The 21st century is kicking the 20th century's ass

[arebelspy]

This forum may be the catalyst to implement the forum rules that Arebelspy was inquiring about. Keep it civil people!!!

I don't really see any egregious problems here.  Attacking an argument (even if a bit nastily) is still different than attacking a person.  It's still surprisingly civil for the emotional topics being addressed.

[boy_bye]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

+1

Wow, I've never heard anyone take such a position, let alone two people.  I find it shockingly sexist for someone to not even be allowed to have an opinion on something.

Of course they are still allowed to have an opinion. It's just, if that opinion is anything other than "That decision ultimately rests with the people involved," well that IS silly to me, and inappropriate. Especially when the opinion being expressed would limit my bodily autonomy as a human being.

[arebelspy]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

+1

Wow, I've never heard anyone take such a position, let alone two people.  I find it shockingly sexist for someone to not even be allowed to have an opinion on something.

Of course they are still allowed to have an opinion. It's just, if that opinion is anything other than "That decision ultimately rests with the people involved," well that IS silly to me, and inappropriate. Especially when the opinion being expressed would limit my bodily autonomy as a human being.

That's dynamite, but the exact opposite of what you +1’d.

One allows someone to have an opinion (but you may disagree with it), the other says it is inappropriate for them to have one (even one you agree with).

That's the dangerous censorship that is terrible evil.

[Frugal_in_DC]

Going back to the SCOTUS decisions, here are a couple of articles on the conservative case for gay marriage from Ted Olson, who represented the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, and author/blogger Andrew Sullivan:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.single.html

[grantmeaname]

Of course they are still allowed to have an opinion. It's just, if that opinion is anything other than "That decision ultimately rests with the people involved," well that IS silly to me, and inappropriate. Especially when the opinion being expressed would limit my bodily autonomy as a human being.

That's a very interesting opinion that I think will handily exclude all men from having opinions about future attempts at cloning and immaculate conception. All the other fetuses get half their chromosomes from men, though, and the fact that pregnancy is a larger inconvenience for the mother has little to do with it. Conception takes two.

[boy_bye]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

+1

Wow, I've never heard anyone take such a position, let alone two people.  I find it shockingly sexist for someone to not even be allowed to have an opinion on something.

Of course they are still allowed to have an opinion. It's just, if that opinion is anything other than "That decision ultimately rests with the people involved," well that IS silly to me, and inappropriate. Especially when the opinion being expressed would limit my bodily autonomy as a human being.

That's dynamite, but the exact opposite of what you +1’d.

One allows someone to have an opinion (but you may disagree with it), the other says it is inappropriate for them to have one (even one you agree with).

That's the dangerous censorship that is terrible evil.

I guess I don't see a big difference. Everyone is entitled to their opinion... but I personally have heard enough of the opinions that demean my worth and freedom to below that of a fetus.

When it comes right down to it, whether to have a child or not is a woman's choice. She may choose to invite others into it, but again, that is and must always be HER choice.

So, basically, I'm fine with men having opinions on this topic, so long as the actual power of decision lies with individual women and whoever else they decide should be included.

Thank you for helping me clarify my thoughts on this.

[arebelspy]

I guess I don't see a big difference. Everyone is entitled to their opinion... but I personally have heard enough of the opinions that demean my worth and freedom to below that of a fetus.

When it comes right down to it, whether to have a child or not is a woman's choice. She may choose to invite others into it, but again, that is and must always be HER choice.

So, basically, I'm fine with men having opinions on this topic, so long as the actual power of decision lies with individual women and whoever else they decide should be included.

Thank you for helping me clarify my thoughts on this.

I'm fine with all of that as an opinion.  I still vehemently disagree with saying it's inappropriate for someone merely to comment on something or have an opinion about it.  But I'm glad we understand each other now.  :)

[destron]

What happened in Texas?

A pro-abortion rights group gathered in the Texas Senate chambers during the session, which is legal.  They basically shouted the entire voting session, making any vote physically impossible, something illegal.  Apparently, the security was not prepared for this protest, and therefore, was unable to stop it and allow the legislators to, you know, actually legislate.  Technically, every single protester is guilty of the grave crime of prohibiting democracy, though it appears they're unlikely to be charged with anything.

The Texas senate is illegally attempting to create a law that violates Roe v. Wade by making abortion de facto impossible for women.

And do you think you can couch your language a little bit more to express how you feel? I don't think I understand which side of the issue you stand on.

So, we should sacrifice human life in order to avoid suffering (what kind of suffering are we talking about here?), allow women to control their own bodies (at the sacrifice of their child's body, why is that never considered), and a drop in crime rates.  Not even close to being worth the slaughtering of millions of children.

You were so gung-ho about what is legal and illegal a moment ago -- what changed your mind when it came to this?

[destron]

Going back to the SCOTUS decisions, here are a couple of articles on the conservative case for gay marriage from Ted Olson, who represented the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, and author/blogger Andrew Sullivan:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.single.html

Nice article by Mr. Olson.

