quote:The Anchorage Daily News reported that Murkowski campaign staff member Bonnie Jack sent out an e-mail today asking people to "join us at the Kick-off of Senator Lisa's campaign" and "write in her name in and fill in the oval" on Election Day.
"We plan to make history!" the invitation read, according to the newspaper.
posted
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about the Tea Party.
First: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are not Tea Party leaders.
And while a Tea Party-backed candidate may be conservative on social issues, the Tea Party's main concern is the size and scope of government, the national debt, and high taxes.
Otherwise, I don't know enough about Christine O'Donnell to make a judgement on her either way, and I'll reserve my judgement until I have more information. However, her strict religious beliefs about sex have no bearing on her qualifications as a candidate.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are not Tea Party leaders.
There's enough overlap that I think it's fair to say that a large percentage of those that participate in the Tea Party movement respect and identify with Beck and Palin and consider them fellow travelers.
quote:However, her strict religious beliefs about sex have no bearing on her qualifications as a candidate.
Depends on how she applies those views in her role as an elected representative. Would she, for instance support traditional, ineffective, "Abstinence Only" sex education?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:First: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are not Tea Party leaders.
Given Sarah Palin's prominence in traveling about the country endorsing and not endorsing Tea Party candidates and speaking at Tea Party rallies, I'm not sure how she could possibly not be considered a Tea Party at least luminary of sorts, FoolishTook, I mean really. That's just such a huge stretch it's hard to take seriously. She's obviously a serious force among the Tea Party.
quote:However, her strict religious beliefs about sex have no bearing on her qualifications as a candidate.
They absolutely have bearing on her qualifications as a candidate depending on her willingness to take those views into the realm of secular law.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. She's an 'anti-abortion, no exceptions for rape and incest' candidate. Which is as far from being a 'less interference in people's lives by the government.' Forcing a 14 year old to have her father's baby is a pretty darn intrusive thing for a government to do.
And even Rove said she says some pretty "nutty" things, doesn't have experience or exemplify qualities or rectitude and truthfulness. (That was before he got the memo that Republicans have to support Republican candidates, even if they don't think they are fit for office.
I will say that Democrats do not seem to have any compunction about bad-mouthing their own party's candidates.
It will be interesting to see what happens, now that long time culture warriors are running as viable candidates.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Yeah yeah. Same thing was said about Ted Kennedy's seat, and Scott Brown ended up winning
What? Scott Brown was never a hopeless case, and methodological poll outcome prediction never showed Brown as an unelectable candidate.
O'Donnell is essentially a hopeless case. Her opponent has to start kicking puppies in the name of Satan order for her to stand a remote chance of winning.
You can kid yourself about this, but there's little point; O'Donnell is going to lose this election. Period.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dan_Frank, To me, one of the frustrating things about a lot of contemporary political discourse is what seems to me to be many people's tendency to consider it a contest of claiming ground. That is, they have a position and most of what they do is to repeat that position. It seems to me that they think that through repeatedly stating it, they can establish it as true for other people (which, honestly does work in many situations).
Perhaps it does not seem this way to me, but you often seem to do this. I can understand it. There are several prolific posters here that strenuously attack positions like those that you espouse.
However, there are other people here who are trying to foster more of a respectful back and forth atmosphere. This can be hard to see because the loud and offensive is so much easier to see. It is so much easier to destroy and attack then to build and constructing is so much more fragile. But we are out there.
It would help this goal if you approached conversation here with the idea of conveying why you hold the positions you hold rather than trying to plant them like a flag. Of course, my perception of this from you may not be accurate, but that is often what I see from you.
In this particular instance as I noted, I have a lot of sympathy for what is supposed to be core of the Tea Party message, but I've found the reality of the groups to be pretty disappointing, in ways that Christine O'Donnell winning this primary illustrates. You seem to disagree with this. I'd be very interested in reading why you disagree with this.
I can't say that I'll come to agree with you. I may not even come to regard your reasons as legitimate. But I can promise that I and several other people here will try to give them a fair consideration.
I appreciate your respectful request, here, and I'll do my best to honor it.
Usually when I "plant a flag" it's just to make what I see as a snarky and amusing comment, but I recognize that those comments are probably only amusing to people who agree with me. Aand maybe not even then!)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan_Frank, how on Earth could a party that inflicts O'Donnel on a Senate race be among the best things to happen in anyone's lifetime? That's a serious question. I am baffled.
