The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
And whose state counterparts then largely aim to make it difficult, either through directly enacting laws saying "no abortions" (fine, the people spoke) or the more underhanded laws like waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, specific and arbitrary conditions abortion providers must meet, with the aim of frustrating abortion seekers and abortion providers into giving up (not fine). Either man up and ban it explicitly with the support of the people or don't bother.
Hey, if you're trying to convince me that government regulations can make things a frustrating nightmare for some people, then you're barking up the wrong tree. :p But I think it's a meritless argument on this subject. The "what if's" should be dealt with as they happen. Everything the government does can be done badly, and usually is, but that's not a good enough reason to not bother with democracy.

The people did speak at the federal level[/URL]; there's no federal requirement to use taxpayer dollars for abortion, so states that do either do so voluntarily (their people spoke) or are under court orders due to the state-level nonfunding not passing their own legal muster. (I provide this source because it gives the legal cases for all the court injunctions. Google them to get the actual rulings.)
Again, no argument here, but that's the crux of republican objections to funding organizations like Planned Parenthood. Simply telling people that the money isn't going directly to abortions is of little comfort to those that see it as murder. Personally, I think the world is overpopulated as it is, but there is a serious and legitimate moral issue there and I don't think the issue will go away until federal funding is divested from abortions by a wider margin. Kinda like Trump and his supposed separation from his businesses. The conflict of interest is still there and I cannot blame people for believing Trump may do things in office to benefit his "old" companies.

Funny that your own source says this:

But I'm rather talking about most of this.
I was asking specifically what you were talking about. I've gone through Snopes on Mike Pence, because of all the stuff coming out about him, and it's amusing how many accusations are outright false or grossly exaggerated. There definitely seems to be a campaign to smear him.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,961
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
You mean the party that wants the people to vote on whether they want abortion to be legal in their states? For the people to not be forced to pay for abortions against their will? Aren't you guys big on democracy, freedom, choice, voting, etc? Or is that just for causes/policies that you oppose?

Trump can't ban abortion. He could nominate a supreme court justice that is against abortion, but that also wouldn't be enough to ban abortion. It's possible Roe vs Wade could get overturned someday, but that also isn't enough to ban abortion. The idea that abortion rights are in danger from Trump is at best a gross exaggeration, if not a flat out lie.
1. For the hundredth time - federal tax dollars do not go toward abortions.
2. Your questions reveal the magnitude of the problem - why the hell is abortion a political issue on which people have to vote about? Blind_Io said it before me - abortion is a medical procedure which is part of individual reproductive health. Why would other people in the state I live get to vote on what I choose to do about the health of my body? So I shall redirect your question to you - if America is so big on freedom, why can't I have the freedom to decide what to do with my body and life, and why should my neighbors have a say in whether I have a baby or not?

I think it deeply bothers him the Women's March probably got attendance rivaling his inauguration.
Looking at the latest numbers, the Women's March vastly outnumbered Trump's inauguration. But yes, the fact that his biggest concern is he didn't get as big of a crowd size is laughable. Some media may be baiting him, and he is falling for it every single time.
 

CD82

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
1,521
Location
German in Switzerland
Car(s)
Audi A3 2.0 TDI
The fact that he even feels the need to comment on this issue somewhat reminds me of a certain Turkish Head of State who also likes to set everything in just the right light.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
2. Your questions reveal the magnitude of the problem - why the hell is abortion a political issue on which people have to vote about? Blind_Io said it before me - abortion is a medical procedure which is part of individual reproductive health. Why would other people in the state I live get to vote on what I choose to do about the health of my body? So I shall redirect your question to you - if America is so big on freedom, why can't I have the freedom to decide what to do with my body and life, and why should my neighbors have a say in whether I have a baby or not?
Because murder is not legal in any first world nation with a moral code?

At least that is the argument that is at the center of the pro-life position and I've never heard a convincing counter argument. Personally, I could go either way on it, but that is my observation. Human life is supposedly sacred, except when it becomes an inconvenience. Most of the arguments against it being murder seem to revolve around purely arbitrary things, like the size of the fetus (as if size matters when it comes to human life) or the development of organs or brain activity, or the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb, which is a moving goal post due to scientific advancement. So much of it seems very arbitrary to me, which makes it far less convincing.

I'd rather leave it to voters, who are majority female, and simply abstain. Like I have my whole life.
 

