Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
I fail to see how anyone takes abortion as a defining issue in a presidential election. Republicans are hypocrits, save babies but go to war every chance you get. Their extreme stance on this issue only erodes the margin away from their stance. I don't think it is too much to ask an expecting mother to crap or get off the pot. As such, third term abortions are ridiculous.

My view - stop trying to criminalize everything and focus on proper incentives. Facilitating adoption for unwanting mothers while providing some financial support seems to be a logical starting place. It is still a choice, but at least you provide the preferred choice as not costing more than abortion. Abortion is covered by health insurance but I have to get a maternity rider on my individual policy to cover having a baby. What kind of incentive is that? Just had a baby, ain't cheap and if I am uninsured I am likely in line for a medical bankruptcy after $10K in hospital charges for a normal healthy birth (not including all the prenatal care). If I am middle income, I just spent all my discretionary money on medical deductibles.

As you move from poor to rich, people have fewer children. This is due to financial incentives. Shouldn't we encourage the poor to have fewer children and the rich to have more? I'll be having a vasectomy soon. I would love to have more kids but they are too damned expensive and my taxes are going up big time. If I lived in a trailer with a subsistence mentality, more kids would mean more money in my pocket. Why is it I neuter myself but the concept of birth control for welfare recipients is abhorent?

I don't have time to look up the study but I saw something in Wisconsin where a family of four would have to earn about $50,000 a year to have the same lifestyle as a pure welfare family of four. I'm not saying everyone does it, just that the incentive is there.

At the end of the day, facilitate good economic choices. Leave the morality of it between the individuals and God.

This thread kicks butt.

I just wrote a good long post and then my internet shat out, but I couldn't agree with you more.

Morality is a measure of individuals, not of governments. Governments should be concerned with providing space for civil society to thrive. Even if one accepts the argument that abortion=murder, it does not follow that society gains from criminalizing abortion.

If government were to make morality a primary factor in it's decision making, policy would become unpredictable and would change drastically depending on who happened to get 51% of the vote in any given year. National interest, on the other hand, is much less open to personal interpretation. There's still room for debate (see: tax policy) but at least that debate can be confined to clear and quantifiable boundaries.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
483
If you accept that a fetus is alive and a person in the constitutional sense there is no parallel to drug legalization. What you do to yourself is your own business. If your actions interfere with someone else's pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the government needs to step in.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
If you accept that a fetus is alive and a person in the constitutional sense there is no parallel to drug legalization. What you do to yourself is your own business. If your actions interfere with someone else's pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the government needs to step in.

Disagree. If the only case against murder is moral, than you're right. But, again, I hold that morality is a measure of individuals, not governments. Bottom line is that society functions just as well or better with abortions (fetus-murders) being legal. (Adult-murders) Murder not so much...the social contract collapses if you're on edge worried about being murdered all the time. I suppose if there was overwhelming agreement that abortion was immoral, than perhaps making it illegal would make sense but lacking that consensus and lacking any clear benefit to society, the moral choice should rest with the individual.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
483
The government was established to protect our essential rights... If life isn't one of those then what is? If killing everyone over 65 made society function better should we do it?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
If you accept that a fetus is alive and a person in the constitutional sense there is no parallel to drug legalization. What you do to yourself is your own business. If your actions interfere with someone else's pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the government needs to step in.

Even further, I'm pretty much pro-legalization, but I've come to reject the "I'm only harming myself" categorical distinction in public policy. Every thing you -- and don't do -- affects something, and someone, somewhere. It may not affect a particular individual personally and substantially, but it surely affects *people* in the aggregate. (And it affects the person you're arguing with to some extent, if for no other reason than they're arguing with you and telling you it affects them.) It's a difference of degree, not of kind. Heck, we're still arguing about whether not buying health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce.

So what you're arguing that "it doesn't hurt you" what you're really saying is that "this doesn't harm people enough that it should be outlawed". Which is a fine case to make, you just can't forget this other side of the equation. There is no activity under the sun that cannot be regulated, under any circumstance, on the sole basis that it "just never affects anyone".
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
Disagree. If the only case against murder is moral, than you're right. But, again, I hold that morality is a measure of individuals, not governments. Bottom line is that society functions just as well or better with abortions (fetus-murders) being legal. (Adult-murders) Murder not so much...the social contract collapses if you're on edge worried about being murdered all the time. I suppose if there was overwhelming agreement that abortion was immoral, than perhaps making it illegal would make sense but lacking that consensus and lacking any clear benefit to society, the moral choice should rest with the individual.