Part of why I think the tea party is so great is because it's not a unified group. It's a bottom-up, grass roots movement that's only loosely affiliated in any official sense. Some "tea party" candidates will be better than others. O'Donnel seems a little nutty, for sure. But what is tying these loose groups together, the single cause that they all agree on, is fiscal conservatism. As a (mostly) libertarian, fiscal conservatism is one area where I and Republicans are supposed to agree. However, most Congressional Republicans are nearly as bad as Democrats when it comes to wasting money. The whole point of the tea party is sending a message that this will no longer be tolerated.
Because the tea party isn't a libertarian group, but rather a generally conservative one, they have a large percentage of people who also believe things I disagree with, like, say, no abortions under any circumstances. And so some/most tea party candidates also have these views. But honestly, I think the chance of the House or Senate making any significant votes on the issue of abortion to be vastly less likely than making votes on spending and budgets.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: I honestly just don't get the internal logic of the tea party.
They have an external logic, of sorts. Several very rich ops such as the Kochs have found that the Tea Party was the perfect group to corral into weakening government regulation against businesses like their own. Any other incoherence, such as the wildly muddled and contradictory mix of quasi-libertarianism with others who demand theologically motivated restrictions on civil liberties, is irrelevant to that as long as they help break down government regulation of businesses and reduce tax rates on the richest.
quote:Given Sarah Palin's prominence in traveling about the country endorsing and not endorsing Tea Party candidates and speaking at Tea Party rallies, I'm not sure how she could possibly not be considered a Tea Party at least luminary of sorts, FoolishTook, I mean really. That's just such a huge stretch it's hard to take seriously. She's obviously a serious force among the Tea Party.
Just because Tea Party members support her doesn't mean she's a Tea Party leader. Is she funding the Tea Party and planning these rallies? Nay. She supports them, and they support her.
quote:They absolutely have bearing on her qualifications as a candidate depending on her willingness to take those views into the realm of secular law.
Because her views are so far removed from your own doesn't mean she can't run for office and win or lose according to the people's support or lack thereof.
Personally, I would not support her because of her financial problems. It means she may have a habit of being fiscally irresponsible. She'll fit right in with the current House and Senate, but I really want someone who knows how to pay the bills.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because Tea Party members support her doesn't mean she's a Tea Party leader. Is she funding the Tea Party and planning these rallies? Nay. She supports them, and they support her.
In a movement like the tea party which isn't structured as a formal organization, do we want to consider the movement's leaders the people who are at the forefront of championing it as a cause, or do we want to consider the leaders the people who fund it and manage the rallies?
The latter makes people like Mark Williams and the Kochs the 'leaders' of the movement; I think you're not going to get a lot of support within the tea party for such a notion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the tea party isn't a libertarian group, but rather a generally conservative one, they have a large percentage of people who also believe things I disagree with, like, say, no abortions under any circumstances.
Here's my problem with voting for Tea Party (or even most libertarian) candidates: I sympathize with them on many issues, especially fiscal, executive power, and states' rights concerns. However, I can understand why someone who disagrees with me (and them) on those issues might be able to hold those positions without being an evil nutcase.
However, it is not possible for someone to believe -- for example -- that 9/11 is an inside job or Barack Obama is a secret Muslim plant without being an evil nutcase.
So when it comes to voting for someone who shares my fiscal views but is an unrepentantly evil nutcase, or voting or someone who has a logical reason for disagreeing with my desired tax policy but is otherwise a rational human being, I will always wind up voting for the rational human being.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: However, it is not possible for someone to believe -- for example -- that 9/11 is an inside job or Barack Obama is a secret Muslim plant without being an evil nutcase.
I'm not sure I buy the former. Given the sheer lopsided nature of casualties as a result of the whole thing and the nature of incidents like the Gulf Of Tonkin, I find it hard to write off roughly 15% of the world's population or 900 million people ( link) as being evil.
Even if you exclude countries with Muslim majorities as having too much at stake emotionally, we are talking about significant minorities in areas as varied as Italy (15%), South Korea (17%), and Mexico (30%).
Do I necessarily want them in power? Probably not. But I think its fairly understandable without them being evil or a nut-case.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to keep...
