Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Joe DeFuria]

God forbid fighting for our rights be allowed. Nope, can't have that. You'd think this country would have learned this lesson from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Guess not.

Gee, Natoma, you said that as If I even HINTED that you shouldn't be allowed to fight for your rights? Where on earth did I do such a thing?

My POINT was, that it's this "fighting" that manifested itself in two specific legal issues (MA and San Francisco) is what brought the issue to the spotlight at this time. It's not some hatched election scheme from Bush as stated by John.

 

[Vince]

The problem Vince is that you get people who say we aren't just the sum of our genes and hormones. What do many anti-abortionists say? The fertilized egg has the potential to become a human life. They don't say, you're killing a human being. It's all about the potential to grow into a human life. So even from "their side," there seems to be some, how shall I say, debate, as to whether a clump of dividing cells is "human." From a biologically reductionist point of view, the moment of conception is the moment we become an individual. Of course, you won't find too many biological reductionists on the anti-abortion side. Mostly religious nutters.

Sarcasm aside, I've said and will continue to say that I don't like the idea of terminating a pregnancy unless it's in the case of forced sex or the mother's life is in danger. But until we have a rock solid definition of what a human being is, I can't personally see legislating the right of a woman to choose whether to bring a pregnancy to term. Frankly it's going to take technology to answer that question imo, and at that point, I believe the right to an abortion will fall away. We just aren't there yet.

So true, I'd never engage in a serious debate in these matters in real life, nor would most of your described "biological reductionists." But, that doesn't mean we're wrong or that the religious psychos have a clue what they're talking about or that the liberal/feminists/pro-abortion factions (not claiming their related) have a single thread of fact in their argument.

As I stated, the entire argument is nothing more than pseudo-science and politic. We can show today what's in a fetus, we have defined bounds which show that it's human and alive; we've had data which has shown that a fetus is conscious and self-aware from atleast the 20th week for ages; we all know this - but instead it's all politics and power and lobbying.

And the unfortunate facts is that because of this body politic and with all due respect, people with your thinking, that yet more people will die before they ever get a chance to show what they can do or what they can achieve because their parents were drunk, or stoned, or just fucking assholes and didn't respect what they were doing.

Our civilization's history is too full of cases where one group with political pull has deemed another group to be inferior or not worthy of life because of a percieved genetic inferiority or lack of "humaness." When will we ever learn?

People talk about the Holocaust being horrible, that's 6 million Jews. Almost 30 million humans have been killed since Roe vs. Wade (1973 IIRC) in the United States alone; and all because some jerks have deemed them "fetuses" and "not human yet".

Natoma, you've often talked about the injustice against many of your fellow African-Americans in the past and believe me, I truely empathize...

To be considered 3/5ths a human based on something as superficial as skin color and not able to defend yourself is horrid, to not even be considered a human is horrific.

 

[Natoma]

The problem Vince is that you get people who say we aren't just the sum of our genes and hormones. What do MANY anti-abortionists say? The fertilized egg has the potential to become a human life. They don't say, you're killing a human being.

??

SOME might argue that, but most of what I hear them say, is that you ARE killing a human being.

I'm sorry Joe, I'm not as adept at bold capping as a debate technique as you are. That better? *points above* Not all? Some? A few? Quite a bit? Maybe just a little? Want to nit over that? Want to really play this semantic game and start going nuts again? Or do you want to calm down and actually have a discussion. Thanks. :?

Now, if you hadn't snipped out the next sentence, you would have realized that I touched on the opposite side of the debate from the anti-abortion camp.

So even from "their side," there seems to be some, how shall I say, debate, as to whether a clump of dividing cells is "human."

It's all about the potential to grow into a human life.

Since when? The "potential" to result in a "birth" is not the same as "life."

Talk to some/many/quite a bit of/a few people from the anti-abortion camp.

But until we have a rock solid definition of what a human being is, I can't personally see legislating against the right of a woman to choose whether to bring a pregnancy to term.

Until we have a rock solid definition of what a human being ISN'T, I can't see personally legislating to default exclusive rights to the mother.

And this just highlights the difference of opinion on the matter.

 

[Natoma]

God forbid fighting for our rights be allowed. Nope, can't have that. You'd think this country would have learned this lesson from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Guess not.