This kind of utitarian is terrifying to me. I feel as if it sounds good in a society that has no intention of embracing it, like the United States, but has led to disastrous consequences where it has been used as a guiding principle (china, Germany, etc.).

It's also nearly impossible to make conclusions like, "society operates better" for abortion. No one has any clue what it would be like without abortion. For example, is Japan going to be better off when it's young workers are out-numbered by older workers who depend on them for benefits? Would Bill Clinton's mom have been better off without her child knowing her husband was going to abandon her? ,And there is wide disagreement about value-loaded terms like "better.". Better for who? In what ways?

I also always find the social contract stuff interesting. A contract is an offer and an acceptance. I didn't agree to anything, and can't get out of my legal obligations. So it doesn't seem like a contract to me. Men like Jefferson, who used such language, also took the idea of revolution much more seriously- they thought it was required
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
So you throw everyone who aborts a baby in jail? Where does that get you? I can justify prosecuting aborting a viable fetus as murder but a one month gestation embryo?

Society is f-ed up. Trusting your neighbor, let alone your government, to put your best interests at heart is a fools errand. Who am I to say someone can get an abortion in the first trimester OR euthanize themselves because they are 95, terminally ill and in tremendous pain (or for pretty much any reason that person desires for all I care). Then how stupid is it to prosecute and jail these "criminals?" Oh that's right, we jail the doctor not the patient. Just like illegal immigration policy, punish the business hiring them not the one commiting the crime.

Our medical advances are well beyond what I would consider "God's will" as far as letting nature run its course in life. Keeping alive a 4 month premature baby can be just as inhumane in many cases as the terminally ill 95 year old. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should. Sometime you gotta take Ole Yeller out back. And the last person I want deciding any of the above is government.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
This kind of utitarian is terrifying to me. I feel as if it sounds good in a society that has no intention of embracing it, like the United States, but has led to disastrous consequences where it has been used as a guiding principle (china, Germany, etc.).

It's also nearly impossible to make conclusions like, "society operates better" for abortion. No one has any clue what it would be like without abortion. For example, is Japan going to be better off when it's young workers are out-numbered by older workers who depend on them for benefits? Would Bill Clinton's mom have been better off without her child knowing her husband was going to abandon her? ,And there is wide disagreement about value-loaded terms like "better.". Better for who? In what ways?

I also always find the social contract stuff interesting. A contract is an offer and an acceptance. I didn't agree to anything, and can't get out of my legal obligations. So it doesn't seem like a contract to me. Men like Jefferson, who used such language, also took the idea of revolution much more seriously- they thought it was required

If that means I like boobies, then YES SIR I am a uTITitarian!
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
This kind of utitarian is terrifying to me. I feel as if it sounds good in a society that has no intention of embracing it, like the United States, but has led to disastrous consequences where it has been used as a guiding principle (china, Germany, etc.).

It's also nearly impossible to make conclusions like, "society operates better" for abortion. No one has any clue what it would be like without abortion. For example, is Japan going to be better off when it's young workers are out-numbered by older workers who depend on them for benefits? Would Bill Clinton's mom have been better off without her child knowing her husband was going to abandon her? ,And there is wide disagreement about value-loaded terms like "better.". Better for who? In what ways?

I also always find the social contract stuff interesting. A contract is an offer and an acceptance. I didn't agree to anything, and can't get out of my legal obligations. So it doesn't seem like a contract to me. Men like Jefferson, who used such language, also took the idea of revolution much more seriously- they thought it was required
+1
I think it is incredibly short sighted of anyone to suggest that preventing life has more utility than not. How many great individuals have never been born? Have we aborted someone who would come up with a cure for cancer? Without knowing for sure what that person would accomplish in his/her life, accepting abortion on the concept of utility appears really flawed to me.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Yesterday my daughter called me from work crying. My daughter started her junior year in high school today. I took her and a friend to school and dropped them off this morning.

What caused my daughters breakdown, and subsequent grief, was that the night before, one of her friends, team and class mates committed suicide. I knew this girl. She was a great kid, someone who I had no problems letting my kid hang with. Her family was wonderful.

This is the second girl in the class that committed suicide in six months. And I couldn't get the significance of her taking her own life the night before classes started.

Turns out that both girls dated the same boy. The second girl after the first. Of course you hear every trashy story, and I am convinced all of it is manufactured drama of sixteen year olds. Whether she felt guilty for what she had done or whether she was bullied, it dosesn't matter. It had to do with our societies inexplicable need to force children into adult behaviors.

