Power to Centrists, Moderates and Common Sense Politics

reply to post by whaaa

I suspect that the vast majority of abortions are strictly "convenience killings" though.

A fetus doesn't have rights.

How can that be considered murder?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by whaaa
You are mistaken! I don't expect any apologies from you for me telling the truth as I see it. I see the GOP increasingly favoring corporatism and the elite. That's not conservationism and that's not the GOP I joined many years ago. The GOP has followed the neocons and the PNAC and in my opinion that's treason.

Define: Corporatism

Define: Neoconservativism.

If you have the time.

Why are you playing this game? You know very well the definition of those two descriptions. But here you go anyway.

www.fff.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...

Another reason I am totally disenchanted with the GOP is they foist losers like Palin on the American people when they had good, honest, moderate and credible candidates to call on. What total BS Palin/McCain was and anyone that supports the current configuration of the GOP is a fool!!

The GOP isn't moderate or centrists and they have let their extremest rightwing ideology get in the way of their common sense.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by whaaa

 

I suspect that the vast majority of abortions are strictly "convenience killings" though.

A fetus doesn't have rights.

How can that be considered murder?

Is that the precedent you wish to set? Humans without rights can be murdered at anybody's convenience. Originally, we believed God gave us our rights. Now many liberals believe rights come from the government. So, how long until(like Hitler did with the Jews) they decide YOU have no rights? How long until only the elite have rights? Either ALL HUMANS are created equal with equal rights, ALL HUMANS are not equal. Which do you want?

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

How can you override the mothers rights, for the rights of the fetus? A fetus can not reason -- arguably it has no rights.

dp

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

How can you override the mothers rights, for the rights of the fetus? A fetus can not reason -- arguably it has no rights.

The fetus is a human being and has the same rights you do.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

The fetus is a human being and has the same rights you do

Ok, sure he does. But lets say you ``voluntarily `` invited me into your home and after awhile I refused to leave, I ate up all your food, and kicked you in your stomach repeatedly. Would you not shoot me?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

The fetus is a human being and has the same rights you do

Ok, sure he does. But lets say you ``voluntarily `` invited me into your home and after awhile I refused to leave, I ate up all your food, and kicked you in your stomach repeatedly. Would you not shoot me?

edit on 19-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

If I did, I would be jailed for murder. I would just invite you to leave. However, if you would die by being forced out I would at least give you time to get ready for the hostile environment.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

How can you override the mothers rights, for the rights of the fetus? A fetus can not reason -- arguably it has no rights.

I know some people that are quite grown-up that still has no ability to reason. I think that is a bad indicator to use as the standard for allowing abortion or not.

I agree with the OP in that abortion would be necessary in extreme cases, which is just a very minute percentage, but overall it's a bad precedent to set in regards to how we value human life itself.

The act of abortion and the socio-political ramifications of it run much deeper than the rights of a woman to choose. What about the father? What about the other family involved? What about the psychological damage it can do to the Mother?

How can we expect people to act responsibly as a respected member of society when their mistakes can be shucked to the side, instead of taking responsibility, and we "legally" allow the elimination of life....yes, that's what it is!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

The fetus is a human being and has the same rights you do

Ok, sure he does. But lets say you ``voluntarily `` invited me into your home and after awhile I refused to leave, I ate up all your food, and kicked you in your stomach repeatedly. Would you not shoot me?

edit on 19-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

If I did, I would be jailed for murder. I would just invite you to leave. However, if you would die by being forced out I would at least give you time to get ready for the hostile environment.

That depends. Maybe in the U.S, but you wouldn't be jailed in a country with strong property rights. So you admit that you're willing to use force in order to get me off of your property. What's the difference between you and the female wanting an abortion?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

If I did, I would be jailed for murder. I would just invite you to leave. However, if you would die by being forced out I would at least give you time to get ready for the hostile environment.

That depends. Maybe in the U.S, but you wouldn't be jailed in a country with strong property rights. So you admit that you're willing to use force in order to get me off of your property. What's the difference between you and the female wanting an abortion?

Reread that again. I did not say that. Read what I said. If I invited you over per your scenario, I would not kill you for being a poor guest. I might if you attacked and tried to kill me or mine, but not for poor manners. I would invite you to ,leave.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

I agree with the OP in that abortion would be necessary in extreme cases, which is just a very minute percentage, but overall it's a bad precedent to set in regards to how we value human life itself.

Banning abortion would have the same effect as the war on drugs or anything else the state has tried to legislate away.

What about the father? What about the other family involved? What about the psychological damage it can do to the Mother?

It's not his property, he has no right to prevent her from having an abortion. He can try to convince her not to, but in the end it's her choice. They have no right to tell her what to and what not to do with her body.

How can we expect people to act responsibly as a respected member of society when their mistakes can be shucked to the side, instead of taking responsibility, and we "legally" allow the elimination of life....yes, that's what it is!