[marty998]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

+1

Wow, I've never heard anyone take such a position, let alone two people.  I find it shockingly sexist for someone to not even be allowed to have an opinion on something.

If I'm a man (I am), it is apparently silly and inappropriate for me to say "let a woman decide about an abortion."

That seems as ridiculous to me as if there were a law about cutting off men's penises, and saying women have no right to comment because it doesn't affect them.  So?  They can still think it's wrong, and have an opinion.

I personally think general mutilation is wrong, whether Im allowed to have a say, because it's dicks being chopped off, or whether I'm (apparently) not allowed to have a say, because it's women being affected.

Or that'd be like telling a white person against slavery a few hundred years ago "well it's silly and inappropriate for you to even think about commenting on it."

Everyone has a right to an opinion.  Everyone.

If I know if something is morally wrong, I goddamn well have a right to have that opinion.

Hrmph.

ok I'm late to responding to this. But I will now because I feel I have to.

ARS you seem to have a knack for misinterpreting everything and trying to put your own spin on every single thread. All the time.
I didn't say you have no right to an opinion. Maybe I should explain and add to it that my point applies not just to abortion but every aspect of life. If you haven't been through it or experienced it then your opinion carries enormously less weight that someone who has.

In short, the arm-chair critic should always be ignored. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but all opinions should not carry equal weight.

sorry I'll edit this again because I know you are going to respond and still miss the point.This tirade of mine is aimed at the self righteous muppets who make life miserable for millions of women because they think their particular view of the world should apply to the exclusion of all else. I hope you can understand that.

[matchewed]

Our whole basis of democracy is based on the idea of opinions with equal weight. Proposing otherwise would undermine that. What would be the impact in a world where opinions had weight? Minority opinions would never gain traction, essentially human social progress would come to a halt. So I have to disagree that opinions should be weighted.

[marty998]

Ok I think its much easier for me to say this rather than write it.

What I'm trying to say is that people should use judgement when assessing all the noise.

If you put an expert opinion up against a random ordinary non-expert...

If you put a pregnant victim of rape's opinion up against a pro life man's opinion....

who should be listened to? Whose opinion deserves to be heard more?

[marty998]

Ok I can't stop. I've started ranting so I'm gonna keep ranting until I get this out of my system.

What I find incredulous is that every random dipshit thinks their opinion is equally valid with people who actually do know better than them. Case in point is the flat earth climate change denialists who have no background in science but think it is their right to say the earth is not warming and blah blah blah and demand equal time in newspapers other media in the interests of "balance".

In Australia the debate, especially around science has been infected with this disease that proven facts are debatable and that the natural order of the universe can be questioned.

Climate change - seriously, if you are not a climate scientist please don't pretend to know anything about it or that you can disprove it. The science is true whether you believe it or not.

Immunisation - you bloody idiots...IMMUNISE YOUR KIDS!!! MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism and the HPV vaccine doesn't turn your teens into sex crazed morons. (turning 15 does that)

Homeopathy...does this really need an explanation. A drug diluted to 1 part in 10^30 does not work. There are no molecules left as per Avogadro's constant.

Could I go on? I could go on but I'm going to blow a vein in my head.

Thankyou and good night (ranting is not healthy haha)

[matchewed]

Social issues do not equal science issues. Opinion on facts are not opinion on social issues.

[marty998]

Agreed matchewed, and yes I digressed (just a little).

I am not questioning the right to hold views on either side of the abortion dilemma, but IMO the tone of debate in society on this issue is far too emotive, irrational and lacking in understanding of the various shades of grey.

IMO, each individual should, in my ideal world, have absolute control of their own body. And I will leave it there because I've nothing more to add.

[BlueMR2]

Now if you want to talk about personhood instead, the fairly intangible something that makes you a person and a tree or jellyfish not...  Well, the best current evidence is that that happens around the age of two.  If nothing else, consider that you are in a real sense the sum of your memories and experiences, and AFAIK no one can remember things that happened before that age.

That's what really bugs me about abortion.  The cutoff age is so arbitrary, no basis in science.  Right now it's one of those "I want to have things my way and don't care what the science is" on the part of the pro-abortion people.  Scientifically speaking, either it should be never permitted, or allowed all the way up until the child is a couple years old.  In the case of rape, it may even be appropriate societally to *force* an abortion.  Rape is an evolutionary tactic.  It increases the chance of genetic continuation, and therefore the genetic part that increases the probability of the behavior will continue to succeed unless we take a stand against it.

As for marriage, the government has no place in that at all.  There should be no legal recognition of marriage status either way.  Should be no different than people just happening to live together.  Should you choose to have a religious ceremoney (or even just a big party) and call yourself married, go for it.  The state should not recognize it though (for anyone).  It's totally a private thing.

