Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 15, 2016

OTP - 2016 February 15: Politics and Baseball

I think what is most interesting about this development is that it comes on the heels of two terms with a particularly modest center-oriented president. Historically, this kind of revolutionary rancor is a response to executive radicalism, or ineptitude and malfeasance. Barack Obama may be many things, but only his most ridiculous critics would call him radical and inept. Of course, the same cannot be said for Washington as a whole. So maybe that is where this transformational ardor is coming from. We may blame the president, but that’s really only because he is the face of the entire system.

So yeah, politics is like baseball, and politicians are like baseball players.

Another week, another thread. And ... drones ... bad.

Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 08:30 AM | 2507 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: pete rose, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 26 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 02:55 PM (#5156549)
Today's teens are better than you, and we can prove it

The overarching question this survey asks is basically: How much trouble are you getting into?

The answer, lately, has been, “Not that much at all” — especially when you compare today’s teens with their parents, who came of age in the early 1990s.

Most of the survey questions show that today’s teenagers are among the best-behaved on record. They smoke less, drink less, and have sex less than the previous generation. They are, comparatively, a mild-mannered bunch who will probably shoo away from your lawn quite respectfully (and probably wouldn’t dare set foot on your lawn to begin with!)


So the actual decline is in a decline of bad behavior from our kids. Sign me up for more decline, please!
   2. Ron J Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:00 PM (#5156554)
From the last thread (about Asian unhappiness wrt the Peter Liang conviction)


#2476 What I note about the activists is that they don't say he wasn't guilty but rather that they thought that the state of US criminal justice is such that the facts of a case basically don't matter when it's a police shooting.

I thought the DA gave a good summary:

"The evidence established that Gurley was totally innocent and unarmed and that Officer Liang was not under any threat that should have caused him to place his finger on the trigger of his gun and fire it. Therefore, there was no justification for the shooting."

Yeah the shooting wasn't intentional. That's why it was manslaughter.
   3. Greg K Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:00 PM (#5156556)
They smoke less, drink less, and have sex less than the previous generation.

If you call that "better". Given the option I'd re-up my teenage experience in the depraved late 90s.

Though I suppose today's teenagers have to be pretty impressive specimens to have smoked less and had less sex than I did as a teenager. You have to give them credit for achieving the mathematically impossible.
   4. Ishmael Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:03 PM (#5156558)
Bitter Mouse, reposted for the new thread:


But morality is just one factor of the decision making process, and which factors we use and in what weight is arbitrary, because there is no one correct answer.


I edited the comment you quoted to more directly answer your earlier comment. But I'm happy to go with the formulation you responded to, that morality is not necessarily entirely arbitrary, just because the universe doesn't appear to have an opinion on it.

The factors we use to make our decision are arbitrary, the weight we give those factors is arbitrary. How much we weigh the fate of the proto-human versus the fate of the woman involved is at its heart arbitrary
.

I think that might often be the case in practice. And people probably rationalize decisions taken for emotional or selfish reasons. So what?

Lets keep the meta-physical claims as limited as possible. When we talk about morality, in a practical everyday sense, we tend to do so within a particular context. In other words, each 'ought' statement we make, is preceded by an 'if' statement. If we want to live in a functioning society, then we ought to do (x, y, z). If we want to interact with other people successfully, we ought to do (a, b, c). And so forth. Morality arises from these sorts of questions. There are numerous criteria by which we can judge the success or failure of our solutions to these questions (the ought statements). The answers are not arbitrary, in this sense.

Now, you might want to say that asking the questions is itself arbitrary. Well, sure, in a sense. But not asking them is sort of a denial of who we are. All humans ask these questions. We're social animals, it's the sea we swim in. That's what I mean by inter-subjectivity. A human without other minds to interact with is not a human, as Fichte pointed out.
   5. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:05 PM (#5156561)
From the previous thread:

The point is: Why the pre-emptive refusal to consider? I can fully understand why the GOP would want to reject any standard issue liberal nominee, but why not even go through the motions and vote him or her down in a party line vote, or block the appointment in committee by a party line vote, rather than set yourself up as Three Monkeys obstructionists by not even waiting until the nominee has been named?