O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.
O'DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.
And she cancels Face the Nation, similar to Rand Paul's abrupt cancellation of Meet the Press:
via Politico
quote:Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell has backed out of an appearance tomorrow on CBS's "Face the Nation" with no explanation to the network.
quote:But I think its fairly understandable without them being evil or a nut-case.
I am perfectly willing to believe that up to 30% of a given country's population falls into the category of "evil or a nutcase."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you can walk through the thought process that makes it mandatory for a South Korean to be evil or a nutcase in order to believe that the US was behind 9/11.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the tea party isn't a libertarian group, but rather a generally conservative one, they have a large percentage of people who also believe things I disagree with, like, say, no abortions under any circumstances.
Here's my problem with voting for Tea Party (or even most libertarian) candidates: I sympathize with them on many issues, especially fiscal, executive power, and states' rights concerns. However, I can understand why someone who disagrees with me (and them) on those issues might be able to hold those positions without being an evil nutcase.
However, it is not possible for someone to believe -- for example -- that 9/11 is an inside job or Barack Obama is a secret Muslim plant without being an evil nutcase.
So when it comes to voting for someone who shares my fiscal views but is an unrepentantly evil nutcase, or voting or someone who has a logical reason for disagreeing with my desired tax policy but is otherwise a rational human being, I will always wind up voting for the rational human being.
I think I absolutely agree with you here, Tom. Having grown up in the SFbay, almost all of my friends are vastly more leftist than me. That's fine with me, because they're all totally reasonable, rational people who just disagree with me on what's best for society. Reasonable people can disagree.
Because I grew up in the bay area, though, I've also seen my fair share of complete wackjobs.
I would say, for example, being completely opposed to abortion does not make someone an evil nutcase. All that requires is a different classification of when life starts than I have (or, say, belief in a soul, which I lack. Er, I lack belief, not a soul. Well, I guess I lack a soul too, but only insofar as I think everyone lacks a soul. I'm not especially soulless.)
From some of the stuff you guys have shown, it seems like O'Donnel may very well stray into nutcase territory, which is sad.
See? Now I'm sad. I'd better go listen to some more Ratatat.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People are completely against abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest are much lower on the evil quotient than those who are against abortion with exceptions.
Let me explain: if you're against abortion with no exceptions, then you can plausibly state that you're against it because a fetus's life has as much value as that of a child or an adult. It's a consistent worldview, albeit not one I agree with.
But if you're against it with exceptions for rape and incest, what you're saying isn't "a fetus's life is worth as much as that of a child or an adult." If you were saying that then you'd be okay with executing a five year old kid who was the product of rape and incest. Nope, what you're actually saying is "Worthy people can get abortions, but not those stupid sluts who brought it upon themselves and should accept punishment for their actions." Which is pretty evil in my book.
So the fact that she doesn't allow exceptions actually makes me like Christine more than I did before. Which, granted, still isn't much.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of why I think the tea party is so great is because it's not a unified group. It's a bottom-up, grass roots movement that's only loosely affiliated in any official sense.
You've just described some of the characteristics of an angry, property destroying mob. I'm not characterizing the Tea Party that way here, just pointing out that the traits you're lauding here do not seem to me to be very desirable in and of themselves.
quote:But what is tying these loose groups together, the single cause that they all agree on, is fiscal conservatism.
It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that what unites these groups is the kind of fiscal conservatism that says, "Spend less," period. No nuance, no compassion, no reasoning. Spend less, cut taxes, cut spending - except for the military, of course. And while we're at it, lower oversight because that's somehow often included in fiscally conservative outlooks.
quote:Just because Tea Party members support her doesn't mean she's a Tea Party leader. Is she funding the Tea Party and planning these rallies? Nay. She supports them, and they support her.
Saying they 'support' her seems to me to be pretty darn incomplete to me, FoolishTook. They don't just support her. They turn out in droves and listen very carefully to what she has to say. They 'support' her in many ways in the way that far-right conservative Repulicans 'support' Rush Limbaugh. Why are you shying away from identifying Sarah Palin as a leader among the Tea Party?
quote:Because her views are so far removed from your own doesn't mean she can't run for office and win or lose according to the people's support or lack thereof.