Gee, Natoma, you said that as If I even HINTED that you shouldn't be allowed to fight for your rights? Where on earth did I do such a thing?

My POINT was, that it's this "fighting" that manifested itself in two specific legal issues (MA and San Francisco) is what brought the issue to the spotlight at this time. It's not some hatched election scheme from Bush as stated by John.

my post wasn't directed at you per se Joe. It was directed at Bush and his administration cronies who support this godawful constitutional amendment.

And btw, Bush has been hinting at this since 2003, before MA came down, and the events in San Francisco, upstate New York, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New Mexico, New York City, etc etc etc occurred. There were articles at MSNBC and CNN regarding Karl Rove's promise early last year to christian conservatives that this would be an issue that Bush would push if he was re-elected. The events of the past 5 months have frankly pushed the debate into the forefront, but it was coming anyway, courtesy of the President's political tending of "Da Base." What did that promise do? Tell the conservative base "Come out and vote for us, and we'll deliver in our second term." Pretty important when you consider they tallied about 4 million fundies who stayed home in 2000 because they were upset at Bush's "middle of the road" politicking.

 

[John Reynolds]

Um...hello?

Bush did not throw this into the spotlight. The activists did. They are the ones that filed the law-suit in MA, and they're the ones that caused the issue in SF. That's what caused Bush to respond.

Joe, you're not that naive. It was in the courts and could've been left there. By choosing to speak out against it in such a public fashion, Bush and his advisors knew it would make him that more appealing to all Christians, left or right (I know I wrote Christian right earlier, but this is the sort of thing that crosses political boundaries and his advisors would certainly know that).

He knowingly lit a spark and threw it into the kindling.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, you're not that naive. It was in the courts and could've been left there.

John, you can't be that stupid.

It was already against the law, and it could've been left there. By choosing to defy the law, the activists knew this would bring the issue to the forefront.

He knowingly lit a spark and threw it into the kindling.

Oh, so Mayors that knowingly and admitedly defy the law is what, water on the fire?

 

[nelg]

The problem Vince is that you get people who say we aren't just the sum of our genes and hormones.

To be defined as a human we are a sum of our "genes and hormones".Vince is correct. The fetus has a distinct genetic signature therefore is an individual. The rest is just character.

 

[Vince]

God forbid fighting for our rights be allowed. Nope, can't have that. You'd think this country would have learned this lesson from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Guess not.

I agree, and frankly I hope you do learn. Unfortunatly the battlelines are being drawn in the abortion debate and one must choose where they stand, hopefully people will take your advice to heart and learn from the past and integrate it into their decision.

Because as far as I'm concerned, the last thing we need are more people playing the contemporary role of the White Plantation Owner who blindly believes what's heard by the majority and waits for the body politic to make a decision before doing what's right, all while people are dying.

I'm hopeful and glad you agree. I need to go, but if you ever have any questions or want some reading material, feel free to PM me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And btw, Bush has been hinting at this since 2003, before MA came down, and the events in San Francisco,...

Yes, he's made his position pretty clear. He's also said that he didn't see the need to do anything about it...yet. It's the events in MA (and in particular SF) that was the final straw.

Personally, I don't think Bush would've overtly come out in support of the amendment if the DF mayor didn't do what he did....if everyone just the the MA situation pan out.

Snip all your nonsense about "the base"....

 

[nelg]

John, you can't be that stupid.

It was already against the law, and it could've been left there. By choosing to defy the law, the activists knew this would bring the issue to the forefront.

Defying the law is the only way to challenge its constitutionality. And if it is found to be un-constitutional then they were correct in having done so.

 

[Natoma]

As I stated, the entire argument is nothing more than pseudo-science and politic. We can show today what's in a fetus, we have defined bounds which show that it's human and alive; we've had data which has shown that a fetus is conscious and self-aware from atleast the 20th week for ages; we all know this - but instead it's all politics and power and lobbying.