McConnell was merely getting ahead of the POTUS candidates, most of whom were going to push the same line.


Translation: He was afraid of being RINOed.

And as I've opined, I wouldn't be surprised if there's eventually a hearing, followed by a prompt vote for a left-wing nominee or one in mid-November if it's Srivinasan.

Which means all McConnell's done is to commit an unforced error, by alerting every Democratic interest group of the importance of the November election. Much better to have taken the heat from his own party** than to have given the Democrats one of the better fundraising pitches of the entire campaign.

** Especially since his next re-election campaign won't be until 2020, at which point he'll be 78 and possibly considering retirement.

   6. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:15 PM (#5156569)
Anyone contending that a Democratic Senate would a confirm a Supreme Court nominee of a GOP President this late in his term is being disingenuous.

I've never said that they would, but again, that's got nothing to do with the current situation, where McConnell isn't even considering holding a hearing, let alone scheduling a vote when his party could reject any nominee anyway. Just what is McConnell afraid of, other than Ted Cruz's ideological goon squad calling him a mean old RINO?

I think that may be reading too much into McConnell's statement that the vacancy should be filled by the next President. There are several ways to accomplish that, and I haven't seen McConnell specifically commit to a path that would absolutely rule out a hearing or committee vote. On the other hand, I'm not sure the exact method of non-confirmation matters that much once it is conceded that both parties would act similarly with regard to election-year Supreme Court vacancies if they were in a position to do so. The only reason that we don't have abundant evidence they'd act similarly is the lack of recent election-year SCOTUS vacancies, but there are numerous examples of both parties not acting on Court of Appeals vacancies late in the game - both John Roberts & Elena Kagan had DC Circuit nominations blocked by inaction.
   7. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:20 PM (#5156571)
McConnell's statement that the vacancy should be filled by the next President.


Well, then, Hillary Clinton can pick the nominee tomorrow. Problem solved.
   8. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:24 PM (#5156573)
From the previous thread:

Which means all McConnell's done is to commit an unforced error, by alerting every Democratic interest group of the importance of the November election. Much better to have taken the heat from his own party** than to have given the Democrats one of the better fundraising pitches of the entire campaign.

Yes, because Scalia's death wasn't enough to alert every Democratic interest group of the importance of the November election?


Jason, I delete so many fundraising appeals from Democratic groups that I lose count each day well before lunch, but I can tell you that between McConnell's statement and five minutes ago I've already deleted a good dozen that made specific reference to him. As the rodent said, there's no upside for the GOP and a fair amount of potential downside.
   9. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:28 PM (#5156576)
Historically, this kind of revolutionary rancor is a response to executive radicalism, or ineptitude and malfeasance. Barack Obama may be many things, but only his most ridiculous critics would call him radical and inept.


Should I start the countdown or will you?
   10. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:32 PM (#5156577)
Anyone contending that a Democratic Senate would a confirm a Supreme Court nominee of a GOP President this late in his term is being disingenuous.

I've never said that they would, but again, that's got nothing to do with the current situation, where McConnell isn't even considering holding a hearing, let alone scheduling a vote when his party could reject any nominee anyway. Just what is McConnell afraid of, other than Ted Cruz's ideological goon squad calling him a mean old RINO?

I think that may be reading too much into McConnell's statement that the vacancy should be filled by the next President. There are several ways to accomplish that, and I haven't seen McConnell specifically commit to a path that would absolutely rule out a hearing or committee vote. On the other hand, I'm not sure the exact method of non-confirmation matters that much once it is conceded that both parties would act similarly with regard to election-year Supreme Court vacancies if they were in a position to do so.


Again, where's the upside for the GOP from McConnell's statement? Of course the Democrats know that the GOP fully intends to reject any Democratic nominee,** but why be so quick to confirm their suspicions give them such a fat and easy (and personalized) fundraising peg, and an "obstructionist" talking point that might well resonate with independent voters? It's just further confirmation that the Republicans seem to be more interested in appeasing the Cruz wing of the party than they are of winning in November.