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,420
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
Because murder is not legal in any first world nation with a moral code?
Abortion is murder is a religious conviction, at least that's the argument provided whenever I hear of it. If I don't subscribe to the religion, why should it have a say over me?
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Abortion is murder is a religious conviction, at least that's the argument provided whenever I hear of it. If I don't subscribe to the religion, why should it have a say over me?
I've honestly never heard religion in the abortion argument. Not once. I'm not even sure where it's supposed to fit in. Thou shall not kill? Seems a bit weak. The idea of abortion being murder seems more in line with science than religion, imo. The idea that the birth canal somehow bestows humanity on clusters of cells that pass through it has always seemed rather illogical to me. In line with a belief more so than a truth.
 

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,420
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
I've honestly never heard religion in the abortion argument. Not once. I'm not even sure where it's supposed to fit in. Thou shall not kill? Seems a bit weak. The idea of abortion being murder seems more in line with science than religion, imo. The idea that the birth canal somehow bestows humanity on clusters of cells that pass through it has always seemed rather illogical to me. In line with a belief more so than a truth.
That is quite surprising. Every time someone throws 'abortion is murder' at me, it's followed with a Bible verse about sanctity of life, or God "knowing you in the womb", or something more vague like these three. Not once have I heard another argument.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
That is quite surprising. Every time someone throws 'abortion is murder' at me, it's followed with a Bible verse about sanctity of life, or God "knowing you in the womb", or something more vague like these three. Not once have I heard another argument.
No offense, but I think you may have fallen victim to confirmation bias.

It wouldn't surprise me if religious folks were more outspoken about abortion, but that doesn't mean "abortion is murder" is a religious belief. You've started with a conclusion and worked backwards to substantiate it. I can easily argue the position that it is murder without ever bringing up religion at all.



On a side note, this reminded me of an atheist rant that religious people are not truly moral because they only believe what they believe because their holy books say so. Whereas atheists believe what they do based on logic and reason. If we cannot agree that human life is sacred or whatever, more important than the life of animals or plants, than what can we agree on?

But lets not fly off on another tangent.
 
Last edited:

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,984
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
That is quite surprising. Every time someone throws 'abortion is murder' at me, it's followed with a Bible verse about sanctity of life, or God "knowing you in the womb", or something more vague like these three. Not once have I heard another argument.
Here is an pro-life anti-theist arguing against abortion.


You may not agree with Christopher Hitchens, but you can't accuse him of following his argument with a Bible verse.
 
Last edited:

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,420
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
No offense, but I think you may have fallen victim to confirmation bias.

It wouldn't surprise me if religious folks were more outspoken about abortion, but that doesn't mean "abortion is murder" is a religious belief. You've started with a conclusion and worked backwards to substantiate it. I can easily argue the position that it is murder without ever bringing up religion at all.
That's not selection bias from me. I guarantee you that every time I've heard it, it's been either unsubstantiated (a simple "Abortion is murder" poster with no argument backing it) or religious, from the nutter standing on a corner with a megaphone demanding passers-by repent to people who will quote Bible verses at me. I don't suggest my life hasn't had confirmation bias built into it, since it seems only the religious nutters have the wherewithal to commit to standing on a corner on a college campus and I'm not exactly an extrovert. I shall investigate secular arguments further.

Back on presidency news: After a campaign-long promise to reveal his tax returns after an audit is completed, the administration just dropped that altogether and said he's not releasing them. Period.

A related side, I'm surprised the petitions site wasn't taken down as part of the general website realignment after his inauguration. Could have seem a petition like that coming from a mile away.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,984
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
That's not selection bias from me. I guarantee you that every time I've heard it, it's been either unsubstantiated (a simple "Abortion is murder" poster with no argument backing it) or religious, from the nutter standing on a corner with a megaphone demanding passers-by repent to people who will quote Bible verses at me. I don't suggest my life hasn't had confirmation bias built into it, since it seems only the religious nutters have the wherewithal to commit to standing on a corner on a college campus and I'm not exactly an extrovert. I shall investigate secular arguments further.
Right above your post is one with Christopher Hitchens arguing against abortion on humanistic grounds.
 

jasonof2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,938
Location
Delmarva Peninsula
Car(s)
2013 Lincoln MKT, 2002 Miata SE, 2012 Honda NC700
That's not selection bias from me. I guarantee you that every time I've heard it, it's been either unsubstantiated (a simple "Abortion is murder" poster with no argument backing it) or religious, from the nutter standing on a corner with a megaphone demanding passers-by repent to people who will quote Bible verses at me. I don't suggest my life hasn't had confirmation bias built into it, since it seems only the religious nutters have the wherewithal to commit to standing on a corner on a college campus and I'm not exactly an extrovert. I shall investigate secular arguments further.
I've heard secular arguments against abortion, but 9 times out of 10 it will be some christian wingnut who wants to base our lives off a bronze age book with no basis in reality.

