USA Politics

[drogulus]

You are pretending there is no third person involved: the unborn child.  Just because it can't speak up for itself does not mean it has a claim here.

     I'm not doing that. How persons are defined has a history and a present, and people lobby to change it this way or that based on moral principle or legal ones, and in some cases will import old property rights distinctions from an era when women were subservient in ways that are no longer accepted widely enough to be generally applied. We won't go back, so abortion arguments have to be made in the present context.

     Part of the problem from a historical perspective is that so much was assumed about how legal personhood worked. The modern notions don't easily fit. One such notion is that old timey people didn't understand that humans only gave birth to humans, so "life begins at conception" is advanced science. Now we know! This is not right. How permissible abortion was throughout history never depended on a discovery of that kind. Whether abortion is permitted or not can't hinge on a distinction like that.

[JBS]

     I'm not doing that. How persons are defined has a history and a present, and people lobby to change it this way or that based on moral principle or legal ones, and in some cases will import old property rights distinctions from an era when women were subservient in ways that are no longer accepted widely enough to be generally applied. We won't go back, so abortion arguments have to be made in the present context.

     Part of the problem from a historical perspective is that so much was assumed about how legal personhood worked. The modern notions don't easily fit. One such notion is that old timey people didn't understand that humans only gave birth to humans, so "life begins at conception" is advanced science. Now we know! This is not right. How permissible abortion was throughout history never depended on a discovery of that kind. Whether abortion is permitted or not can't hinge on a distinction like that.

It's got nothing to do with property rights. If it's wrong to terminate a human life eight months after birth, it's wrong to terminate a human life eight months before birth.

Life begins at conception is not a scientific question. It's a statement of fact. The only argument against it rests on the idea that some lives are worth less than other lives.

[drogulus]

Life begins at conception is not a scientific question. It's a statement of fact. The only argument against it rests on the idea that some lives are worth less than other lives.

     Of course it's a fact. I don't argue against it. I've been saying that the legal arguments are about something else, more than one something. When these arguments about law and morality fail to convince, the fallback is a bogus claim that science has a new fact to consider about when life begins.

     

[Todd]

This image must be as deflating for Republicans as the half-empty Senate Visitor's Gallery during the impeachment "trial" was for Democrats.  The outcome of the election, like the "trial", is foreordained. 

[BasilValentine]

Life begins at conception is not a scientific question. It's a statement of fact. The only argument against it rests on the idea that some lives are worth less than other lives.

Life of some kind begins at conception. More than half of all fertilized eggs never implant and end up in public waste disposal systems. Should we all grieve nonstop for the horrifying billions of lost human lives this represents? What about the minimal addition to this total caused by IUDs? If one believes that a supreme being designed or is otherwise intentionally responsible for the human reproductive system, it becomes hard to believe such a Creator cares much about the survival of "human life" in its early stages. When does the supreme being begin to care? When should we? I don't think the answer "at conception" is defensible.         

[JBS]

     Of course it's a fact. I don't argue against it. I've been saying that the legal arguments are about something else, more than one something. When these arguments about law and morality fail to convince, the fallback is a bogus claim that science has a new fact to consider about when life begins.

   

Okay, I know to put you in  "some humans are worth  more than others" category.

[JBS]

Life of some kind begins at conception. More than half of all fertilized eggs never implant and end up in public waste disposal systems. Should we all grieve nonstop for the horrifying billions of lost human lives this represents? If one believes that a supreme being designed or is otherwise intentionally responsible for the human reproductive system, it becomes hard to believe such a Creator cares much about the survival of "human life" in its early stages. When does the supreme being begin to care? When should we? I don't think the answer "at conception" is defensible.       

It's not our job to decide  what God's reasons are, or whether what God does is good or not. It's our job to be decent human beings, and part of that is caring for life from the earliest possible moment to the last possible moment.

[drogulus]

Okay, I know to put you in  "some humans are worth  more than others" category.

     I think you changed the subject, because that's not a view I hold. Mine is closer to some religious traditions concerning "quickening" than more recent innovations of the absolutist kind. I say close, in that such views at least made room for human decision about human matters.  Inhuman entities are supposed to make these decisions only because we installed them first, sometimes for very good reasons. For my part I consider the reasons separately from where they were put when they were put there. The reasons must be sufficient outside the cult that professes to own them, or they don't serve as a basis for law.

     

It's not our job to decide  what God's reasons are

     Yes, it is, and always has been.

[Karl Henning]

Separately:
At the end of the rally he threw this in: "When you see those lunatics all over the streets, it's damn nice to have arms."

[Todd]

Roosevelt Statue to Be Removed From Museum of Natural History

I wonder if the museum will find the time to remove references to the country Rhodesia in its African section, too.

[JBS]

Roosevelt Statue to Be Removed From Museum of Natural History

I wonder if the museum will find the time to remove references to the country Rhodesia in its African section, too.

I could only read half of the article before the paywall kicked in.

Does it make clear that the problem with the statue is not TR but the positioning of a black man and a Native American as inferior supporters?

[Mahlerian]

I could only read half of the article before the paywall kicked in.

Does it make clear that the problem with the statue is not TR but the positioning of a black man and a Native American as inferior supporters?

Yes. Entirely clear.

In many of those cases, the calls for removal were made by protesters who say the images are too offensive to stand as monuments to American history. The decision about the Roosevelt statue is different, made by a museum that, like others, had previously defended — and preserved — such portraits as relics of their time and that however objectionable, could perhaps serve to educate. It was then seconded by the city, which had the final say.

"The American Museum of Natural History has asked to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue because it explicitly depicts Black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior," Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement. "The City supports the Museum's request. It is the right decision and the right time to remove this problematic statue."