Climate change.  Yeah, it happens.  With or without us.  Do we change it?  You bet.  Should we care?  I don't.  Survival of the fittest and all.  We'll (at least some of us anyways) find ways to adapt.  If we lose some other lifeforms along the way, well, then they were too weak and deserved to die.

I enjoy these types of discussions.  I don't take other people's as rants, even when they do have some heat to them.  It's only heated because it's important to us!

[matchewed]

Now if you want to talk about personhood instead, the fairly intangible something that makes you a person and a tree or jellyfish not...  Well, the best current evidence is that that happens around the age of two.  If nothing else, consider that you are in a real sense the sum of your memories and experiences, and AFAIK no one can remember things that happened before that age.

That's what really bugs me about abortion.  The cutoff age is so arbitrary, no basis in science.  Right now it's one of those "I want to have things my way and don't care what the science is" on the part of the pro-abortion people.  Scientifically speaking, either it should be never permitted, or allowed all the way up until the child is a couple years old.  In the case of rape, it may even be appropriate societally to *force* an abortion.  Rape is an evolutionary tactic.  It increases the chance of genetic continuation, and therefore the genetic part that increases the probability of the behavior will continue to succeed unless we take a stand against it.

As for marriage, the government has no place in that at all.  There should be no legal recognition of marriage status either way.  Should be no different than people just happening to live together.  Should you choose to have a religious ceremoney (or even just a big party) and call yourself married, go for it.  The state should not recognize it though (for anyone).  It's totally a private thing.

Climate change.  Yeah, it happens.  With or without us.  Do we change it?  You bet.  Should we care?  I don't.  Survival of the fittest and all.  We'll (at least some of us anyways) find ways to adapt.  If we lose some other lifeforms along the way, well, then they were too weak and deserved to die.

I enjoy these types of discussions.  I don't take other people's as rants, even when they do have some heat to them.  It's only heated because it's important to us!

Can you point to me the "rape gene"? If it is a matter of evolution that should be easy right? Rape is as much a psychological, power based, environmental, and cultural as it is evolutionary. Boiling it down to evolutionary is simplistic at best and avoids all the other things we can do to prevent it.

The government has a role in marriage due to the fact that the government is integral to the legal system. Without the government involved in marriages how do you determine custody in divorce cases? How do you determine what a family is when the government gives assistance based on the family? Who would be available for taking exemptions and credits come tax season for children?

[kt]

You can only go back to your cheering if we redefine the English language and human history (and biology) to a new "understanding" of marriage.

i'm totally up for redefining marriage, to me it seems allowing gay marriage means marriage is redefined as 'two people who love and are committed to each other' whereas previously it has been 'a man and a woman who are legally bound to each other'

marriage is something to aspire to for me. but not a ''marriage" where one partner had no choice or where there is violence and no way out or where people stay together despite serious, damaging problems.
these things degrade marriage more than that term being used for homosexual relationships.

considering the 'issue' of gay marriage has made me reconsider the definition and what i expect from a marriage. and it boils down to love, support and faithfulness.
to me that is a much better definition of what marriage really is now than 'a legally recognised personal union entered into by a man and a woman' (oxford english dictionary)

[Spork]

the fetus and the placenta are completely contained inside the woman's body. which means they fall within that woman's jurisdiction. not rick perry's.

Have you seen this story: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130620/NEWS01/306200042/Medicaid-paid-abortions-need-governor-s-OK

If you're on Medicaid in Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad has a personal say if the state will fund your abortion now.

That is unfuckingbelievable.

I agree it's unbelievable... but I'll take the other side of it.  I'm extremely pro choice.  But... I also understand exactly how deeply and honestly offended the other side is.  It is one thing to proclaim a woman owns herself.  It is absolutely another to ask someone to fund it -- in particular someone who truly believes it is murder.  (Again, not my opinions, but seriously: it is theirs). 

How about this: Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  Think abortions should be funded?  Write a check to an organization that funds them.

[infogoon]

Looks like Governor Perry of Texas has called for another special session to revote on the abortion bill.

I don't think they're going to let another filibuster happen.

[Insanity]

Climate change - seriously, if you are not a climate scientist please don't pretend to know anything about it or that you can disprove it. The science is true whether you believe it or not.

Immunisation - you bloody idiots...IMMUNISE YOUR KIDS!!! MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism and the HPV vaccine doesn't turn your teens into sex crazed morons. (turning 15 does that)

Homeopathy...does this really need an explanation. A drug diluted to 1 part in 10^30 does not work. There are no molecules left as per Avogadro's constant.

Could I go on? I could go on but I'm going to blow a vein in my head.

Thankyou and good night (ranting is not healthy haha)

Not to derail, but I disagree with each of these...

Climate change - is it occurring?  That might be science. There are so many variables that it is impossible to know the cause.  Even when looking at previous history there are so many different things (heck, just the population size of human beings and more near-extinct animals can be leading to it).  Is pollution impacting it? I'd be willing to bet yes.  Is it the cause? I don't think you can for certain.