BTW I'm an atheist and I don't give the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins any time.
 
Last edited:

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,984
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I've heard secular arguments against abortion, but 9 times out of 10 it will be some christian wingnut who wants to base our lives off a bronze age book with no basis in reality.

BTW I'm an atheist and I don't give the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins any time.
I don't agree with Hitchens' stance on abortion, but PelicanHazard's idea that only religious people are against it is wrong. Even the Soviet Union banned abortions.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,741
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I've honestly never heard religion in the abortion argument. Not once. I'm not even sure where it's supposed to fit in. Thou shall not kill? Seems a bit weak. The idea of abortion being murder seems more in line with science than religion, imo. The idea that the birth canal somehow bestows humanity on clusters of cells that pass through it has always seemed rather illogical to me. In line with a belief more so than a truth.
If it were in line with science early term abortions wouldn't even be up for discussion, a zygote is not a human on any level. The religious argument is actually very simple and obvious, everything is in the hands of <insert deity here> and hence both conception of a child and it's ability to survive is part of <insert deity here>'s plan. There is also a belief that the 'bundle of cells' has a soul and therefore is a sentient being by our reckoning.

Outlawing abortions makes absolutely no sense from a social perspective, unwanted children are a burden on society in many different ways. Either they end up a ward of the state along with the mother, divert resources from the family that would have possibly gone to better causes, like say education, or are not raised properly and add to a large list of criminal statistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an pro-life anti-theist arguing against abortion.


You may not agree with Christopher Hitchens, but you can't accuse him of following his argument with a Bible verse.
Hitchens also said that he could not, in good conscience, impose his views on someone and stand in the way of legalized abortion.

Personally after having 2 kids I have a hard time with abortion simply because I know what the end result is, on the other hand I do happen to know of a child being raised in a drug dealer family and likely never seeing a very good future....

- - - Updated - - -

I don't agree with Hitchens' stance on abortion, but PelicanHazard's idea that only religious people are against it is wrong. Even the Soviet Union banned abortions.
Umm when? They were perfectly legal for at least two generations before the collapse. Also USSR is not a good example of humanism, the entire ideology was based on people working towards the common goal, USSR needed workers and soldiers. Nazis needed the same btw, which is why there are all these stories of 14 year old girls getting pregnant "fur Fuhrer".
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,984
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Hitchens also said that he could not, in good conscience, impose his views on someone and stand in the way of legalized abortion.
Yes, but he gave a non-religious reason to be against abortion.

Umm when? They were perfectly legal for at least two generations before the collapse. Also USSR is not a good example of humanism, the entire ideology was based on people working towards the common goal, USSR needed workers and soldiers. Nazis needed the same btw, which is why there are all these stories of 14 year old girls getting pregnant "fur Fuhrer".
They were banned for a period.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section5.htm

I mentioned them as an example of a non religious anti-abortion prohibition. In the USSR's case, it had to do with so many people having died as a result of Communist policies. The prohibition happened not long after the Ukrainian famine (the one where the Party told people not to eat their children. Go Marxism!).
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
Back on presidency news: After a campaign-long promise to reveal his tax returns after an audit is completed, the administration just dropped that altogether and said he's not releasing them. Period.

A related side, I'm surprised the petitions site wasn't taken down as part of the general website realignment after his inauguration. Could have seem a petition like that coming from a mile away.

The White House made it clear the petition site was worthless not long after they created it, with the first few responses:
https://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/10/31/0018213/the-white-house-responds-to-we-the-people-petition#comments
https://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/11/01/1733220/white-house-responds-to-software-patents-petition
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/14/1718255/white-house-responds-to-sopa-pipa-and-open
https://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/0218206/white-house-refuses-to-comment-on-petition-to-investigate-chris-dodd


It didn't take long before the public got the message, and also stopped taking it seriously:
https://idle.slashdot.org/story/12/12/14/2219218/white-house-must-answer-petition-to-build-death-star
https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/01/12/130201/this-isnt-the-petition-response-youre-looking-for

I can say without sarcasm that the Death Star petition got the most relevant and informative response out of any of those. The site was never anything more than a PR stunt for the Obama Administration to pretend it gave a shit about what the people wanted.