** And again, I'm not so hypocritical as to moralize over that fact, since the Democrats would do the same thing if the roles were reversed in a similar situation of a court split down the middle.
   11. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:38 PM (#5156580)
Lets keep the meta-physical claims as limited as possible. When we talk about morality, in a practical everyday sense, we tend to do so within a particular context. In other words, each 'ought' statement we make, is preceded by an 'if' statement. If we want to live in a functioning society, then we ought to do (x, y, z). If we want to interact with other people successfully, we ought to do (a, b, c). And so forth. Morality arises from these sorts of questions. There are numerous criteria by which we can judge the success or failure of our solutions to these questions (the ought statements). The answers are not arbitrary, in this sense.


I agree the answers are not arbitrary. There is a strong pragmatic influence on all of these sorts of decisions. People often want their decision making criteria rooted in principle, when actually pragmatism is where it all started. Pragmatic decisions plus time equals tradition, which magically transforms into principle.

But what was pragmatic then is not necessarily so now. To absurdly generalize conservatives assume such traditions are good, because they worked before, and progressives assume new circumstances mean new pragmatic choices. Both are actually pretty reasonable, and one untethered from the other can be dangerous, though I admit I favor progressive solutions, largely because I think the magnificent rate of change currently present requires us to run to keep up.
   12. zonk Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:38 PM (#5156581)
Anyone contending that a Democratic Senate would a confirm a Supreme Court nominee of a GOP President this late in his term is being disingenuous.


This seems to be the best Republicans and their enablers can come up with, but it's completely specious reasoning because those same Republicans and same enablers would be huffing outrage if the shoes were to be reversed and I doubt they'd be accepting the reverso excuse of "well, you'd do the same thing."

It's so patently ridiculous I don't know why we even bother with it.

We've very close approximates before and of course, individual senators and individual candidates have very much done this sort of thing... but there have always been enough members of said who aren't so totally defiled from soul to sole with politicization that the government keeps functioning and doing what is standard operating procedure.

If this is the precedent, I really don't understand what's so special about 1 year... maybe it should be two years. maybe it should be 4.

I would just hope there are enough people in positions of power to understand that the end of our Republic comes with when the opposition can so completely de-legitimize the other that elections no longer have any meaning.

Why even bother with democracy?

We have elections.

Those elections result in people elevated to office for a clearly specified term.

Those offices have specifically defined responsibilities.

If these are the new terms of SCOTUS nominations, what makes 2017 so special? We'll have another Presidential election in 2020 - and a better reapportionment of the EC to more accurately reflect the nation, to boot. IF the GOP were to win the WH in 2016, why then shouldn't the Democrats stall the nomination for four years?
   13. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:42 PM (#5156584)
If you call that "better". Given the option I'd re-up my teenage experience in the depraved late 90s.


I think in net it is better, at least from a societal perspective. Smoking certainly, drinking likely, and sex - to the extent it is unprotected, or that even protected sex can result in unintended consequences - in aggregate probably.

I of course as a youth did not smoke or drink, and (sadly) I did not experience sex until college (my high school became coed my first year there - the males dramatically outnumbered the females, so the lack was not entirely my fault - just mostly).
   14. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:45 PM (#5156585)
Loony left is loony:
“Lame duck” is just the new “show me the birth certificate”: A way to convey a belief that Obama is not a legitimate President.

Here's another doozie (now deleted), from a member of the NYT's editorial page no less.

Meanwhile, I'm marveling at Democrats who cheered on Obama publicly rejecting cooperation with the Republican majority in Congress now demanding that the Senate work with him.
   15. Greg K Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:45 PM (#5156586)
I think in net it is better, at least from a societal perspective. Smoking certainly, drinking likely, and sex - to the extent it is unprotected, or that even protected sex can result in unintended consequences - in aggregate probably.