Immunization - How is this any different than marriage?  (I know what you are going to say, health of those who are minors and cannot make the judgement call for themselves).  Do I agree with not doing it? No.  But who am I to enforce on others what goes against their beliefs?  Not to mention that strands of diseases mutate and are no longer susceptible to the vaccine and some immunizations (see the flu vaccine) are at best 50/50 guesses.  Point being, while I am for it, if you choose not to do it that is your call.  I can understand the reasons behind not doing it.   Do I think they cause Autism and other things? Not really.  Can they do harm?  Absolutely.  The risk might be low, but it still exists.

Homeopathy - I actually think this would be more effective than a lot of medicines.  After all, a lot of medicines are based on homeopathy remedies.  I also think there is a reason to have distrust of medicines given how in bed the insurance companies, pharamas, and doctor's can be with each other. 

Now back to the topic -
Marriage - from a government perspective just call it a civil union and be done with it if you really think their are benefits (and from an estate perspective for those that do not have wills, there is a definite benefit of clear distribution of property).  If you want marriage, make it a religious thing and leave it up to them to decide to allow it.  They are  a private organization and can do with as they please.  My personal opinion - if you aren't trying to force your views on me, I really don't care.

Abortion - I am torn on this, I have to admit.  I respect and understand both sides.  I even understand some of the scientific debate.  Personally, after my wife and I had to go through fertility treatments due to my chronic illness (and I know two couples who were unsuccessful even with those) I take the view life is precious and the odds of success are slim to none if you consider the number of births versus the number of times intercourse is performed.  Heck, just look at the number of miscarriages.  So I guess I side on the pro-life side of things.  Obviously, when you talk about risk of health to mother and child you are talking about medical concerns which is a whole different matter.  When it comes to rape induced child births -- I have no idea.  It doesn't seem fair  to make the woman suffer, but there are others who could adopt the baby and take care of them.  I don't think the fact it is the femaie body really should matter.  Yes it is, theirs, but the kid is not just theirs.  Again, medical and rape induced leads to a whole different discussion and I don't know if there really is an answer.

[Rebecca Stapler]

What upsets me about the late-term abortion debate is that pro-lifers are ignoring the situations where families have the impossible choice between carrying a baby to term who will only know a life of pain and suffering (and is very possibly already suffering in the womb) and terminating the pregnancy. I am sorry to say that I know at least 2 women who have faced such heartbreak after they were pregnant with their very much wanted, very much planned, very much loved child. It makes me sad to imagine the further stress and difficulty women would face if they had to travel to another state or country to have the procedure done. Not to mention the fact that, for many women, the financial restrictions would make that impossible. Then they have to carry a fetus who is possibly in pain that entire time to term, when it will be born into a world of further pain and suffering. The NY Times had an excellent, heartbreaking, article on this the other day. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/my-abortion-at-23-weeks.html?_r=0

[destron]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

Wow, I've never heard anyone take such a position, let alone two people.  I find it shockingly sexist for someone to not even be allowed to have an opinion on something.

ok I'm late to responding to this. But I will now because I feel I have to.

ARS you seem to have a knack for misinterpreting everything and trying to put your own spin on every single thread. All the time.
I didn't say you have no right to an opinion. Maybe I should explain and add to it that my point applies not just to abortion but every aspect of life. If you haven't been through it or experienced it then your opinion carries enormously less weight that someone who has.

I was insulted by your sexist comment but chose not to reply until you doubled down. The worst part for me is that you cannot see what was wrong about what you said. Your first comment and your second comment are not the same. You did say that men "have no right to an opinion". Either say what you mean or mean what you say.

Additionally, just because men do not have abortions does not mean that abortion law doesn't effect men or that men don't have a right to both have and voice their opinion on the matter. The flat earth, climate change, whether vaccination causes autism -- these are all scientific topics and not applicable for comparison IMO. A better topic would be the death penalty, a law that effect men vastly more than women. Do you think women should have an opinion on that?

[NumberCruncher]

Homeopathy - I actually think this would be more effective than a lot of medicines.  After all, a lot of medicines are based on homeopathy remedies.  I also think there is a reason to have distrust of medicines given how in bed the insurance companies, pharamas, and doctor's can be with each other. 

[Citation needed]  There is no medicine based on homeopathy. You might be confusing the word with "holistic" or something else

the fetus and the placenta are completely contained inside the woman's body. which means they fall within that woman's jurisdiction. not rick perry's.

Have you seen this story: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130620/NEWS01/306200042/Medicaid-paid-abortions-need-governor-s-OK

If you're on Medicaid in Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad has a personal say if the state will fund your abortion now.

That is unfuckingbelievable.

I agree it's unbelievable... but I'll take the other side of it.  I'm extremely pro choice.  But... I also understand exactly how deeply and honestly offended the other side is.  It is one thing to proclaim a woman owns herself.  It is absolutely another to ask someone to fund it -- in particular someone who truly believes it is murder.  (Again, not my opinions, but seriously: it is theirs). 

