you simply do not value the idea of religious freedom.

That's interesting, given your earlier statement that you don't believe in rape culture. I actually had a super long post in reply to this (in conjunction with the public healthcare post) with a ton of links typed up yesterday, but auto-save lost it. I can elaborate on it if anyone feels it's worth discussing, but it'd probably be better off in a separate topic.

Phillius already said it. Where's the connection?

Rape culture doesn't exist. In Western civilization, men hate rapists just as much (if not more) than women. Men do not go around and advicate for rape (which is against the fucking law).

The thing is, "rape culture" is this term that spawned from a few evil women (Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer are two of them) and the confusion between sexual harrassment and abuse. It is a lie that is designed to belittle men and nothing more.

Let's be honest here. The vast majority of rape stories that have gone to news outlets have been false. Mattress Girl? False. Duke Lacrosse? False. Lena Dunham? False (she actually should be in jail for sexually abusing her sister). Brian Banks? False.

Does rape happen? Yes. But it isn't 1 in 5. Rape in the USA by FBI statistics is exceedingly rare. Congo doesn't have 1 in 5. Eritrea doesn't have 1 in 5. As I said earlier, to justify rape culture, you first need to prove that rape is an epidemic if you're going to argue that men are being taught that rape is acceptable.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Res]

I'm not seeing the connection here. How are hating rape and not believing in rape culture related?

I would just think that feeling that strongly against rape, one would be more sensitive to how rape is treated less seriously and less severely than it ought to be.

Also, rape is under-reported. It is. Of everyone I know who has been raped, not one person went to the authorities. If were raped, I certainly wouldn't report it. I'll probably advise my children not to, either, given what rape victims (even the verifiable, absolutely-did-not-lie-about-it, there's-video-evidence victims) are subject to.

It's also not about men being taught rape is acceptable. And it affects men as victims, too. One of the first times I was aware of the attitude towards rape was when watching 40 Days and 40 Nights in which Josh Hartnett's character is raped, and it's played for laughs. It's meant to be a comedy, even.

[eclipse]

One dinner and good night's sleep back. . .and my brain's still half-out of it. But at least I should be able to be coherent.

To be blunt, I am seeing this more from you on this point than anyone else from my own perspective.

I also still don't see how Islam isn't a religion. It's a religion by any definition.

I appreciate it, thanks.

Gonna read through the topic again, and figure out where the split from law to religion happened. While the Republican party shamelessly panders to Christians, the current discussion has nothing to do with that. If your post disappears, my apologies (and blame the topic split function).

EDIT: Done. Topic probably doesn't flow as well as before, but oh well.

Edited August 27, 2016 by eggclipse

[tuvarkz]

Reposting because the post got moved over to the other thread.

I would just think that feeling that strongly against rape, one would be more sensitive to how rape is treated less seriously and less severely than it ought to be.

Also, rape is under-reported. It is. Of everyone I know who has been raped, not one person went to the authorities. If were raped, I certainly wouldn't report it. I'll probably advise my children not to, either, given what rape victims (even the verifiable, absolutely-did-not-lie-about-it, there's-video-evidence victims) are subject to.

It's also not about men being taught rape is acceptable. And it affects men as victims, too. One of the first times I was aware of the attitude towards rape was when watching 40 Days and 40 Nights in which Josh Hartnett's character is raped, and it's played for laughs. It's meant to be a comedy, even.

While it is true that having one's body be searched for evidence and a likely thorough interrogation is almost certainly a very bad experience to have, specially if it's immediately after the rape, it is the most effective way to end with the culprit being caught. DNA evidence, when fresh, is for most purposes foolproof.

Yes, rape is played for comedy sometimes, but in almost every single case it's a) black comedy and/or b) a male being raped (or c) a piece of erotic media, but that's another argument altogether). There is a definite line between reality and fiction, and rape is never treated lightly when it happens in real life for a reason. The argument against rape/sexual aggression ever being treated lightly or comedically in fiction of different genres has as little footing as the argument against violence in media-There is a very significant difference between the two, and I believe it's far more important that people aknowledge that there is a very wide difference between fiction and reality, regardless of suspense of disbelief.

Edited August 27, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Life]

I think that Pheonix's post where he claims "tyranny is good and sometimes necessary" is an important one. That was a mistake to delete it, eclipse.

I want to address that point.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

That is the definition of tyranny and where we differ.

If you believe in authoritarianism, then sure. But the USA was created as a bastion from tyranny. No taxation without representation. They fought against the tyrrany of the English and won their freedom. They drafted the Constitution in order to keep their own government from becoming tyrannical.

If you believe that tyranny is good and sometines necessary, that is exactly what the founding fathers stood against. It includes freedom of religious belief, freedom of opinion and the right to bear arms.

There's our divide.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[eclipse]

Not deleted, moved. However, I'll leave it up to whoever made the original post to repost it in here.

[Lord Raven]

If you believe that tyranny is good and sometines necessary, that is exactly what the founding fathers stood against. It includes freedom of religious belief, freedom of opinion and the right to bear arms.

They also stood in favor of tyranny against black people, meaning they were hypocrites themselves.

The "founding fathers stood against tyranny" argument is not an argument, it's propaganda. Not all Americans care what they stood for. Are you saying any sort of regulation at all is tyranny and that the founding fathers would scoff on it? It's hard to tell since you didn't quote the post, you just went on a bit of a diatribe.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

They also stood in favor of tyranny against black people, meaning they were hypocrites themselves.

The "founding fathers stood against tyranny" argument is not an argument, it's propaganda. Not all Americans care what they stood for. Are you saying any sort of regulation at all is tyranny and that the founding fathers would scoff on it? It's hard to tell since you didn't quote the post, you just went on a bit of a diatribe.

Blacks were not slaves because they were black. They were slaves because they had been brought to America as slaves.

Not only that but America went on to banish slavery (and they didn't corner the market on slavery, it very much still exists today) because it was unconstitutional. They had to fight a civil war to do so but they did and emerged all the stronger for it.

If you say that it is propaganda, how do you justify British rule over the American colonies until 1775?

[Phantom037]

Blacks were not slaves because they were black. They were slaves because they had been brought to America as slaves.

Not only that but America went on to banish slavery (and they didn't corner the market on slavery, it very much still exists today) because it was unconstitutional. They had to fight a civil war to do so but they did and emerged all the stronger for it.

If you say that it is propaganda, how do you justify British rule over the American colonies until 1775?

The point still stands, if the founding fathers so wholeheartedly believe in freedom from tyranny, why did they allow slavery to stick around? nearly 90 years after the people of the US were "freed from tyranny", there were still natural born Americans sitting in shackles for their entire life.

[blah the Prussian]

Blacks were not slaves because they were black. They were slaves because they had been brought to America as slaves.

Not only that but America went on to banish slavery (and they didn't corner the market on slavery, it very much still exists today) because it was unconstitutional. They had to fight a civil war to do so but they did and emerged all the stronger for it.

If you say that it is propaganda, how do you justify British rule over the American colonies until 1775?

How do I justify it? Well, the colonists were British citizens, who came there to extend British sovereignty, who were protected by British troops. Then, some taxes were passed, you know, to pay for the 7 years war, which had been to defend the colonists against the French (in America at least) and the colonists got pissy and decided to commit large scale tax evasion. Thus, the USA was born. Britain absolutely had control of the colonies, essentially.