Political Matrix

[Gurn Blanston]

Bulldog? how about Bullshit, i think that handle suits you better.

I would hate to have to lock this one too, but you, in particular, give the appearance of being totally out of control. It's a pity really, but you need to get a grip or stay out of the Diner, where the topics seem to be too stirring for your emotions.

GB

[Philoctetes]

Honestly, how did this thread get derailed?!

It's clear to anyone that this 'debate' will not be resolved.

So quit acting like children, and that goes for any side of the coin.

I mean seriously, people.

[The new erato]

The Gurninator appears. Things are getting interestinger!

The derailing is as expected, involving the usual suspects.

[Franco]

I don't see any well-reasoned arguments in JdP's posts?

I see a reasoned argument that I don't happen to agree with, and he is not calling anyone names either.

[Todd]

The lesson I take away from this thread is that wedge issues matter!

[Bulldog]

Bulldog? how about Bullshit, i think that handle suits you better.

I didn't realize you're a foul-mouthed critter, but you are now on my radar.

[oabmarcus]

I don't think they should be illegal, and never advocated such a thing.  I don't care about gay marriage - but regarding abortions, I consider them a matter of private choice (same with end of life issues), but not something I should be forced into supporting by having government subsidize them with the taxes I've paid.

What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in? We help out the poor with food stamps,  and food banks, don't we? I don't like your use of the word "subsidize", no matter how hard the government subsidize abortion spending. It will have no real impact on the rate of abortion, people don't just go and get abortion. It's painful physically and emotionally for the patient, what some are asking is merely a matter of extending help to those who couldn't afford the procedures.

[Bulldog]

What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in?

No - you should step up to the plate and pay for it.

[oabmarcus]

I would hate to have to lock this one too, but you, in particular, give the appearance of being totally out of control. It's a pity really, but you need to get a grip or stay out of the Diner, where the topics seem to be too stirring for your emotions.

GB

or maybe the people who stir my emotions (that includes you btw) should stay away from the dinner. Why should the people who are sensible and rational always let the other side get away with outrageous conduct? That's not what you should shoot for. Me calling names is not okay, but them spreading hate and destroying lives is? What kind of logic is that?

[Gurn Blanston]

What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in? We help out the poor with food stamps,  and food banks, don't we? I don't like your use of the word "subsidize", no matter how hard the government subsidize abortion spending. It will have no real impact on the rate of abortion, people don't just go and get abortion. It's painful physically and emotionally for the patient, what some are asking is merely a matter of extending help to those who couldn't afford the procedures.

Yes, and that's the nub of the issue, IMO. Since this sort of situation is clearly the exception rather than the rule, people who would stand by it on its own fell they are being railroaded into general support because they would make an exception. I don't want MY tax $$$ being spent on abortion if it is being used as a form of birth control, although I would support it in the rare exception that you bring up.

But you can always bring up exceptions, they don't = the general situation.

[oabmarcus]

No - you should step up to the plate and pay for it.

so, the poor get fucked (again for the nth time), and their lives ruined forever. Is that your idea of a fair, just society?

[Daverz]

I don't think they should be illegal, and never advocated such a thing.  I don't care about gay marriage - but regarding abortions, I consider them a matter of private choice (same with end of life issues), but not something I should be forced into supporting by having government subsidize them with the taxes I've paid.

I see abortion as a healthcare issue.  If government is funding healthcare (in the US context it already does for some classes of people; young service men and women, for example), then I don't see a case for singling out legal abortions among healthcare procedures.  And, no, not because some folk find it morally objectionable.   And no, it's not only stupid sluts who need abortions, Todd.

[Lethevich]

but them spreading hate and destroying lives is? What kind of logic is that?

An opinion = nobody harmed.

And accusations of "destroying lives" coming from a pro-abortion POV is kind of funny.

[Gurn Blanston]

or maybe the people who stir my emotions (that includes you btw) should stay away from the dinner. Why should the people who are sensible and rational always let the other side get away with outrageous conduct? That's not what you should shoot for. Me calling names is not okay, but them spreading hate and destroying lives is? What kind of logic is that?

Funny, you don't sound sensible and rational, you're the one that sounds like he hasn't even a vague handle on himself. You can be as pissed at me as you want, it doesn't hurt me a bit, and I can always make your posting career less worthwhile than it is now. You should keep that in mind.

[oabmarcus]

Yes, and that's the nub of the issue, IMO. Since this sort of situation is clearly the exception rather than the rule, people who would stand by it on its own fell they are being railroaded into general support because they would make an exception. I don't want MY tax $$$ being spent on abortion if it is being used as a form of birth control, although I would support it in the rare exception that you bring up.

But you can always bring up exceptions, they don't = the general situation.

Yeah, but the problem is. The far right groups, who are pushing for the legislation. Ban on abortion, meant to BAN ALL FORMS OF ABORTION. I think Sharron Angle made it rather clear. If you got pregnant, say raped by your own father. Too bad, the law says no abortion, and you are going to deliver that baby. How is that reasonable?

[Franco]

What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in?

No.  It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility and support a "procedure" I find unethical.  If she cannot afford an abortion she can keep the child or put it up for adoption.   But to think she should be shielded from any undesired consequences is not good public policy, IMO.

[The new erato]

I see abortion as a healthcare issue.  If government is funding healthcare (in the US context it already does for some classes of people; young service men and women, for example), then I don't see a case for singling out legal abortions among healthcare procedures.  And, no, not because some folk find it morally objectionable.   And no, it's not only stupid sluts who need abortions, Todd.

More or less my view as well. And those in need of abortion often will be those most in need of it, as well as least able to take the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.

[The new erato]

No.  It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility

........which is an argument that can be put forward in most situations. Why should I pay for a war I am in disagreement with etc etc in absurdum

[Gurn Blanston]

Yeah, but the problem is. The far right groups, who are pushing for the legislation. Ban on abortion, meant to BAN ALL FORMS OF ABORTION. I think Sharron Angle made it rather clear. If you got pregnant, say raped by your own father. Too bad, the law says no abortion, and you are going to deliver that baby. How is that reasonable?

It isn't reasonable. I wouldn't support it. Where your particular issue seems to lie is in thinking that "far right groups" actually represent any great number of people. The vast majority of 'conservatives' are not far right extremists, just like that vast majority of liberals aren't actual communists. Once the effing wingnuts start talking, the true majority gets drowned out pretty quick.

[oabmarcus]

An opinion = nobody harmed.

They can cast votes. They can elect senators, senators can enact laws.

And accusations of "destroying lives" coming from a pro-abortion POV is kind of funny.

Wait, why is it funny. See, when you say something totally out of blue like that, it kind helps to give me a full expanation. Why is my accusation kind of funny? Why?