How about this: Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  Think abortions should be funded?  Write a check to an organization that funds them.

In this case, the state funds it only for health of mother, rape, or incest - and there are normal review procedures in place for this. The odd bit is to have the governor's office personally responsible for a decision that should be decided in the previous structures.

[mpbaker22]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

Wait, wait, wait.  We're here talking about when life begins, which was attacked with a strawman argument, btw.  And your argument is that men cannot objectively have a say on when life begins under governmental law.  The point at which life begins is an objective time, and is not subject to the gender of the person with the opinion.

Then again, since we're all allowed to identify by whatever gender we desire, I'll be identifying as a female for the purposes of this thread.

Ok, that was sort of a smartass comment(though it does point out the fallacy present in people who support both) - but if you take that stance, don't expect the man to be paying child support.  After all, it was your choice to let your child live, not the man's.

[Spork]

I agree it's unbelievable... but I'll take the other side of it.  I'm extremely pro choice.  But... I also understand exactly how deeply and honestly offended the other side is.  It is one thing to proclaim a woman owns herself.  It is absolutely another to ask someone to fund it -- in particular someone who truly believes it is murder.  (Again, not my opinions, but seriously: it is theirs). 

How about this: Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  Think abortions should be funded?  Write a check to an organization that funds them.

In this case, the state funds it only for health of mother, rape, or incest - and there are normal review procedures in place for this. The odd bit is to have the governor's office personally responsible for a decision that should be decided in the previous structures.

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

And it's a bit of cognitive dissonance: "We want the government to stay out of our bodies.... and we'd like government help when we choose to do it ourselves."  If you invite the government in, then they're going to have power.

[infogoon]

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

I think the government using drones to blow up Yemeni teenagers is murder. Can I stop paying for that?

[mpbaker22]

I agree it's unbelievable... but I'll take the other side of it.  I'm extremely pro choice.  But... I also understand exactly how deeply and honestly offended the other side is.  It is one thing to proclaim a woman owns herself.  It is absolutely another to ask someone to fund it -- in particular someone who truly believes it is murder.  (Again, not my opinions, but seriously: it is theirs). 

How about this: Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  Think abortions should be funded?  Write a check to an organization that funds them.

In this case, the state funds it only for health of mother, rape, or incest - and there are normal review procedures in place for this. The odd bit is to have the governor's office personally responsible for a decision that should be decided in the previous structures.

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

And it's a bit of cognitive dissonance: "We want the government to stay out of our bodies.... and we'd like government help when we choose to do it ourselves."  If you invite the government in, then they're going to have power.

Yea, I don't see how this is even a question.
I think ultimately, the problem is pro-choicers believe life begins at birth? and pro-lifers believe it begins at conception.  Maybe that's a bit of generalization, but it's generally true.

On the other hand, you have people arguing that abortion should always be legal if the child is going to suffer, and they have repeatedly ignored the argument that it's a human life.  Technically, I think this would actually be euthanasia.  So, if one supports abortion based in the child's suffering, we could argue euthanasia if anyone would like :P

[matchewed]

Sure what other hot button topics can we throw into this thread?

Pie is better than cake (minus the crusty edge of course).

[pbkmaine]

What we believe about these subjects is intensely personal. It goes to our deepest experiences and feelings. I have my own beliefs and you are entitled to have yours. I do look at other societies and the ones I admire most allow people to make their own decisions about who to marry, whether to carry a baby to term, and whether a person can choose to end his or her own life. I do find it most ironic that many founders of Planned Parenthood chapters were political conservatives (Barry Goldwater's family most notably). Interesting how political winds shift over time. In a prior generation, I would have been called a libertarian. 

[Insanity]

Homeopathy - I actually think this would be more effective than a lot of medicines.  After all, a lot of medicines are based on homeopathy remedies.  I also think there is a reason to have distrust of medicines given how in bed the insurance companies, pharamas, and doctor's can be with each other. 

[Citation needed]  There is no medicine based on homeopathy. You might be confusing the word with "holistic" or something else

Whoops.  You are right.. Reading Comprehension might be another touchy subject we can hit on in this thread.

[Spork]

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

I think the government using drones to blow up Yemeni teenagers is murder. Can I stop paying for that?

That seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.  I'm a fan of things that can be generalized.

[NumberCruncher]

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

I think the government using drones to blow up Yemeni teenagers is murder. Can I stop paying for that?

That seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.  I'm a fan of things that can be generalized.

haha - could you imagine? A little form at tax time with checkboxes next to different programs on which ones you want to fund or not. Everyone would be extremely fiscally conservative...and eventually all the infrastructure would collapse. That would be a fun story to write.