Who said anything about 'can't'? This always seems to come up in these sorts of discussions. I didn't say she should be disallowed from running. I said her views on sexuality are absolutely relevant to her campaign for senate. And they are.
quote:However, it is not possible for someone to believe -- for example -- that 9/11 is an inside job or Barack Obama is a secret Muslim plant without being an evil nutcase.
I don't grant the evil premise, or even necessarily the nutcase premise. I do, however, believe that it is impossible for someone to believe such things and not be very dangerous for them to have any real political power in the world.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I am perfectly willing to believe that up to 30% of a given country's population falls into the category of "evil or a nutcase."
If you make that "evil, a nutcase, stupid or badly informed" and I agree. (Though the qualifiers would raise the percentage considerably, I suspect.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you make that "evil, a nutcase, stupid or badly informed" and I agree. (Though the qualifiers would raise the percentage considerably, I suspect.)
Likewise. Personally I reserve words like evil and nutcase for stronger things than politically attractive but very little considered beliefs such as 'OMG SECRET MOHAMMEDAN!' which is what I tend to think is the root of much of that nonsense.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:At issue are more than $20,000 of spending in 2009 and 2010 that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims was illegal. "It turns out Miss O'Donnell has treated her campaign funds like they are her very own personal piggy bank. She's used that money to pay for things like her rent, for gas, meals and even a bowling outing. And that's just flat-out illegal," said Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director.
In an interview on CNN's "AC360," Sloan said her organization would be sending letters to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware and the Federal Elections Commission on Monday asking them to investigate.
"For example, in 2009, Miss O'Donnell wasn't a candidate for anything, yet she had numerous campaign expenses, things like travel and gas, and yet she had no actual campaign," Sloan said. O'Donnell's spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.
At this point I would consider O'Donnell dropping out of the race a significant possibility, if not yet the most likely outcome.
quote:But if you're against it with exceptions for rape and incest, what you're saying isn't "a fetus's life is worth as much as that of a child or an adult." If you were saying that then you'd be okay with executing a five year old kid who was the product of rape and incest.
It's pretty straightforward and an entirely consistent position. *IF* you consider a fetus a human being with every right owed to any other human, then the fact that it was produced by rape or incest would be immaterial. If you wouldn't allow the murder of a five-year-old because it was discovered that the child was a product of rape or incest then you also shouldn't be allowed to abort a fetus for the same reason.
I disagree with the premises upon which this argument is based, but I fully understand it and I think it's a more consistent argument than that made by people that say, essentially, that abortion is murder unless the mother was raped. That's where I say "...What?".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's pretty straightforward and an entirely consistent position. *IF* you consider a fetus a human being with every right owed to any other human, then the fact that it was produced by rape or incest would be immaterial. If you wouldn't allow the murder of a five-year-old because it was discovered that the child was a product of rape or incest then you also shouldn't be allowed to abort a fetus for the same reason.
I disagree with the premises upon which this argument is based, but I fully understand it and I think it's a more consistent argument than that made by people that say, essentially, that abortion is murder unless the mother was raped. That's where I say "...What?".
Yep. Though I'm pro-choice, I have a lot of respect for the pro-life position if applied consistently. If you believe life starts at conception, then you should be pro-life. Period.
I especially hate it when pro-choice people say things like "I think an abortion is a terrible, lamentable choice and I don't know if I could do it, but everyone should have the right to choose." This totally sidesteps what is actually at issue, which is when a fetus becomes a person. Why is it a terrible, lamentable choice you'd never do? Is it because you think even the most undeveloped embryo is a person? If so, then how can it be everyone's person right to decide? That's like saying you think it's tragic when someone chooses to kill someone and take their stuff, and you would never kill someone for their stuff, but really, who can decide whether it's wrong for everyone to kill people for their stuff?
I'm wandering off on a tangent here, sorry.
Rakeesh, I appreciate the bottom-up grassroots nature of the Tea Party because I approve of their overall message, and I think that their nature makes it much harder for the media to marginalize them. There is no one spokesman for the tea party, to which every member must be held accountable. I agree that simply having that nature inherently is not necessarily a positive attribute, sorry if I was unclear.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no one spokesman for the tea party, to which every member must be held accountable.