Well, you can lead by example or something. I don't know and I really don't care. In a free society you don't have to agree with abortion, but you can't run to the govt and have them make laws, rules, regulations, etc just to fit your pow. Freedom doesn't work that way.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Reread that again. I did not say that. Read what I said. If I invited you over per your scenario, I would not kill you for being a poor guest. I might if you attacked and tried to kill me or mine, but not for poor manners. I would invite you to ,leave.

What if I didn't leave?

Wouldn't you call the cops? I doubt you would wait it out.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Reread that again. I did not say that. Read what I said. If I invited you over per your scenario, I would not kill you for being a poor guest. I might if you attacked and tried to kill me or mine, but not for poor manners. I would invite you to ,leave.

What if I didn't leave?

Wouldn't you call the cops? I doubt you would wait it out.

Call the cops for poor manners? Because you are eating to much food? Have you ever had room mates?

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Reread that again. I did not say that. Read what I said. If I invited you over per your scenario, I would not kill you for being a poor guest. I might if you attacked and tried to kill me or mine, but not for poor manners. I would invite you to ,leave.

What if I didn't leave?

Wouldn't you call the cops? I doubt you would wait it out.

Call the cops for poor manners? Because you are eating to much food?

Have you ever had room mates?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it like that, lol. I meant if I wanted to stay for a long time, like around 9 months? Would you wait that out, or call someone to have me removed? Don't lie, be honest.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Reread that again. I did not say that. Read what I said. If I invited you over per your scenario, I would not kill you for being a poor guest. I might if you attacked and tried to kill me or mine, but not for poor manners. I would invite you to ,leave.

What if I didn't leave?

Wouldn't you call the cops? I doubt you would wait it out.

Call the cops for poor manners? Because you are eating to much food?

Have you ever had room mates?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it like that, lol. I meant if I wanted to stay for a long time, like around 9 months? Would you wait that out, or call someone to have me removed? Don't lie, be honest.

Did I invite you over knowing you would be around that long? If so(like a possible result of sex), I would not renege unless you became dangerous.

If it were men that got pregnant you would be able to get an abortion at a barber shop and morning after pills would be passed around like breath mints.

reply to post by Skyfloating


We should all be careful to distinguish moderate sensibilities from compromise. Compromise is often touted as some form of political mastery, and as far as politics go, perhaps it is, but more to the point, perhaps politics has no place in issues of law.

Politics are inevitable, and in ever aspect of our lives, but politics are politics and by definition, politics is an art form. When it comes to art, I like the adage; "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." The art of politics appeals to peoples tastes, more so than their sensibilities, and like any other tendency toward taste, politics is more about distinguishing one from another, than it is about inclusiveness. Indeed, because we have different ideas on how to go about a particular goal or agenda, politics becomes a method we employ to achieve our own ends.

The law, however, cannot...must not...politicized. No one even thinks to politicize gravity, or bodies in motion, or planetary bodies in motion, but "common sense" will tell many that the "laws of man" are not like the "laws of science", and will argue, and this includes "moderates", that "the laws of science" are natural, but "man makes his own laws to govern people". Some how "common sense" is used as a term to convince us that this is so. Less "common sense" and more "conventional wisdom" is at play here.

If common sense is not about what is self evident, then what precisely is meant by "common sense"? We can better understand what we mean by using language such as "conventional wisdom" as simple research will inform us that conventional wisdom is rarely wise and simply just ideology de jour. Indeed, it is arguable that common sense dictates that we look at conventional wisdom with eyes of suspicion. Conventional wisdom once asserted that we lived in a geocentric universe, and when scientists, such as Galileo, came along and challenged this conventional wisdom by advocating a heliocentric universe, even the "moderates" were aghast at such blasphemy.

It was more than likely the moderates who convinced Galileo to recant his heliocentric advocacy in order to survive the horror of persecution. It was more than likely so, because it is more times than not the moderate advocating compromise. In Galileo's case the compromise was a recantation of what he knew to be true, in order to keep on living, a right to life, he also knew to be true. So, Galileo recanted, and legend tells us that just after this muttered under his breath "and yet it still moves", but this merely legend. The fact is it took the Catholic Church nearly 500 years to vindicate Galileo!

Of course, by the time the Church vindicated Galileo, conventional wisdom had changed, and the geocentric universe imposed upon people 500 years ago was no longer the prevailing wisdom. The earth, it would seem, does indeed move. Ironically, as people have come to accept a more scientific view regarding astronomy and planetary motions, "conventional wisdom" today pooh-pooh's the notion of unalienable rights as being just as scientific, just as natural, and just as simple, true, universal, and absolute as any other law of nature. Conventional wisdom, not common sense, asserts that rights are not a part of natural law, but instead are artificial creations of humanity. Nature makes law, and humanity makes its own law. Where nature is methodical in its application of law, making sure that all are equal under the law, that this law remains self evident and easily understood, that this law be at all times true, and because of this absolute, certain people, including "moderates" argue that the invented "laws" of humanity can be unequal if enough people agree on it, can be arbitrary and capricious, can be as complex as "necessary" and while tautologically true, can be guilty of lies of omission.