[You could have it go the other way "which programs would you like to benefit from?" and everyone would be really fiscally liberal...until China comes to collect]

[plainjane]

Immunisation - you bloody idiots...IMMUNISE YOUR KIDS!!! MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism and the HPV vaccine doesn't turn your teens into sex crazed morons. (turning 15 does that)

Immunization - How is this any different than marriage?  (I know what you are going to say, health of those who are minors and cannot make the judgement call for themselves).  Do I agree with not doing it? No.  But who am I to enforce on others what goes against their beliefs?  Not to mention that strands of diseases mutate and are no longer susceptible to the vaccine and some immunizations (see the flu vaccine) are at best 50/50 guesses.  Point being, while I am for it, if you choose not to do it that is your call.  I can understand the reasons behind not doing it.   Do I think they cause Autism and other things? Not really.  Can they do harm?  Absolutely.  The risk might be low, but it still exists.

Can not getting the vaccine cause even MORE HARM?  And to people who didn't consent to you putting them at risk? And is your choice to not vaccinate only going to work if you are a precious snowflake because everyone else needs to vaccinate to protect you and yours?  In a civilized society we occasionally need to make tradeoffs that harm us a little in order to prevent others from getting harmed even worse.

In other news, I'm also against people speeding, texting on cell phones while driving, and running red lights.

e.g.
"This study serves as a reminder that measles can be a very serious disease that can lead to severe complications and death, and that the measles, mumps, rubella [MMR] vaccine is highly effective and the best way to prevent measles. It's also a reminder that people who choose not to vaccinate don't just put themselves and their children at risk, but also their communities, which includes infants who are too young to immunize," she said."
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/infectious-diseases/articles/2010/03/22/measles-outbreak-triggered-by-unvaccinated-child

I would also expect that if people aren't vaccinated, you're more likely to get lots of people exposed & getting the disease, and thus you'll probably see more mutations.  (Not sure where to look to back this idea up - I know that flu partially has high mutation because it keeps moving between populations.)  True, most vaccinations aren't going to give 100% coverage, but if I'm around people who are vaccinated then the odds are we won't need to test that my specific jab took in my immune system. 

I'll also argue that this is very different than marriage in that a person getting married (or not) has very little to no impact on my life, and lots of impact on theirs.  If we were talking about forcing everyone to get plastic surgery because a subset of society decided that nobody should have to look at ugly people...  (hey, the risks are low, and we know that pretty people get paid better and are happier)

Your argument works better in a discussion of whether the courts can force children to be treated for cancer when they are below the age of consent, and there is a religious belief from the parents that they shouldn't be. Plus those chemo drugs do a lot of harm (And no, I'm not asking that we start on that one.)

[Fletch]

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

I think the government using drones to blow up Yemeni teenagers is murder. Can I stop paying for that?

That seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.  I'm a fan of things that can be generalized.

haha - could you imagine? A little form at tax time with checkboxes next to different programs on which ones you want to fund or not. Everyone would be extremely fiscally conservative...and eventually all the infrastructure would collapse. That would be a fun story to write.

[You could have it go the other way "which programs would you like to benefit from?" and everyone would be really fiscally liberal...until China comes to collect]

It's not that crazy- If you had to choose 5/20 of the most controversial government programs to not fund, and everyone could choose 5, it would be a much more direct way of collecting data on the true feelings of a country's citizens. I get that we have elected officials with the intent of preventing "mob rule", but right now the elected officials seem to just be dividing into two opposing mobs themselves.
Although as CanuckExpat pointed out earlier, we don't even need to tell the government how we feel anymore when they can just monitor our communications instead.

[velocistar237]

Sure what other hot button topics can we throw into this thread?

War, drones, stem cell research, incest, adultery, divorce, privacy, pregnancy out-of-wedlock, religion, human cloning, gambling, pornography, medical testing on animals, factory farming, suicide, politics in general, polygamy, open marriage, and deleting blog comments.

[Insanity]

Immunisation - you bloody idiots...IMMUNISE YOUR KIDS!!! MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism and the HPV vaccine doesn't turn your teens into sex crazed morons. (turning 15 does that)

Immunization - How is this any different than marriage?  (I know what you are going to say, health of those who are minors and cannot make the judgement call for themselves).  Do I agree with not doing it? No.  But who am I to enforce on others what goes against their beliefs?  Not to mention that strands of diseases mutate and are no longer susceptible to the vaccine and some immunizations (see the flu vaccine) are at best 50/50 guesses.  Point being, while I am for it, if you choose not to do it that is your call.  I can understand the reasons behind not doing it.   Do I think they cause Autism and other things? Not really.  Can they do harm?  Absolutely.  The risk might be low, but it still exists.

Can not getting the vaccine cause even MORE HARM?  And to people who didn't consent to you putting them at risk? And is your choice to not vaccinate only going to work if you are a precious snowflake because everyone else needs to vaccinate to protect you and yours?  In a civilized society we occasionally need to make tradeoffs that harm us a little in order to prevent others from getting harmed even worse.