If you want to cure our societies ills:

Stop child sexual abuse. Statistics show it is as high as 30 to 40 percent for both girls and boys!

Stop objectifying children. Even my exwife and I used to get into it. Now my kids know what to wear around me. If it is too salacious, forget about it. Ten to fifteen year old girls should not wear what pop stars wear. Pop stars should not wear what pop stars wear.

You will always have abortion, an after affect, when you grow your children to lust after empty meaningless sex. Our society imprints a childs worth as equivalent to their sexual attractiveness. This kind of superficiality is deadly when you try to eliminate abortion. First of all promescuity rises tremendously, as does random, unplanned sex, by individuals unable to deal with the consequences of their actions, and a general devaluation of life occurs. If a child has poor self worth, and doesn't respect the value of their own life, how are they to value any other life? That makes abortion a much more tenable option.

I may be an unusual case but I describe myself in favor of women's rights over their body, and an anti-abortionist. I believe contraception is an individuals rights. I have seven children, all who I love and adore, but I wouldn't force that on anyone.

The bottom line is that I want to see them and their children prosper. Going back to back room abortions is no alternative. Needing an abortion can be limited, if not eliminated, with honesty and love. If we start by loving our children so they really get a good idea of their self worth. And if we teach them that nothing is so severe, and nothing more precious than the gift of their lives, then maybe more of our children can grow up to be healthy happy adults.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Sorry to hear that, bog. Great post and great point on the rest.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
If you want to cure our societies ills:

Stop child sexual abuse. . .
Stop objectifying children.
You will always have abortion, an after affect, when you grow your children to lust after empty meaningless sex.

Bog,

So sorry for your daughter's friend. That is pure tragedy. Her parent's must be going through hell right now.

The connection you make is very similar to the one that Pope Paul VI makes in his 1968 encyclical Humana Vitae. However, his view is not taken seriously outside of the Church because he taught that one of the majors roots that causes the abuse and objectification was birth control. Why, because the Church, as well as natural law, demonstrates an "inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

All that means is that you can't separate sexulaity (in general) from procreation (in general). Once sexual gratification is seen as an end unto itself, rather than part of the larger procreatice act, then certain consequences follow (just as its is wonderful to enjoy good food, but if we separate gratification of our hunger apart from nourishment we eat junk, get fat, and lose our health). The biggest consequences are:

1) Loss of respect for women ("a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.")
2) Lowering of moral standards ("Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.")
3) Abuse of power (one child policy, third world sterilizations, sexualied sex-ed, etc.)

The Pope is not talking about consequences that would flow from one act of contraception, but the concequences that flow from the changed attitude about sexuality that come with the embrace of the technique.

Other consequences include:
- the wholesale recasting of irresponsible, destructive behavior would be as healthy and responsible (i.e., random sex is "responsible" so long as protection is used).
- Reconcieving of the body as something we own that we can manipulate as we please for our won ends (sterilization, masturbation, etc.)

But as you alluded to, the Pope's asking people (1) not to engage in premarial sex, (2) not to use birth control and control themselves within their marriage, and even (3) asking them to not kill their children in utero, is considered tantamount to "forcing them" to have tons of kids. Its also been blamed for the AIDS crisis, hatred against homosexuals, etc.

So I am certainly not expecting anyone to be convinced, I just thought it was an interesting connection. In fact, some might argue that the abuse of children is just an unfortunate biproduct of the fact that we finally have more access to sex. Just as a lot of crime occurs because of alcohol (but prohibition was a lousy idea and people should be able to get drunk if they want) and lots of murders happen with guns (thoughthat is certainly not the fault of law abiding gun owners), some kids are going to get hur by our new freedomst, but most, on the whole are better off.

To me, all this has nothign to do with whether abortion is murder, though. Either the child is a human being, and its murder, or she is not. If she isn't, our current situation is exceptable, if she is, than its wrong.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I understand what you are saying. I have read your post it is awesome.

I am with you on all but one aspect. I don't want to get into biology or humanism or catholicism. And I don't mean to be disrespectful.

A problem I have had with Catholicism for a while now is it leads to assumptions, because we are human. I think there was one small assumption in what you explained that causes the entire difference with what I was trying to express and you so aptly put.

I think you can enjoy food, even if you are not hungry, it is just that a more stringent set of rules of conduct apply. If I go to a banquet or reception, and I am not truly, hungry, I can partake, but I have to be responsible not to be a pig, to go to the gymn, and not to take the food out of others mouths' as I have had my fill.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Bogs that is a sad story.