[Christabel]

This image must be as deflating for Republicans as the half-empty Senate Visitor's Gallery during the impeachment "trial" was for Democrats.  The outcome of the election, like the "trial", is foreordained.

That's possibly true, but it's enjoyable all the same for this non-American to see Trump causing Lefty heads to explode.  And they do, right on cue!!  He's not really Presidential in that sense, but the times are so toxic and cancerous with Lefty woke politics and their Taliban acolytes that this form of chemotherapy was absolutely necessary in the first place.

No soul-searching, self-awareness of re-appraisal from the Left:  just the usual doubling down and "he was wrong".  If you want that regime to continue you need to install a puppet you can manipulate who isn't capable of thinking for himself - and a reversion to identity politics, as before.  Oh, wait...

[SimonNZ]

Roosevelt Statue to Be Removed From Museum of Natural History

I wonder if the museum will find the time to remove references to the country Rhodesia in its African section, too.

The subheader says "The equestrian memorial to Theodore Roosevelt has long prompted objections as a symbol of colonialism and racism." just in case there's a knee-jerk reaction to the headline as this  merely being part of some irrational craze of the current moment.

[milk]

That's possibly true, but it's enjoyable all the same for this non-American to see Trump causing Lefty heads to explode.  And they do, right on cue!!  He's not really Presidential in that sense, but the times are so toxic and cancerous with Lefty woke politics and their Taliban acolytes that this form of chemotherapy was absolutely necessary in the first place.

No soul-searching, self-awareness of re-appraisal from the Left:  just the usual doubling down and "he was wrong".  If you want that regime to continue you need to install a puppet you can manipulate who isn't capable of thinking for himself - and a reversion to identity politics, as before.  Oh, wait...

I think everybody made everybody worse and social media helped. Or, maybe social media made everybody worse and everybody helped? I sort of agree that "woke" politics is self-destructive hysteria. The worst thing about it is it takes us away from reality - the reality of the problems the world is facing and I'm not excluding some of the problems that woke-sters are trying to address. We're forgetting other more pressing things though. I disagree that left politics is the cancer. It's a symptom of the medium is the message - IMO. The answer is not to put a garbage-head like tump in charge of hollowing out government and creating more hate, division and despair. The world cannot wait. And the more vacuum there is, in terms of of reason, the more chance it'll be filled by feckless blowhards.

[Christabel]

Prior to COVID the American economy was pumping and black Americans had the lowest unemployment in history. By stopping the flow of illegal, undocumented workers, wages were naturally rising.

This is how to deal with inequality alongside an attitude of aspiration rather than disempowerment. I don't see a black victim when I listen to Candace Owens or Dr Ben Carson, or many other black people who reject the narrative of oppression, itself a form of oppression.

The left like to talk about 'systemic racism' but as Dave Rubin noted in a recent interview, the left own the institutions in America from academe to the judiciary. The left don't support school choice for example, which would give black people who want a good education the option of good schools. It's Trump's policy and the Dems are beholden to unions so naturally the Left are against it. So who does systemic racism of low expectations? Who needs an angry victim class for relevancy?

Notice the calls to defund the police are backed by those people who can afford the luxury of private security. Cities like NY are seeing an explosion in violent crime.

It's poor black and white communities who bear the brunt of stupid policy pushed by the far left with endorsement of wealthy narcissistic celebrities who do little of practical value but like to virtue signal in cringeworthy videos. How about they do something useful like set up scholarships for bright black kids?

As a side note, it's interesting that Rubin now gets labelled as "alt right". He's your classical liberal (openly gay man living in California) who woke up to the toxicity of far leftist ideology and left the Left - hence the hate. He calls it 'red pilling' and believes more thinking people who once identified as Democrat are fleeing the party.

[Todd]

Does it make clear that the problem with the statue is not TR but the positioning of a black man and a Native American as inferior supporters?

It does, and anyone who has been there would also see it.  Depending on which exhibits visitors happen to stop by, they may see other outdated representations of other peoples.  For such a vaunted museum in such a wealthy city with so many wealthy benefactors, some of the exhibits are quite outdated.  The whole thing appears well suited to a full scrub down in today's cancel culture.  Erase the past and replace it with something more sanitized and less prone to trigger poor, oppressed souls.

[Todd]

Hold your horses, big guy. There's been a lot of controversy about that today and Dems like AOC are claiming left wing trolls on Tik Tok sabotaged the attendance while Team Trump claims people stayed home and watched it from there due to Covid fears.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-rejects-idea-that-tiktok-k-pop-fans-sabotaged-rally-dont-know-what-theyre-talking-about

One video circulating on Twitter seems to corroborate AOC and Dem meddling in Tulsa:

https://twitter.com/ravagiing/status/1274797591146967043?s=21

U3 = 13.3% = Trump defeat. 

Acceptance > Denial.

[Todd]

Hey, I'm just talking about the rally.

The rally was underattended.  Acceptance > Denial.

I won't use the obvious FDR references, but rather I will offer the case of Ike.  He was reelected after unemployment rose by 1.4 points.  Ike > Trump.

[JBS]

Hold your horses, big guy. There's been a lot of controversy about that today and Dems like AOC are claiming left wing trolls on Tik Tok sabotaged the attendance while Team Trump claims people stayed home and watched it from there due to Covid fears.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-rejects-idea-that-tiktok-k-pop-fans-sabotaged-rally-dont-know-what-theyre-talking-about

One video circulating on Twitter seems to corroborate AOC and Dem meddling in Tulsa:

https://twitter.com/ravagiing/status/1274797591146967043?s=21

Anyone who showed up could have gotten in. Meaning there were not quite 13,000 people who could have gotten in despite the trolling...but didn't.
If they stayed away because of Covid19, that just shows some Trump supporters are not dumb.