In other news, I'm also against people speeding, texting on cell phones while driving, and running red lights.

e.g.
"This study serves as a reminder that measles can be a very serious disease that can lead to severe complications and death, and that the measles, mumps, rubella [MMR] vaccine is highly effective and the best way to prevent measles. It's also a reminder that people who choose not to vaccinate don't just put themselves and their children at risk, but also their communities, which includes infants who are too young to immunize," she said."
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/infectious-diseases/articles/2010/03/22/measles-outbreak-triggered-by-unvaccinated-child

I would also expect that if people aren't vaccinated, you're more likely to get lots of people exposed & getting the disease, and thus you'll probably see more mutations.  (Not sure where to look to back this idea up - I know that flu partially has high mutation because it keeps moving between populations.)  True, most vaccinations aren't going to give 100% coverage, but if I'm around people who are vaccinated then the odds are we won't need to test that my specific jab took in my immune system. 

I'll also argue that this is very different than marriage in that a person getting married (or not) has very little to no impact on my life, and lots of impact on theirs.  If we were talking about forcing everyone to get plastic surgery because a subset of society decided that nobody should have to look at ugly people...  (hey, the risks are low, and we know that pretty people get paid better and are happier)

Your argument works better in a discussion of whether the courts can force children to be treated for cancer when they are below the age of consent, and there is a religious belief from the parents that they shouldn't be. Plus those chemo drugs do a lot of harm (And no, I'm not asking that we start on that one.)

There is a tipping point where vaccinations  vs outbreaks can occur, that is true.  But, we don't know long term (which can be relative) affects of immunizations.  For instance the MMR vaccine was introduced in what the 70s?  We are constantly evolving creatures.  Who knows what effects are really had on our genes, reproductive organs, or other factors such as increasing life span and the impact that overpopulation can have. Like I said, I am for it, but I can see reasons why people don't like it and given the potential damned if you do damned if you don't scenario that is a significant unknown..   

[arebelspy]

ARS you seem to have a knack for misinterpreting everything and trying to put your own spin on every single thread. All the time.

I do?  Interesting.

I was insulted by your sexist comment but chose not to reply until you doubled down. The worst part for me is that you cannot see what was wrong about what you said. Your first comment and your second comment are not the same. You did say that men "have no right to an opinion". Either say what you mean or mean what you say.

+1, this.  I let it pass as well until someone +1'd it, at that point I felt compelled to say something so she actually realized what she was +1'ing.  (And eventually admitted she disagreed with it.)

As you did, as destron pointed out.

The funny thing is, I agree with almost everything in your "rant," and absolutely agree with your comment in bold, that if one hasn't been through something, their opinion carries far less weight.  Absolutely agree.

That is vastly different than what you originally posted, however.  Being careful with language is important, and saying that it is "inappropriate" to comment on something is just flat out wrong.  Even if their comment carries less weight, by god they should be allowed to have an opinion and comment.  You can say that it is my "spin" on something, but those were your exact words and I take exception to them.

The rest of it, I don't care to respond to (and, as I said, I agree with most of it).  Take a day and think about the vast difference between someone's opinion carrying much less weight and it being inappropriate to have one at all.  Then maybe come back less angry and you may be able to see my point.

If not, oh well, have a terrific day!  :)

[matchewed]

Sure what other hot button topics can we throw into this thread?

War, drones, stem cell research, incest, adultery, divorce, privacy, pregnancy out-of-wedlock, religion, human cloning, gambling, pornography, medical testing on animals, factory farming, suicide, politics in general, polygamy, open marriage, and deleting blog comments.

Pffft those are easy. Everyone else is wrong.

[Insanity]

Sure what other hot button topics can we throw into this thread?

War, drones, stem cell research, incest, adultery, divorce, privacy, pregnancy out-of-wedlock, religion, human cloning, gambling, pornography, medical testing on animals, factory farming, suicide, politics in general, polygamy, open marriage, and deleting blog comments.

Pffft those are easy. Everyone else is wrong.

adultery, open marriage, polygamy

These are all evil..   I have enough trouble with one spouse.

[tomsang]

It's not that crazy- If you had to choose 5/20 of the most controversial government programs to not fund, and everyone could choose 5, it would be a much more direct way of collecting data on the true feelings of a country's citizens. I get that we have elected officials with the intent of preventing "mob rule", but right now the elected officials seem to just be dividing into two opposing mobs themselves.
Although as CanuckExpat pointed out earlier, we don't even need to tell the government how we feel anymore when they can just monitor our communications instead.

I think that would scare the heck out of those in power. Can you imagine if the people said that we can save almost a trillion a year by defunding the military complex?  That would balance the budget in one fell swoop vs. gutting Planned Parenthood of less than a billion. Even wellfair is a bargain compared to what we spend on the military complex.

That may sound great to the conservatives, but the results may not be what they want.

[Fletch]

That may sound great to the conservatives, but the results may not be what they want.