Not to be trite but I've had enough of this abortion stuff. Anybody see that the GOP is using the "we built this" theme in a convention center built using largely public funds? Oh sweet irony. Maybe they should've just had the convention in Sheldon Adelson's backyard. Let's go Golson!
 
Last edited:

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
Bogs that is a sad story.

Not to be trite but I've had enough of this abortion stuff. Anybody see that the GOP is using the "we built this" theme in a convention center built using largely public funds? Oh sweet irony. Maybe they should've just had the convention in Sheldon Adelson's backyard. Let's go Golson!

They can have it in my backyard. Just as long as they don't trample the gardenias and hibiscus.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
They can have it in my backyard. Just as long as they don't trample the gardenias and hibiscus.

That's hilarious. Actually, I went to the after party of the California GOP Convention. It was kind of strange. Half to a third of the people were in a prayer circle. The rest were getting blotto and daring these two hot chicks to make out with each other. One guy (mid twenties I'm guessing) was dressed just like Waldo from Where's Waldo. The point being they would trample your plants but then they would pray for them.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Bluto - Republicans can claim just as much of the mess that was built as Democrats.

Republicans have largely built -
1) the military industrial complex
2) The fiscal cliff (by not making the Bush cuts permanent in the first place)
3) Housing bubble arm in arm with democrats
4) Expanded Medicare we couldn't afford
5) Expanded Federal influence in education with No Child Left Behind rather than eliminating the department of Education
6) Generally spent like drunken sailors (albeit less drunk than democrat sailors)

Oh, I know it is a reference to government deserving credit for making roads and bridges and discovering the internet. Last I checked though, tax payer funds paid for all the above (except for the $16 trillion borrowed). Taxpayers consist mostly of rich people and tax dollars are disproportionately paid by the upper 1%. Obama is not afraid to bite the hand that feeds the country (metaphorically) and expects this to somehow translate to the most productive choosing to be more productive and not take their business elsewhere. Conversely, the Republican theme is trying to respect the hand that feeds the country and theoretically do something to encourage more domestic production leading to more jobs and income to tax. (you may call this "giving" in to rich people)

Make a behavior less expensive and you will get more of it. Whether that is murder or manufacturing, make it easier to do and you will get more of it.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
That's hilarious. Actually, I went to the after party of the California GOP Convention. It was kind of strange. Half to a third of the people were in a prayer circle. The rest were getting blotto and daring these two hot chicks to make out with each other. One guy (mid twenties I'm guessing) was dressed just like Waldo from Where's Waldo. The point being they would trample your plants but then they would pray for them.

At first I thought you said "pay", and figured that would be OK. But now reading that you said "pray", that wouldn't work. The wife would probably like that, but I wouldn't want to **** off the atheists in the neighborhood.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Thinking outloud relating to the "fiscal cliff"

Taking these numbers from an analyst report:
$255B - expiration of Bush tax cuts ($50B high earners)
$112B - Payroll tax cut expires (back to 6.2% SS instead of 4.2%)
$55B - Debt ceiling annual sequester for defense
$55B - Debt ceiling annual sequester for non-defense
$38B - AMT "patch"
$21B - Medicare tax of 3.8% on investment income thanks to Obamacare

$536B TOTAL "negative" economic impact ($110 spending cuts to $426 tax increases) EQUAL to 3.5% of estimated 2013 GDP - making this the largest percentage change since the end of WWII.


My question, however, relates to US Budget spending on foreign items. For example, of the $1 trillion spent in Iraq and Afganistan, how much was put into their economy, never to be seen by us again? Even beyond the wast of money on multiple "bases" and payoffs to locals, a fair amount of soldier pay gets pumped into their local economy versus coming home. What portion of military spending is supporting foreign economies with 150+ bases around the world and $1 trillion+ spent in Iraq and Afganistan?

I have a client, civil engineer, who was building bases in Afganistan. Incredibly expensive infrastructure stuff going on there and I fail to see how more than half of that spending makes it back to the US. At least with the rebuilding of Europe and Japan in the late 1940s we had serious benefit of trading partnerships. That is virtually non-existent in the middle east.

So, now even conservatives say we can't cut spending or raise taxes too much because of the negative effect on GDP pushing us back into recession. I suggest all spending and tax increases are not created equal. Defense cuts I submit would have the lowest impact on GDP since a lot of the cuts are foreign spent. In this matter, I believe Obama actually has an upper hand since Romney and Ryan are committed to spending money on military regardless of what is necessary or effective.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Meanwhile, I think lower tax rates while eliminating most deductions would raise more revenue today AND tomorrow.