What this seems to mean in practice is that whenever a big, well known Tea Party mouthpiece says something objectionable such as O'Donnel, the Tea Party as a whole cannot ever be held to it as a group, because they're 'grass roots', though of course they never seem to have much compunction doing the same to liberals, Democrats, Muslims, socialists, etc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's one of the risks of being anti-government, the moment anybody starts showing leadership you've got to snuff em out. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you believe life starts at conception, then you should be pro-life. Period.
I especially hate it when pro-choice people say things like "I think an abortion is a terrible, lamentable choice and I don't know if I could do it, but everyone should have the right to choose." This totally sidesteps what is actually at issue, which is when a fetus becomes a person. Why is it a terrible, lamentable choice you'd never do? Is it because you think even the most undeveloped embryo is a person? If so, then how can it be everyone's person right to decide? That's like saying you think it's tragic when someone chooses to kill someone and take their stuff, and you would never kill someone for their stuff, but really, who can decide whether it's wrong for everyone to kill people for their stuff?
It is consistent to believe that a fetus has rights but that even the rights of a person do not trump the right to sovereignty over one's own body. A living person cannot force another person by law to even be a marrow donor much less coerce the use of his organs - even if the person would die without them. I am comfortable saying that I would never have an abortion but am unwilling to let the law take that sovereignty away from another person.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is consistent to believe that a fetus has rights but that even the rights of a person do not trump the right to sovereignty over one's own body. A living person cannot force another person by law to even be a marrow donor much less coerce the use of his organs - even if the person would die without them. I am comfortable saying that I would never have an abortion but am unwilling to let the law take that sovereignty away from another person.
Well, we've had this back-and-forth before, so I'll just point out that while a person cannot compel someone else to become their bone marrow donor, it's also true that someone also cannot force someone else to need their bone marrow and then refuse to give it. So it's not quite as cut-and-dried as that, kmbboots.
In other words, it may be consistent to make that claim, but it doesn't seem especially morally or ethically reasonable a claim, that it ought to be acceptable to create a person and then say, "But you have no claim to temporary use of my body." If we're granting personhood at conception, that is. Something I don't think myself, but do grant as possible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, we've had this back-and-forth before, so I'll just point out that while a person cannot compel someone else to become their bone marrow donor, it's also true that someone also cannot force someone else to need their bone marrow and then refuse to give it. So it's not quite as cut-and-dried as that, kmbboots.
Sure they can. Even due to evil actions. I am driving drunk and I hit a car. You are injured and need a kidney. The law can not take one of my kidneys. It is, I think, unethical for me to not give you one, just as I think that many abortions are unethical, but it would be reprehensible for the government to take that choice away.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh- I could smash into someone with my car and still refuse to donate blood, even if I was a perfect match and the other guy might die because of it. And it is possible that in a car accident, the circumstances would be such that I was at fault, but not legally negligent homicide. Also, you can think that the baby is a potential life and so in that sense it is a bad choice, but not murder cause potential not life.
ETA- too slow at posting.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's pretty straightforward and an entirely consistent position. *IF* you consider a fetus a human being with every right owed to any other human, then the fact that it was produced by rape or incest would be immaterial. If you wouldn't allow the murder of a five-year-old because it was discovered that the child was a product of rape or incest then you also shouldn't be allowed to abort a fetus for the same reason.
I disagree with the premises upon which this argument is based, but I fully understand it and I think it's a more consistent argument than that made by people that say, essentially, that abortion is murder unless the mother was raped. That's where I say "...What?".
Yes, you're correct. That's not what Sinflower said though. She (He? Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong) said that "If you hold position X, it means you hold belief Y." Which is not necessarily so. There are multiple other sets of nuanced beliefs regarding fetuses and what rights they have, and why they have them, that are entirely consistent.
That such an absurd conclusion (you should then be okay with executing a five-year-old that was the product of incest or rape) was reached is not an inherent weakness in the position sinflower was critiquing, but in the belief (s)he ascribed to those holding that position.
...See this is the post I should have written in the first place. Sorry, sinflower.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure they can. Even due to evil actions. I am driving drunk and I hit a car. You are injured and need a kidney. The law can not take one of my kidneys. It is, I think, unethical for me to not give you one, just as I think that many abortions are unethical, but it would be reprehensible for the government to take that choice away.