Yeah, I was more cheekily referencing it from the individual's perspective. For society, everything in moderation!
   16. Srul Itza Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:47 PM (#5156588)
relatively minor inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months


So tell us, David, what was it like the last time you were pregnant?
   17. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:51 PM (#5156590)
Yeah the shooting wasn't intentional. That's why it was manslaughter.

The manslaughter issue notwithstanding, Asian-Americans are upset that they don't have effective advocates whose pressure might have prevented Liang from being indicted in the first place.
   18. The Good Face Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:53 PM (#5156595)
This seems to be the best Republicans and their enablers can come up with, but it's completely specious reasoning because those same Republicans and same enablers would be huffing outrage if the shoes were to be reversed and I doubt they'd be accepting the reverso excuse of "well, you'd do the same thing."


Yep, if the shoe was on the other foot the GOP would be enraged. I somehow doubt you'd lose much sleep over it.

We have elections.

Those elections result in people elevated to office for a clearly specified term.


Perhaps you guys shouldn't have lost the Senate?

I would just hope there are enough people in positions of power to understand that the end of our Republic comes with when the opposition can so completely de-legitimize the other that elections no longer have any meaning.

Why even bother with democracy?


Why indeed? All is unfolding as I have foreseen.

Dammit, somebody really needs to create a *stroking fluffy white cat* emoticon.

Anyway, the behavior you're describing is an outgrowth of the lack of trust in our institutions. People increasingly believe that everything is so politicized today that having "their" people in charge is becoming a matter of life or death. Perhaps they're right.
   19. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:54 PM (#5156598)
NYPD: ELIOT SPITZER ACCUSED OF CHOKING WOMAN IN PLAZA HOTEL:
Police in New York are investigating whether former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who resigned his position in the wake of a prostitution scandal in 2008, has any ties to a possible assault at a Manhattan hotel over the weekend after a woman accused him of choking her.

The New York Police Department said on Sunday that they are investigating Spitzer, 56, after a 25-year-old woman, who has not been named, told police that the disgraced former governor choked her inside a room in the Plaza Hotel, located steps away from Central Park, on Saturday night, two law enforcement sources told CNN.

Interestingly, there's not a single mention of party affiliation in this article. I wonder with which of the two parties he identified?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
   20. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:55 PM (#5156599)
Meanwhile, I'm marveling at Democrats who cheered on Obama publicly rejecting cooperation with the Republican majority in Congress now demanding that the Senate work with him.


Yeah, it is Obama who rejected cooperation with the GOP. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
   21. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 03:56 PM (#5156600)
Why even bother with democracy?


It is better than the alternative.

Why indeed? All is unfolding as I have foreseen.


You might want to hold off on the back patting for something to actually happen, or has there been a huge increase in Monarchies in the last .... hundred years or so?
   22. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:01 PM (#5156603)
Yeah, it is Obama who rejected cooperation with the GOP. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

Here's just one example. If you still don't believe me, look it up. Google is your friend.
   23. zonk Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:02 PM (#5156604)
“Lame duck” is just the new “show me the birth certificate”: A way to convey a belief that Obama is not a legitimate President.


It's hardly loony at all. Republicans have become so warped by their worldview that they cannot even fathom sufficient numbers of Americans disagree with them. Just look at the 2012 election - they were "unskewing" their own internal polls.

It's been Republican SOP for nearly 25 years - if you lose, you only lost because the other side either cheated or because there was some disqualifier the public wasn't aware of.
   24. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:03 PM (#5156606)
If you don't believe me, look it up. Google is your friend.


If you think the GOP has been the innocent victim of mean old Obama refusing to compromise these last 7 years ... well people are entitled to believe whatever loony things they like I suppose, but I don't have to take them seriously.
   25. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:05 PM (#5156607)
relatively minor inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months

So tell us, David, what was it like the last time you were pregnant?


"Relative inconvenience" is taking the stairs to my 5th floor apartment. I can tell my wife that now we're even.
   26. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:06 PM (#5156608)

If you think the GOP has been the innocent victim of mean old Obama refusing to compromise these last 7 years ...