If it is not clear by now, I am not one who advocates the notion that the "laws of man" are separate from the "laws of science". I fiercely and vehemently defend all law as being natural. I strongly believe, based upon self evident phenomenon, that unalienable rights are natural law, not inventions of humanity. I, with all my heart, and passionately defend the right to life as being one of these natural law phenomena, and it follows that if we all have the right to life, that we all have the right to self defense. If we all have the right to self defense, then it follows that we have the right to come together collectively to form an organization towards this same end. This, under the rule of law, can be the only just reason for government, to protect the rights of the individual.

I strongly assert that legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. Legislation is no more law than a map is the territory or a picture of pipe is an actual pipe. Legislation can only, at best, point to the law, at worst usurp the law in favor of agenda.

Agenda is for the realm of politics, not law, and the moderate is no less supplied with agenda than any extremist. Agenda is not inherently bad, and can only be bad if this agenda is unlawful. What is unlawful? The violation of other peoples rights is unlawful. Striking a compromise that allows for the violation of a right is no more preferable than the extremist view that violation of rights is itself somehow a right. Compromise is given too much praise in politics, and never analyzed as it should be. Compromise should always be immediately suspect.

The "three fifths compromise" is a shining example of all that is wrong with compromise. Forever a horrific ink stain on an other wise profound document, the "three-fifths compromise" - as artful as it is in its language - stands as a testament to the laziness of compromise. Perhaps my views will be seen as "extremist", and if so, then so be it. Slavery should have never been tolerated under the Constitutional republic established and known as The United States. Compromise regarding slavery and other unlawful acts is hardly desirable for a free people.

The wisdom of Solomon was not that he was a "moderate", nor did it lie in his perverse sense of compromise. Offering to cut a child in half so that both women claiming to be the child's mother could have at least a part of him is more than perverted, it is horrifying. No, the wisdom of Solomon was not that he thought compromise was needed to resolve the problem, Solomon's wisdom was that he understood the problem with compromise and used this problem to discern which woman was better suited to raise the child.

The woman who accepted Solomon's compromise could be seen as a "moderate", and the woman who rejected the compromise, to the point of willingly surrendering her claim of motherhood for the sake of the child's safety, could be seen as an extremist. Under this analogy, Solomon chose the extremist as the better parent. Going down the middle of the road on certain issues is hardly prudent.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Forcing me to pay for others who WILL NOT pay for themselves is wrong(please note the words emphasized, I did not say can not)

How do you differentiate between willnots and cannots wihout some form of public healthcare? Free market alone is incapable of doing it. If you go to fully private hospital and you dont have private insurance or money, they are not asking you "Is it because you sincerely tried but you could not afford it, or is it because you are lazy"? They send you out immidiately (unless its an emergency).

The lesser evil is to pay public healthcare for all, and maybe then punish the lazy ones some other way, than letting even one of the genuine "cannots" die.

Additionally, forcing doctors to participate is tantamount to indentured servitude if not slavery imo.

Who is forcing doctors to do anything under combined system with public healthcare? You are free to leave the public hospital and set up your own private ambulance at any time. Doctors work there because its advantageous for some of them (they have lower income, but it requires zero initial investments and debt, compared to setting up your own private ambulance).

The Fair Tax is better.

The FairTax tax burden is far greater for poor, greater for middle class, and lesser for very rich than current system. The exact opposite of what the economy needs.
And it cannot be elegantly combined with welfare system like flat income rax with negative income tax.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Originally, we believed God gave us our rights. Now many liberals believe rights come from the government.

Since God is not proven, he cannot be the giver of rights in a society which includes atheists and agnostics, and deists.

The question is: What attribute(s) should separate a thing that has rights granted by law from one that has not?

Should it be merely that it has human DNA + is biologically alive? But that leads to almost all organ donations being illegal. It leads to brain dead bodies having to be kept on life support even if they have no functioning brain anymore etc..

I propose it should be the presence of brain waves. Appearance of brain waves, the reverse of medical death of a person, which is the irreversible dissapearance of brain waves, would mark the beginning of a person. Its the most logical thing to have beginning and end of a person defined by appearance/disappearance of the same attribute.

BW appear in cca 4,5 month of pregnancy. Thus the best compromise should be abortion being legal in the first trimester (1,5 month buffer for being sure), and after that illegal (except danger to the mother of course). Both abortion being legal until birth and embryo being protected immidiately after conception are illogical and extremist stances, and both lead to logical contradictions, and are suboptimal for the society and wellbeing of sentient creatures (which defines morality).

S+F OP. I consider myself also a centrist, or to put it better, none of the current mainstream ideologies (liberalism, conservativism, left, right, libertarianism) offer right answers in all issues IMHO. Pragmatism or centrism is the best.