But the law can, and in many places will, take away your liberty for doing so, which is the law's only recourse in terms of penalty. It's not as though you'd support imprisonment of people who have abortions either, after all. If I were to die from kidney failure as a result of your drunken driving, the law might even take away your life, for that matter.
I am curious, though, by what reasoning it would be 'reprehensible' of the government to compel you to yield up to me one of your kidneys after you effectively stole one from me, though. I mean, what is the basis for labeling such an action reprehensible? Body sovereignty and all that, yes, but most such ideologies I've ever heard of stop where fists meet noses.
quote:I could smash into someone with my car and still refuse to donate blood, even if I was a perfect match and the other guy might die because of it. And it is possible that in a car accident, the circumstances would be such that I was at fault, but not legally negligent homicide.
An automobile accident is one thing, even being at fault is one thing, but I personally think that drunk driving is a bit different.
quote:Also, you can think that the baby is a potential life and so in that sense it is a bad choice, but not murder cause potential not life.
I was talking about the example given of abortion being more or less unethical for people who believe a fetus is a human being, period. Kmbboots replied that it can still be just as ethical for someone to have an abortion because of body sovereignty issues.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no one spokesman for the tea party, to which every member must be held accountable.
What this seems to mean in practice is that whenever a big, well known Tea Party mouthpiece says something objectionable such as O'Donnel, the Tea Party as a whole cannot ever be held to it as a group, because they're 'grass roots', though of course they never seem to have much compunction doing the same to liberals, Democrats, Muslims, socialists, etc.
Mark Williams demonstrated this from beginning to end, leading to a somewhat paradoxical nature as an ex-leader of the tea party, and some True Scotsman defenses still linger when he's brought up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was talking about the example given of abortion being more or less unethical for people who believe a fetus is a human being, period. Kmbboots replied that it can still be just as ethical for someone to have an abortion because of body sovereignty issues.
No. I was talking about it being just as ethical and consistent to believe someone should have the right to have an abortion. An important difference. I think that it is ethical for people to have the right to do some things that I consider unethical because the coercion is less ethical.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose there is some debate as to whether or not getting pregnant is more like an accident or drunk driving, but in either case, the government will not force you to give up any body parts of blood of anything else to save the victim's life. I agree with this in principle and would extend it to abortion. I would think someone who refused to donate was a jerk (pick stronger word that inappropriate for board) but I don't want the government to have the right to force that donation. If you are drunk driving, you might do better by providing the donation, but the charge against you would not be failure to donate, it would be homicide because of the drunk driving.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christine O’Donnell isn’t the only Delaware Tea Party candidate making waves. The seat in the House of Representatives currently held by Republican Mike Castle — who was defeated by O’Donnell in Tuesday’s Senatorial primary — is also up for grabs. The Republican primary for that office was won by Tea Partier Glen Urquhart, and it turns out that his political positions may be even more unique than O’Donnell’s. “Do you know, where does this phrase ’separation of church and state’ come from?” Urquhart asked at a campaign event last April. “It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. … The exact phrase ’separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they’re Nazis.”
"wait, but, that's not .."
"why are you a Nazi?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I was talking about it being just as ethical and consistent to believe someone should have the right to have an abortion. An important difference. I think that it is ethical for people to have the right to do some things that I consider unethical because the coercion is less ethical.
*shrug* Just as ethical to have the choice, then. Functionally it comes out to much the same thing.
But I am curious about the kidney question. How it it reprehensible for the government to compel restitution for what amounts to theft, kmbboots? Is it just because it threatens body sovereignty? I'm not talking about just a car accident, I'm talking about a drunk driving accident where one person's willful, potentially murderous behavior harms another. Isn't one of the key underpinnings of society that, well, individuals stop having an inalienable right to their own lives, liberties, and bodies at some point, somewhere?
quote:I suppose there is some debate as to whether or not getting pregnant is more like an accident or drunk driving, but in either case, the government will not force you to give up any body parts of blood of anything else to save the victim's life. I agree with this in principle and would extend it to abortion. I would think someone who refused to donate was a jerk (pick stronger word that inappropriate for board) but I don't want the government to have the right to force that donation. If you are drunk driving, you might do better by providing the donation, but the charge against you would not be failure to donate, it would be homicide because of the drunk driving.