I don't see how it can be 7 years when they promised us a one-term presidency.
   27. Rickey! is not your black American woman friend Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:06 PM (#5156609)
Here's just one example. If you still don't believe me, look it up. Google is your friend.


Does anyone know how Jason's link supports his case that Obama refuses to compromise? I mean, honest question. What on earth does that link have to do with that point? I don't get it.
   28. Rickey! is not your black American woman friend Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:08 PM (#5156612)
I don't see how it can be 7 years when they promised us a one-term presidency.


Well, this is obviously one of those things that Extremist Obama just pouted and refused to compromise on. Even today he refuses to stop acting like he's president even though his "term" ends in 300 or so days.
   29. zonk Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:11 PM (#5156615)

Yep, if the shoe was on the other foot the GOP would be enraged. I somehow doubt you'd lose much sleep over it.


In point of fact - IF I were to stake out the current GOP position in the reverse case, I think I would.... and I say IF because I honestly feel that I'd probably go with the same thing I've consistently said Obama should do in this circumstance: select an eminently qualified, as non-ideological-as-humanly possible jurist. I said point blank that I don't think Obama should select an ideological fire-breather. In the reverse case, that would be my position. Bush/whomever is still in office for another year. The nature of time and politics means he should nominate a boring choice.

Perhaps you guys shouldn't have lost the Senate?


Nonresponsive. Split government doesn't mean SCOTUS vacancies aren't SCOTUS vacancies. Should we never fill vacancies until the Senate and WH are controlled by the same party?

Yeah, it is Obama who rejected cooperation with the GOP. That doesn't pass the laugh test.


If you don't believe me, look it up. Google is your friend.


Google tells me that Mitch McConnell says the GOP's #1 goal is prevent Obama's reelection. It further tells me something about "waterloo"... are these the things google was supposed to tell me?
   30. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:12 PM (#5156616)
Well, this is obviously one of those things that Extremist Obama just pouted and refused to compromise on. Even today he refuses to stop acting like he's president even though his "term" ends in 300 or so days.


Well if you begin with the assumption that he's only 3/5th of a President...
   31. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:13 PM (#5156617)
The criticism of RDP on libertarian grounds is bizarre. As the unborn child has an interest in not having its life and liberty invaded, the default libertarian position is pro-life.

The woman also has an interest in not having her life and liberty invaded, and her interest trumps that of a clump of cells.


Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis. This isn't the bible. People act as if women get pregnant the same way someone catches a common cold. That's part of the dishonesty. If she's worried about not having her "life and liberty invaded" (what an asinine way to describe getting pregnant) that's entirely under her control with the sole exception of rape. And rape of course makes up a tiny fraction of the cases, despite the fact that the left has managed to obfuscate the entire issue by obsessively focusing on "rape and incest."

I support abortion but I don't see a need to lie about what's going on.
   32. CrosbyBird Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:14 PM (#5156618)
The term "fetus" is a clinical term, and beyond its euphemeistic use in the abortion debates, it has effectively no true linguistic use by laymen. No layman ever, in any context outside abortion, uses the term.

I certainly wouldn't call it a mere euphemism, because abortion is in large part a clinical question. There are substantial differences between a zygote, a fetus, and an infant, and any reasonable discussion of abortion must address those differences. Our laws do not treat the unborn and the born as entirely identical, and very few people advocate for such absolutism.

This distinction between born and unborn is not limited to our legal or clinical questions, but also embedded in many of our customs. We start counting the age of a human person at birth, not at conception, for example. Families who hold funeral services in the event of miscarriages are remarkably uncommon. The death of an unborn child as a result of neglect or even active sabotage on the part of the mother is certainly discouraged socially, but the death of a born child under the same circumstances is monstrous (and our law reflects that very different understanding).