That said, I agree. If it had any teeth at all to it, Trump would have dismantled it (but then, Obama would have never started it in the first place).
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
If it were in line with science early term abortions wouldn't even be up for discussion, a zygote is not a human on any level.
From my post, it should have been clear that I was referring to the belief that it's not a human being until it's born. It is that belief that seems more in line with religion than science from my perspective. Most people don't believe that though. Even someone like Hitchens didn't buy into it. So when does the cluster of cells become a human life? That's the part that I find a bit wishy washy. Lots of arbitrary distinctions and moving goal posts due to advances in science.

The religious argument is actually very simple and obvious, everything is in the hands of <insert deity here> and hence both conception of a child and it's ability to survive is part of <insert deity here>'s plan. There is also a belief that the 'bundle of cells' has a soul and therefore is a sentient being by our reckoning.
I'm not trying to say religious people don't have opinions that involve their beliefs. I'm specifically disputing the idea that "abortion is murder" is a religious belief. It clearly isn't and I cannot see a single angle where it could be construed as one. That's like me finding a group of religious people who believe The Affordable Care Act is "God's work" and quote scriptures about "helping thy neighbors with medicine and healing" or whatever, and then using that to work backwards to claim that Obama Care is a religious policy that should be abolished. That's just crazy talk.

Outlawing abortions makes absolutely no sense from a social perspective, unwanted children are a burden on society in many different ways. Either they end up a ward of the state along with the mother, divert resources from the family that would have possibly gone to better causes, like say education, or are not raised properly and add to a large list of criminal statistics.
I don't disagree, but this isn't about money so much as morality. We could extend abortions after birth, for social burden reasons, but that would be murder, which is the crux of the whole issue regarding abortion.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,377
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Debates about abortion. Sounds like my highschool debate 'class'.

Next up, euthanasia !
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,741
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Yes, but he gave a non-religious reason to be against abortion.



They were banned for a period.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section5.htm

I mentioned them as an example of a non religious anti-abortion prohibition. In the USSR's case, it had to do with so many people having died as a result of Communist policies. The prohibition happened not long after the Ukrainian famine (the one where the Party told people not to eat their children. Go Marxism!).
Got it, and yes anti-abortion arguments don't have to be religious.

- - - Updated - - -

From my post, it should have been clear that I was referring to the belief that it's not a human being until it's born. It is that belief that seems more in line with religion than science from my perspective. Most people don't believe that though. Even someone like Hitchens didn't buy into it. So when does the cluster of cells become a human life? That's the part that I find a bit wishy washy. Lots of arbitrary distinctions and moving goal posts due to advances in science.
Yep it is all arbitrary, however the idea of human only after birth is neither religious nor scientific, a purely scientific view would be "minimal viable fetus" but as you correctly point out it's a moving goal post.

However the religious argument here is that if it has a soul it's a human and the believe is of course that a fetus has a soul from the beginning.

I don't disagree, but this isn't about money so much as morality. We could extend abortions after birth, for social burden reasons, but that would be murder, which is the crux of the whole issue regarding abortion.
Problem with the whole morality angle is that it gets very muddled up because it is also immoral to tell someone what to do with their body and a fetus is part of a mother's body until the umbilical is cut.

Also morality is very subjective to societies, what our society considers moral is not necessarily what others would, even within our society morality is not an absolute as some groups have different moral compass from others.

- - - Updated - - -

Debates about abortion. Sounds like my highschool debate 'class'.

Next up, euthanasia !
I think it's necessary, esp when it comes to Prius drivers
 
Last edited:

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,377
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Reddit said:
https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5phjg9/kellyanne_conway_spicer_gave_alternative_facts_on/dcrdfgn/?st=iy99x3xr&sh=83b411f1

"Orwellian"
For the first time in 30 years of Internet, this is finally the appropriate time to use that word.
Does everybody now see why I've been bitching about its abuse for the last 30 years? Starbucks issuing a holiday cup that doesn't mention Christmas is not "Orwellian." Reddit shutting down a couple of racey subs is not "Orwellian." When you scream "fascist" and "Orwell" at every trivial bullshit thing, you have no words left to draw attention to the urgency of the current situation.