Ok, so if that's true, then let's roll back abortion rights to the 20th week. However, where do you go from there if consciousness and self-awareness as one definition of "humanity" no longer apply pre-20th week? That's why I think technology is the key to this answer when it comes to overturning roe v wade. Legion said that the judges during that time didn't have enough scientific data to make a good judgment on the matter, which is precisely what I said when I stated that they made the judgment with the level of technology they had at the time. If we revisit Roe v Wade today in a court, abortion rights may well be pushed back until the 20th week as you say, but it may be decades before we can definitively go further back.

And the unfortunate facts is that because of this body politic and with all due respect, people with your thinking, that yet more people will die before they ever get a chance to show what they can do or what they can achieve because their parents were drunk, or stoned, or just fucking assholes and didn't respect what they were doing.

And this is something that I sorely disagree with. I have never liked abortion as a pregnancy prophylactic. People that have sex without contraceptives, get pregnant, and use abortion as a "way out" are irresponsible and frankly, for lack of a better word, disgusting to me. But, irrespective of the cause, abortion isn't deemed as something to be used only in a worst case scenario, i.e. rape and/or endangered life of the mother.

I do however support the laws that require underage children to have parental knowledge of the situation for an abortion. I think that's a responsible step in the right direction.

Our civilization's history is too full of cases where one group with political pull has deemed another group to be inferior or not worthy of life because of a percieved genetic inferiority or lack of "humaness." When will we ever learn?

People talk about the Holocaust being horrible, that's 6 million Jews. Almost 30 million humans have been killed since Roe vs. Wade (1973 IIRC) in the United States alone; and all because some jerks have deemed them "fetuses" and "not human yet".

Natoma, you've often talked about the injustice against many of your fellow African-Americans in the past and believe me, I truely empathize...

To be considered 3/5ths a human based on something as superficial as skin color and not able to defend yourself is horrid, to not even be considered a human is horrific.

The point is well taken, and frankly I agree. However, this is a wholly different situation. You can definitely look at a "born" person and see "human" today. The question of that becomes much more difficult, as evidenced by the 31 years of back and forth between abortion foes and abortion proponents.

Personally I won't be too sad to see abortion eventually go the way of the dinosaur, save for last resort cases such as rape and endangered life of the mother.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Defying the law is the only way to challenge its constitutionality.

Right, and this is what happened in MA. (Although in the case of the rogue Mayors, this is not what they did...)

The point is, Bush did not bring this to the spot light. It's not some nefarious plot to appeal to "the base", or detract from any other issue, or whatever hair-brained conspiracy theory someone like John wants to espouse.

Bush did not set the timing of the MA case, or the timing of SF's mayor to marry gay couples despite knowing it was against the law.

 

[John Reynolds]

John, you can't be that stupid.

Knock the fucking insults off, Joe. I've had enough. Either learn to debate maturely or I'm going to start laying on the delete button. I wouldn't expect anyone else to take the almost constant name calling and personal attacks.

It was already against the law, and it could've been left there. By choosing to defy the law, the activists knew this would bring the issue to the forefront.

It was the law in MA, and the revision of this law in MA was done illegally? Sounds like the MA courts revised their state laws on this issue. Those opposed to gay marriage can brand the actions of such judges as those of "activisits", but I fail to see how that makes their actions illegal.

Oh, so Mayors that knowingly and admitedly defy the law is what, water on the fire?

They've acted improperly, illegally, which I've stated before, and should be reprimanded appropriately. It is not the position of a city's mayor to abuse his office in such a fashion. But this is completely different from states changing their laws, having the rights and ability to change such law, which Bush obviously wants to restrict with his proposed amendment.

 

[Natoma]

Joe, you're not that naive. It was in the courts and could've been left there.

John, you can't be that stupid.

It was already against the law, and it could've been left there. By choosing to defy the law, the activists knew this would bring the issue to the forefront.

So the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision was "defying" the law? You've got to be kidding. If I recall correctly, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision came down in November while SF began the marrying spree on February 12th.

Yep, the President spoke about gay marriage in the state of the union speech on January 28th because the lawbreakers in the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to defy the law.

He knowingly lit a spark and threw it into the kindling.

Oh, so Mayors that knowingly and admitedly defy the law is what, water on the fire?

Irrelevant. That came after Bush stoked the fires in the State of the Union speech.

 

[Natoma]

Defying the law is the only way to challenge its constitutionality.