I use the term fetus because it clarifies a certain time frame. It seems very clear to me that this zygote is not a person, and that the rights of personhood should not attach. It also seems very clear to me that this newborn is a person. One word ("baby" or "child") is insufficient to address the developmental differences from the former to the latter.
   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:15 PM (#5156619)
But abortion opponents _don't_ consider the clump of cells to be a person, except rhetorically. I posted the statistics earlier. There are around 5 million spontaneous miscarriages annually in the United States. There are about 2.5 million deaths from all other causes combined. And yet nobody considers spontaneous miscarriages to be the #1 health issue in the country today.


This is a nonsensical point. Nobody considers dying of old age or natural causes to be the #1 health issue in the country today, either, despite that being a leading cause of death. Why? Because it's entirely out of our control.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:15 PM (#5156620)
I don't want to live in a society that doesn't value human life.



Says BM, the guy who supports abortion.

Whatever abortion might be, wherever the line is where a "clump of cells" that can be ethically discarded becomes a baby that cannot be, one thing we KNOW abortion isn't is an attempt to value human life above all else.
   35. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:15 PM (#5156621)

Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis.


And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex. Which some claimed was an opinion nobody shares.

And let's just pair the above statement with snapper's statement that a wife has the responsibility to have sex with her husband, and we've just made pregnancy non-optional.


This is a nonsensical point. Nobody considers dying of old age or natural causes to be the #1 health issue in the country today, either, despite that being a leading cause of death. Why? Because it's entirely out of our control.


Nobody dies of 'natural causes'. That's not a medical term. People die of cancer, or heart disease, or organ failure. And there is definitely a lot of money and research that has gone into treating those various conditions.

Further, this assumes that spontaneous miscarriage is out of our control, with absolutely no evidence for it. Why wouldn't that be something we could reduce through various interventions? What research has been done on what activities might increase or decrease the chance? If we found that caffeine intake increased the chances of spontaneous miscarriage by 5%, wouldn't we have a moral obligation to ban caffeine consumption by women?
   36. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:16 PM (#5156622)
I don't want to live in a society that doesn't value human life.

Killing a fetus by choice, a recognizable human being, devalues human life.

Not allowing a person control of their own body, forcing them to carry a clump of cells until it becomes a person also devalues a life. The life of the woman.


This might be a cute attempt at a debating trick if it weren't so pathetic and overdone, BM. Killing a fetus is a matter of life and death; there can be no greater devaluation of human life than killing it.

On the other hand you have inconveniencing a woman, which doesn't compare to what's happening to the fetus - it is literally being killed.

Basic concepts seem to be totally outside of your grasp. I don't know if it's a language issue or an IQ issue or both.

Like I said both sides have valid arguments. It is not a slam dunk, where one side is completely right and the other completely wrong. And there is no easy compromise, no real halfway point to meet between the two extreme sides.


Blah blah blah another content free post.
   37. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:18 PM (#5156623)
And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex.

Your mother's obviously was.
   38. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:18 PM (#5156624)
Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis. This isn't the bible. People act as if women get pregnant the same way someone catches a common cold. That's part of the dishonesty. If she's worried about not having her "life and liberty invaded" (what an asinine way to describe getting pregnant) that's entirely under her control with the sole exception of rape. And rape of course makes up a tiny fraction of the cases, despite the fact that the left has managed to obfuscate the entire issue by obsessively focusing on "rape and incest."

I support abortion but I don't see a need to lie about what's going on.

100 percent right.

***
And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex.

100 percent stupid.
   39. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:18 PM (#5156625)
Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis.

And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex. Which some claimed was an opinion nobody shares.


Well, no, that's the fanatics' framing of the issue, which I reject.

Pregnancy when it happens is a biological or natural consequence of having sex, same as it getting darker earlier on the east coast is a natural consequence of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. That you're not capable of seeing the issue in non-fanatic terms is not my problem.

   40. Rickey! is not your black American woman friend Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:19 PM (#5156626)
Killing a fetus is a matter of life and death; there can be no greater devaluation of human life than killing it.


We see when you beg the question by replacing "Fetus" with "human" there, Ray Ray.
   41. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:20 PM (#5156627)
no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy


I would be more impressed with this argument if my mom had not gotten pregnant on every form of birth control available to her (including after having her tubes tied).