Prerequisite reading: The actual BOOK, Nineteen Eighty-Four. It?s not enough just to know the title. It?s not enough to know the TV reality show which is Big Brother?s namesake. The Cliff?s notes you used to skim by it on the exam aren?t enough. Book, whole book.
In the book, Winston Smith is a character working for the ?Ministry of Truth,? the ironically named branch of government responsible for fixing the media to be always in Big Brother?s favor. If Big Brother says something which turns out to be wrong, the MoT edits it. If the offending news item was so incorrect as to be ludicrous, sometimes Smith replaces that day?s statement with complete fabrication, such as awarding a metal to a non-existent war hero. Records of items the MoT wants to purge go down the ?memory hole,? implied to be an incinerator.
In this government, slogans are enforced, including "War is peace", "Freedom is slavery", and "Ignorance is strength." At one point the government switches its alliance from the countries of Eurasia to Eastasia and a speaker in mid-rant against one is handed a note and corrects himself to immediately continue ranting against the other as if the entire speech had been about that. A motif frequently cited in the book is ?Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.?


This shows a fundamental method of the dystopia: The absolute control of media and attempt to control the thinking of every individual through brute force. At no point does the government worry that its subjects will jump up and go ?Wait a minute, you just told us we were at war with Eurasia! I remember it, it just happened!? Whenever anybody does, off they go to the ?Ministry of Love? where they get tortured until they see it Big Brother?s way. But most people don?t. Most people show an eerie, cow-like ability to be led, against everything a logical mind would expect.
Trump has demonstrated an uncanny, almost unbelievable ability to just bend the past however he wants. And you can protest all you want; nobody is really stopping him. We all get shocked in the moment - How could he have the unmitigated gall to say this shocking thing? But he delivers these shocks so regularly that nobody has time to fully process them. If a scandal blows up for more than two days, Trump will just do something else outrageous and the former story will be dropped to cover the new one. Trump is exploiting the media?s goldfish attention span. He?s overloading the news, giving them so much scandal that they don?t even have time to cover it all.


And his gall has extended to stunts like telling the intelligence community, to their faces, that all the bad things he said about them only weeks ago simply did not happen. How about the border wall with Mexico and deporting the Muslims, what about those campaign promises? If he accomplishes them, he?s crow about it, but if he doesn?t, he?ll deny he ever made them. It doesn?t matter how many printed copies of the truth you have. It doesn?tmatter how many videos you have incriminating him. Trump doesn?t even need a memory hole. His method counts on the American people to be really THAT stupid - and apparently, he?s right. How can a man brag about sexual assault, make cruel fun of handicapped people, and refuse to release his tax returns over and over, yet still make it this far? Isn?t it amazing? Well, he?ll keep doing it while everyone else is too stunned to know how to react.


Trump can?t lose, guys! Get used to it. He can just sculpt whatever reality he wants, and the truth will die off while the lies get screamed over and over until everybody believes them - just like his smear job against his opponent. He?s not quite the same as any politician you?ve heard of before. He?s evolved past a Nixon or a Bush. A prototype had to evolve out of the ooze sooner or later, and it?s shocking that it even took this long.


But yes, politicians have lied before, politicians have had scandals before. But Trump is simply dispensing with all the foreplay and sugar-coating. Other politicians have to spin the media and put on a good face to try to appease their way out of their scandals. Trump literally bragged he could ?shoot somebody and not lose voters.? He?s right, he could. And he?s not covering it up, he is pissing directly in your face and telling you it?s raining, and you?re going to believe it tomorrow or next week if you don?t believe it now. Other politicians bother to concoct some slippery lie when a reporter confronts them. Trump can just yell, ?I?m not going to give you a question, you are fake news!? AND. IT. WORKED! If Trump had told that reporter ?You?re a frog,? there is no doubt in my mind that that reporter would have poofed into a frog and hopped away croaking.


That?s what Orwell?s point with media was. Being able to out-debate the truth or hide the truth or P.R. your way out of the truth isn?t enough. You just erase the truth, magically in the public?s minds. Wasting your brain trying to fight it with logic is just how this strategy works against you.
That?s the key, people. Keep doing what you?re doing, and nobody will stop him. He doesn?t play by any rules written before.
Spot on.
 
Top