I don't think either side would get what they want, and that's the point of the exercise: to show what people actually want versus what elected officials think they want. I don't even care about total defunding of any program, but if more than half of the country wants to defund a particular program, a 10% budget cut to that program would be a good start. Lather, rinse, repeat every year until the government is actually allocating resources the close to way its citizens want it to. I'll add it to the list of things to change when I rule the world.

[Spork]

Yeah, but they're still funding it with the money of the people that think it's murder.  That really really bothers me, even as a pro-choicer.

I think the government using drones to blow up Yemeni teenagers is murder. Can I stop paying for that?

That seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.  I'm a fan of things that can be generalized.

haha - could you imagine? A little form at tax time with checkboxes next to different programs on which ones you want to fund or not. Everyone would be extremely fiscally conservative...and eventually all the infrastructure would collapse. That would be a fun story to write.

[You could have it go the other way "which programs would you like to benefit from?" and everyone would be really fiscally liberal...until China comes to collect]

actually, I totally could and did already.  ;)

[mpbaker22]

It's not that crazy- If you had to choose 5/20 of the most controversial government programs to not fund, and everyone could choose 5, it would be a much more direct way of collecting data on the true feelings of a country's citizens. I get that we have elected officials with the intent of preventing "mob rule", but right now the elected officials seem to just be dividing into two opposing mobs themselves.
Although as CanuckExpat pointed out earlier, we don't even need to tell the government how we feel anymore when they can just monitor our communications instead.

I think that would scare the heck out of those in power. Can you imagine if the people said that we can save almost a trillion a year by defunding the military complex?  That would balance the budget in one fell swoop vs. gutting Planned Parenthood of less than a billion. Even wellfair is a bargain compared to what we spend on the military complex.

That may sound great to the conservatives, but the results may not be what they want.

I think this is a straw man argument attacking what conservative politicians advocate for.  I'm generally conservative, but I support a minimum 20% decrease in military funding ... and I work for a defense company to boot.  I'd gladly put my job at risk if I knew it would mean that sort of decrease.

[infogoon]

I think this is a straw man argument attacking what conservative politicians advocate for.  I'm generally conservative, but I support a minimum 20% decrease in military funding ... and I work for a defense company to boot.  I'd gladly put my job at risk if I knew it would mean that sort of decrease.

It's not just conservative politicians. I live in super-blue New York State, and every time someone mentions closing the nearby Air Force Reserve base in come all of the state's Democratic politicians to insist that it must stay open to preserve their constituents' paychecks.

[Russ]

Then again, since we're all allowed to identify by whatever gender we desire, I'll be identifying as a female for the purposes of this thread.

You're confusing sex with gender bro(ette?). If you want to be female you're gonna need a little work done.

Pie is better than cake (minus the crusty edge of course).

Pie all the way. But I personally believe a pie is not a real pie until it's been out of the oven for at least an hour. I mean, if you take the filling and put it in the crust sure it looks like a pie but you wouldn't want to eat it (well... maybe some people would but those people are OBVIOUSLY WRONG). Then you bake it, but even when it pops out of the oven it's still just not quite right... it needs to cool off and solidify before it's a good satisfying pie. amirite or amirite?

[Fletch]

Pie all the way. But I personally believe a pie is not a real pie until it's been out of the oven for at least an hour. I mean, if you take the filling and put it in the crust sure it looks like a pie but you wouldn't want to eat it (well... maybe some people would but those people are OBVIOUSLY WRONG). Then you bake it, but even when it pops out of the oven it's still just not quite right... it needs to cool off and solidify before it's a good satisfying pie. amirite or amirite?

That is the most offensive thing I've heard all day. Sure, no one wants lava-fruit to burn their mouth, but still-warm and oozy pie is OBVIOUSLY more satisfying than cold pie. You are not right, and you are an embarrassment to true patriots.

[ace1224]

Pie all the way. But I personally believe a pie is not a real pie until it's been out of the oven for at least an hour. I mean, if you take the filling and put it in the crust sure it looks like a pie but you wouldn't want to eat it (well... maybe some people would but those people are OBVIOUSLY WRONG). Then you bake it, but even when it pops out of the oven it's still just not quite right... it needs to cool off and solidify before it's a good satisfying pie. amirite or amirite?

That is the most offensive thing I've heard all day. Sure, no one wants lava-fruit to burn their mouth, but still-warm and oozy pie is OBVIOUSLY more satisfying than cold pie. You are not right, and you are an embarrassment to true patriots.

slutty brownies all the way
http://sugarlyeverafter.blogspot.com/2013/05/two-months-since-my-last-post-pathetic.html

[KulshanGirl]

But the gooey doesn't reach optimal goo consistency until it has cooled.  Now if someone hands me pie, I'm gonna eat it.  But if I'm baking it, no one gets any until it's cooled, yo.  Unless you want the pan to fill with liquid, you let that sucker cool down.

Cake is good too. 

Actually, I have no business having an opinion on this since I'm gluten free now. 

[arebelspy]

I have a handy chart to compare pie toppings and fillings.

A Venn Pieagram.