More to the point they should not even have to suffer the "relatively minor inconvenience" (sic) of pregnancy if they don't want to. It is their body that has to go through it after all. Of course I think people should get healthcare even if they smoke or engage in other potentially risky behavior, and shouldn't have to suffer from possible known consequences, just because such consequences were known and possible.
   42. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:20 PM (#5156628)
Does anyone know how Jason's link supports his case that Obama refuses to compromise? I mean, honest question. What on earth does that link have to do with that point? I don't get it.

By early 2014, there had been nearly 30 unilateral substantive alterations to a law, Obamacare, without offering anything remotely considered a compelling legal justification for some of these alterations. Congress was completely shut out of the process.
   43. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:21 PM (#5156629)
Reposted from end of prior thread:
But it could be hard to be the Presidential nominee and be identified with the forest. Let's say it's Ted Cruz, who will be one of the resistant Senators and is best known already for bringing the government to a halt. Well, Candidate Cruz, you're gumming up the works again I see, etc.
There will be no "gumming up." Unfortunately for Democrats, they can't shut down national parks when the Senate doesn't hold a vote on an Obama nominee. Not only will the government keep operating, but so will the courts, and the Supreme Court, too. A few cases will end up as ties. Which means the lower court decision will stand.
   44. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:21 PM (#5156630)
I would be more impressed with this argument if my mom had not gotten pregnant on every form of birth control available to her (including after having her tubes tied).

LOL.

Being on birth control makes a pregnancy via consensual sex non-consensual?
   45. The Good Face Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:21 PM (#5156631)
In point of fact - IF I were to stake out the current GOP position in the reverse case, I think I would.... and I say IF because I honestly feel that I'd probably go with the same thing I've consistently said Obama should do in this circumstance: select an eminently qualified, as non-ideological-as-humanly possible jurist.


Uh huh. Aside from the fact that I don't buy that (not accusing you of lying; I think you actually believe what you're saying here), remember what I said before; lack of trust. People believe, with ample justification, that any Dem SC nominee is going to be a stone loyal partisan for liberal/Dem causes.

Perhaps you guys shouldn't have lost the Senate?

Nonresponsive. Split government doesn't mean SCOTUS vacancies aren't SCOTUS vacancies. Should we never fill vacancies until the Senate and WH are controlled by the same party?


Of course it's responsive; the Senate gets to confirm SCOTUS nominees. Your team lost the Senate. Therefore, they don't get to confirm jack. Elections have consequences, remember? You guys loved that line back when you controlled the entire government.
   46. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:24 PM (#5156632)

Apparently the "Elections have consequences" thing had an asterisk which rendered the statement only applicable to the executive branch.
   47. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:24 PM (#5156633)
This might be a cute attempt at a debating trick if it weren't so pathetic and overdone, BM. Killing a fetus is a matter of life and death; there can be no greater devaluation of human life than killing it.


Abortion does remove a potential life and allowing it does devalue life (which I care about a great deal). Forbidding abortion does reduce the freedom of women and control over their own body (which I care about a great deal).

I guess Ray wasn't paying attention when I said both sides have legitimate arguments, but I have decided in total that I support one side over the other.

Note: The funny part is this argument comes from someone who claims to support abortion rights. Which means by his own logic he doesn't value human life at all. Which I guess I will allow him to define himself that way, as he seems to insist on it, but as for myself I decline to allow his argument to define me.
   48. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:25 PM (#5156634)
Being on birth control makes a pregnancy via consensual sex non-consensual?


I said no such thing. Troll better.
   49. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:25 PM (#5156635)
Apparently the "Elections have consequences" thing had an asterisk which rendered the statement only applicable to the executive branch.

Not true! Back in 2007, only congressional elections had consequences.
   50. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:25 PM (#5156636)
We see when you beg the question by replacing "Fetus" with "human" there, Ray Ray.


A fetus is a human. Once the woman has the baby it's not like a giraffe comes out.
   51. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:25 PM (#5156637)
Yeah, it is Obama who rejected cooperation with the GOP. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yeah, Jason, you're crazy. Obama was perfectly willing to cooperate with Republicans who signed onto the Democratic agenda.