I'm not making the argument that pregnancy is like drunk driving, though personally in the 21st century I think the argument could potentially be made (ETA: Absolutely, that goes for men as well as women), I was just sticking to the example being given. You're right, the government won't force you to donate blood, but I think there are two very good reasons for that. One, it's almost never, ever necessary. Two, the government simply doesn't do that: we have a penalty system in place, and it's called the civil courts or the criminal courts, with jail or prison time or fines. The question at hand isn't, "Should the government have the power to compel donation," but rather, "Should the government have the power to intervene at all."
Unless I'm mistaken, kmbboots for example thinks the answer to the latter question is 'no', the government should not have the power to coerce in any way whatsoever, in part because it's wrong to interfere in the right to bodily sovereignty. But we do interfere in that right.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE]You're right, the government won't force you to donate blood, but I think there are two very good reasons for that. One, it's almost never, ever necessary. Two, the government simply doesn't do that: we have a penalty system in place, and it's called the civil courts or the criminal courts, with jail or prison time or fines. The question at hand isn't, "Should the government have the power to compel donation," but rather, "Should the government have the power to intervene at all."
Unless I'm mistaken, kmbboots for example thinks the answer to the latter question is 'no', the government should not have the power to coerce in any way whatsoever, in part because it's wrong to interfere in the right to bodily sovereignty. But we do interfere in that right.
I think Rakeesh's point about the penalty system in place is excellent, and he elaborates on that point very well. I just want to elaborate off of the first point he made (boldness added.)
The analogy breaks down completely, because you need to go through serious logical contortions to create a scenario where the person who caused the accident is the only person who can save the guy missing a kidney.
Let's make a much more direct analogy. For my analogy I will be assuming it's an abortion-in-the-case-of-rape situation, where the pregnant person did nothing to get themselves pregnant, and it is entirely the fault of the person who assaulted them.
Okay, so a madman kidnaps you and chains an innocent man to your back. For the sake of the analogy, the chain is unbreakable. Before he releases you the madman shows you that the chain is on a time-lock, and nine months from now it will fall away. He also explains that if the man on your back dies, the lock will automatically release.
The chained man can't feed himself, he's bound to your back hand and foot. It's annoying and difficult to get around with him on your back. He begs you to feed him something every time you eat a meal.
Finally, one day, fed up with this crap, you buy a gun. The chained man begs for you to spare him, you've only got seven months left to go! He sobs and pleads and rants. But you know that seven more months of this would be intolerable. So you shoot him in the head. (Or maybe you get a doctor to shoot him in the head for you?)
Is that immoral?
The only thing that keeps abortion from actually being the above scenario, to my mind, is the fact that an embryo is not a person. But for those that believe it is a person, how is this a faulty analogy?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one thing, chance of death is a whole lot higher with pregnancy, as well as other permanent problems. Annoying and difficult to get around is a horrible description of pregnancy- ten months of hell is a better one. Of course, I personally have 2 friends who would have died 20 years ago with the problems they had during pregnancy and another that eliminated all chance of future pregnancy after her last child because the drs said pretty much zero chance of surviving pregnancy again.
ETA- also make the man numb so no pain or awareness of shooting him (depending on age of abortion) and make him mute. And the chain should be breakable, but breaking it kills him- no need to directly kill him- just break the chain.
Also, you say oh, the accident and need for blood or liver will never happen so that scenario doesn't work- but neither will the crazy guy who locks up the guy.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more point- didn't some ethicist argue the point like with the violinist I think and in the end still argued that it would be unethical to force someone into that position.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, for one thing, chance of death is a whole lot higher with pregnancy, as well as other permanent problems.
I agree, actually, which is why I don't liken it to drunk driving or kidney loss. I was just sticking to the comparison someone else made, and wondering why it would be 'reprehensible' for the state to compel the drunk driver to yield up a kidney in such a case. I'm perfectly aware that 'annoying and difficult to get around' don't describe pregnancy, and also quite aware that sometimes it is literally a death sentence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Well, for one thing, chance of death is a whole lot higher with pregnancy, as well as other permanent problems. Annoying and difficult to get around is a horrible description of pregnancy- ten months of hell is a better one. Of course, I personally have 2 friends who would have died 20 years ago with the problems they had during pregnancy and another that eliminated all chance of future pregnancy after her last child because the drs said pretty much zero chance of surviving pregnancy again.