Right, and this is what happened in MA. (Although in the case of the rogue Mayors, this is not what they did...)

The point is, Bush did not bring this to the spot light. It's not some nefarious plot to appeal to "the base", or detract from any other issue, or whatever hair-brained conspiracy theory someone like John wants to espouse.

Bush did not set the timing of the MA case, or the timing of SF's mayor to marry gay couples despite knowing it was against the law.

You're completely deluded if you don't think this is precisely to appeal to the base. Get it through your head. This isn't some "conspiracy" theory. Karl Rove himself promised the christian conservatives who make up a sizeable portion of the republican base that the president would do this, before the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision came down last year. This was something that they expected would be handled in the second term, a promise that this would occur if they came out to vote.

This isn't conspiracy theories. This is good politicking on the part of the republicans.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision was "defying" the law? You've got to be kidding.

No, I'm not kidding. But it doesn't help when you yet again assert things that I didn't.

I never said the MA Supreme court defied the law. The plantiffs in the case defied MA law, which is to bring the case to the Supreme court.

And please, don't spout off another "you're saying they didn't have the right to do it?" Because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that's what got the boll rolling..

Irrelevant. That came after Bush stoked the fires in the State of the Union speech.

Irrelevant. Bush didn't call for the Amendment until after the Mayor's defiance, and Bush specificially named that, along with MA, as reasons for his stance.

 

[Natoma]

And btw, Bush has been hinting at this since 2003, before MA came down, and the events in San Francisco,...

Yes, he's made his position pretty clear. He's also said that he didn't see the need to do anything about it...yet. It's the events in MA (and in particular SF) that was the final straw.

Yet, i.e. second term when re-election is no longer an issue to consider.

Personally, I don't think Bush would've overtly come out in support of the amendment if the DF mayor didn't do what he did....if everyone just the the MA situation pan out.

Snip all your nonsense about "the base"....

Obviously not, because he doesn't want to alienate moderate republicans and independents who he needs to win the november election. The Bush team would have preferred deal with this in the 2nd term when re-election was no longer an issue. This forced Bush to now walk a political tight rope in which he has to please his base, but hope he doesn't come across as mean spirited or constitutionally damaging to moderate republicans and independents such as myself.

And what's that about "the base" nonsense? Someone needs a refresher into party politics, and who makes up a significant chunk of the republican party. Again, 4 million conservatives stayed home in 2000 because they felt Bush wasn't "one of them" in supporting their "red meat" social issues. Google is your friend Joe.

 

[John Reynolds]

I never said the MA Supreme court defied the law. The plantiffs inthe case defied MA law, which brought the case to the Supreme court.

Irrelevent. The courts ruling is tainted because of how the issue was brought to them? Who cares how or why the MA courts decided to address the issue. . .they acted within their legal rights. End of story. Bush, born-again Christian unable to grasp separation of church and state, wants to enforce his religious beliefs onto others by mis-using the influence of his position as president to amend the Constitution to halt social progression within states that're inclined to pass such laws. As is their legal right.

 

[Natoma]

So the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision was "defying" the law? You've got to be kidding.

No, I'm not kidding. But it doesn't help when you yet again assert things that I didn't.

I never said the MA Supreme court defied the law. The plantiffs in the case defied MA law, which is to bring the case to the Supreme court.

Lawbreakers! The lot of them!

Irrelevant. That came after Bush stoked the fires in the State of the Union speech.

Irrelevant. Bush didn't call for the Amendment until after the Mayor's defiance, and Bush specificially named that, along with MA, as reasons for his stance.

See posts regarding republican politics and the base.

 

[Natoma]

I never said the MA Supreme court defied the law. The plantiffs inthe case defied MA law, which brought the case to the Supreme court.

Irrelevent. The courts ruling is tainted because of how the issue was brought to them? Who cares how or why the MA courts decided to address the issue. . .they acted within their legal rights. End of story. Bush, born-again Christian unable to grasp separation of church and state, wants to enforce his religious beliefs onto others by mis-using the influence of his position as president to amend the Constitution to halt social progression within states that're inclined to pass such laws. As is their legal right.

Exactly. There is nothing illegal about challenging a law through the court system.