More importantly, corporate tax rate adjustments offer the most bang for the buck. Think about a flat 15%, permanent corporate rate with 5% repatriation of profits? Think some companies would move operations here and get us working? That structure may cost the US about $100B in revenue on the corporate side upfront but likely is quickly made up by increased payroll and income taxes along with faster growing corporate taxes as companies look to work in the US first. Obama has indicated some flexibility on corporate taxation and may have a legitimate chance if he is reelected.

So defense spending and corporate tax reform, the only two areas I think Obama is not toxic to the economy. Thankfully, they may be two of the biggest bang for buck trade-offs and can make up ground for the other destructive actions (and the fact the private energy business is thriving in spite of Obama's regulatory environment).
 
Messages
11,214
Reaction score
377
Romney brought up Obama's birth certificate today.

Since Obama's mother was an American citizen, wouldn't that make him an American citizen no matter where he was born? Romney's dad was born in Mexico, but his parents were American citizens. Romney's dad ran for president in 1968.

I think the birther stuff is nonsense. Doesn't Romney have anything of substance to talk about? He's been avoiding specifics for months now.
 
Last edited:

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
...Doesn't Romney have anything of substance to talk about? He's been avoiding specifics for months now.

Romney has several white papers published, all outling specific proposals in different areas. They're on his site, but I'm sure you can also find them using Google.

Is there a specific policy area you're interested in?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Romney brought up Obama's birth certificate today.

Since Obama's mother was an American citizen, wouldn't that make him an American citizen no matter where he was born? Romney's dad was born in Mexico, but his parents were American citizens. Romney's dad ran for president in 1968.

I think the birther stuff is nonsense. Doesn't Romney have anything of substance to talk about? He's been avoiding specifics for months now.

I'm not a "birther" per se, mostly due to apathy, but i do find it interesting that none of his college records, which would show a foreign birth, have ever been released. I'm think it's 50/50 that he was born on Indonesia.

I think an amendment is needed that allows foreign-born people to be eligible for President. It's a nonsensical law and a total nonissue.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,214
Reaction score
377
I'm not a "birther," but i do find it interesting that none of his college records, which would show a foreign birth, have ever been released. I'm think it's 50/50 that he was born on Indonesia.

I think an amendment is needed that allows foreign-born people to be eligible for President. It's a nonsensical law.

His mom moved him to Indonesia when he was 5 years old.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
I understand what you are saying. I have read your post it is awesome.

I am with you on all but one aspect. I don't want to get into biology or humanism or catholicism. And I don't mean to be disrespectful.

A problem I have had with Catholicism for a while now is it leads to assumptions, because we are human. I think there was one small assumption in what you explained that causes the entire difference with what I was trying to express and you so aptly put.

I think you can enjoy food, even if you are not hungry, it is just that a more stringent set of rules of conduct apply. If I go to a banquet or reception, and I am not truly, hungry, I can partake, but I have to be responsible not to be a pig, to go to the gymn, and not to take the food out of others mouths' as I have had my fill.

You are absolutely right on that the analogy breaks apart at a point. While there used to be a sin called gluttony (is there still?), there was never a sense that your eating is as big a deal in the moral life as sex and and simply was not treated as such. Sex, on the other hand, has a lot of direct commandments, teachings, and prohibitions involved because the result of misguided sexuality is broken spirits and pregnant women (as opposed to spare-tires and stomach aches). Its very intuitive. A man might get mad if you eat his last steak, but he might shoot you if you sleep with his wife. So analogous, but not equivalent.

The point is, though, that both have a primary purpose (reporoduction, nourishment) that needs to be kept in perspective in order for the pleasurable aspects of the experience not to end up distorting it. The Catholic view is pretty stark, treating almost sex more like morphine than beer (you can use this, but only under the doctos strict instructions or it will kill you). There is plenty of evidence to back this approach up. Protestants, on the other hand, seem to generally agree that as long as it is between husband and wife its all good. That kind of matches up with your analogy better. There are good arguments here, as well.
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532

Didn't read the article, but I hold out zero hope that anyone can balance the budget. Even if Romney wanted to, the chances of Congress going along with the steps that would be necessary, make it a pipe dream. When you have people screaming bloody murder when you simply talk about slowing the growth of spending and not even real cuts from current spending levels. There are simply to many special interest groups and to many people with their hands out, who like the concept of controlling spending, but only if it's in areas that don't directly impact them.
 
Top