First of all I just want to say that I'm really not trying to marginalize how difficult pregnancies can be. If I sounded that way, or even continue to sound that way, I definitely apologize.
However, a significant percentage (I want to say a majority but I have no relevant stats handy so that could be wrong) of pro-lifers, even ones who don't want an exception for rape, will still make an exception if the life of the mother is directly endangered. So, for that reason, it's important that the chained man not be threatening your life, just your health. I mean, having a guy chained to your back, eating a bunch of your food, getting fatter and fatter, that's not just a little inconvenient. That would be incredibly difficult and it would wear your body out pretty quickly, too. Your back would probably never recover.
quote:ETA- also make the man numb so no pain or awareness of shooting him (depending on age of abortion) and make him mute. And the chain should be breakable, but breaking it kills him- no need to directly kill him- just break the chain.
It's no less immoral to kill a guy who can't beg for his life, it just makes it easier on the shooter. Also, it's not as if abortion simply consists of snipping the umbilical cord and calling it a day. Regardless though, these are cosmetic differences. The very fact that someone is arguing for the changes says a lot, I think. "Shooting a begging man in the face" versus "Indirectly killing an unconscious man" are worlds different if we're talking about how easy it is on the killer. Less so if we're trying to draw a moral distinction.
quote:Also, you say oh, the accident and need for blood or liver will never happen so that scenario doesn't work- but neither will the crazy guy who locks up the guy.
Sure. I chose an intentionally impossible analogy to exaggerate the issues at play. If you think it's silly and pointless to discuss, that's fine too. Just say so. I promise I won't be offended. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Rakeesh's point about the penalty system in place is excellent, and he elaborates on that point very well. I just want to elaborate off of the first point he made (boldness added.)
Just to be clear, I don't actually think we ought to have a penalty system in place that does things like harvest people's organs. I do, however, think that our penalty system does involve itself in questions of bodily sovereignty, liberty being a huge such question for example, and taking away another's rights another.
quote:The analogy breaks down completely, because you need to go through serious logical contortions to create a scenario where the person who caused the accident is the only person who can save the guy missing a kidney.
The analogy is silly for a variety of reasons, not least this one.
quote:The only thing that keeps abortion from actually being the above scenario, to my mind, is the fact that an embryo is not a person. But for those that believe it is a person, how is this a faulty analogy?
As scholarette quite rightly points out, this analogy is much more fundamentally flawed than the drunk driving one was. Pregnancy can be much more dangerous than simply being chained to another human being against one's will for period of, shall we say, eight to ten months. It can even be fatal in the presence of the best possible medical care. Happens all the time. Don't believe me? Look it up. So for those who believe the fetus is a person, the analogy is faulty for those reasons. The person chained to you isn't simply an inconvenience, the person is a potentially fatal inconveniece. And that's above and beyond describing the situation as 'inconvenient'. It's a little strange to me, as a man, with some academic and limited personal understanding how onerous pregnancy can be, describe it in such a way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with saying, sure it's ok if the mom's health is in danger is that the highest danger to mom's health comes near the end and post partum complications. At 3 months (almost all abortions are done before then) the risk factors may not be apparent. In the cases I know of, at 3 months, none of my friends knew the risks. One didn't know until a week after the baby was born. So, when a woman is making this decision, she has to guess at what her chance of death is. And when you find out at say 33 weeks, you have a different decision than at 7 weeks. I have had 2 friends who induced knowing baby would be a preemie with potential problems because the risk got too high. Both have since done permanent sterilization.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do, however, think that our penalty system does involve itself in questions of bodily sovereignty, liberty being a huge such question for example, and taking away another's rights another.
I consider imprisonment and external-to-the-body-itself rights fairly distinct from sovereignty over an individual's actual body. And I cannot think of any examples -- short of the death penalty -- where we currently consider it acceptable for the government to violate bodily sovereignty of an individual considered to be an adult. And quite a few historical and/or theoretical/fictional examples where doing so is now considered a heinous crime. (Tuskegee experiments, forced sterilization, etc.)
What am I missing?
Edit: Of course, as soon as I posted that I thought of things like handcuffing, tasering, etc. Those still seem different to me, but I'm having difficulty articulating why.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