You've just to remember that to liberals, "compromise" means that if the budget this year was $4 trillion, then only raising it to $5 trillion instead of their preferred $6 trillion counts as a "compromise." It means not going as far as liberals would like, rather than in actually giving something to conservatives.
   52. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:26 PM (#5156638)
A fetus is a human.


Begging the question.
   53. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:27 PM (#5156639)
And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex. Which some claimed was an opinion nobody shares.


I can't imagine why anybody would think that!
   54. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:29 PM (#5156641)
This might be a cute attempt at a debating trick if it weren't so pathetic and overdone, BM. Killing a fetus is a matter of life and death; there can be no greater devaluation of human life than killing it.

It was an inane and robotic point to begin with; saying that pregnancy "devalues life" is highly, highly silly bordering on unhinged. Even if the pregnancy is unwanted, the woman's life isn't "devalued" any more than making someone pay taxes devalues their life.
   55. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:30 PM (#5156642)
Donald Trump today, talking about the pledge to support the GOP nominee, whoever it turns out to be:
“I signed a pledge, but it’s a double-edge pledge, and as far as I’m concerned they’re in default of the pledge... The pledge isn't being honored by them.”
   56. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:31 PM (#5156644)
I said no such thing. Troll better.

Your comment, as usual, was entirely non-responsive.

Frankly, I can't believe the amount of time people still waste responding to your nonsense.
   57. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:31 PM (#5156645)
And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex.

And morning light at 9 AM Eastern time is "punishment" for living in the Eastern time zone. Can we at least have an effort at sense here?

EDIT: Coke to RDP.
   58. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:32 PM (#5156646)
Google tells me that Mitch McConnell says the GOP's #1 goal is prevent Obama's reelection.

This is hackish even by your liberal standards. Every opposition leader, D or R, has the same agenda.
   59. There's a bustle in Misirlou's hedgerow Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:33 PM (#5156647)
 38. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:18 PM (#5156624)
Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis. This isn't the bible. People act as if women get pregnant the same way someone catches a common cold. That's part of the dishonesty. If she's worried about not having her "life and liberty invaded" (what an asinine way to describe getting pregnant) that's entirely under her control with the sole exception of rape. And rape of course makes up a tiny fraction of the cases, despite the fact that the left has managed to obfuscate the entire issue by obsessively focusing on "rape and incest."

I support abortion but I don't see a need to lie about what's going on.

100 percent right.


So, Joe supports abortion rights. Good to know.
   60. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:33 PM (#5156648)
It is their body that has to go through it after all.

So? It's the taxpayer's checkbook that "goes through" paying taxes after all.
   61. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:35 PM (#5156649)
no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy

I would be more impressed with this argument if my mom had not gotten pregnant on every form of birth control available to her (including after having her tubes tied).


Well, she tried, likely knowing what was in store for her with you. But she still had sex knowing that you might result.

More to the point they should not even have to suffer the "relatively minor inconvenience" (sic) of pregnancy if they don't want to. It is their body that has to go through it after all. Of course I think people should get healthcare even if they smoke or engage in other potentially risky behavior, and shouldn't have to suffer from possible known consequences, just because such consequences were known and possible.


Once more: I support abortion, have counseled someone close to me to have one, and don't think poorly of any woman who chooses to have one. I'd just as soon the absurd lying come to and end, though. That's what people are upset with me here for: for not agreeing to lie about and cloud what is taking place. If you can't win the debate with honesty what does it say about you? Most abortions are for convenience. And since there's enough gray area before the pregnancy gets to the late stages that's a good enough reason for me. But let's stop pretending something that is a human life form and is forming along those lines isn't being killed.
   62. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:35 PM (#5156650)
I would just hope there are enough people in positions of power to understand that the end of our Republic comes with when the opposition can so completely de-legitimize the other that elections no longer have any meaning.

Why even bother with democracy?

We have elections.

Those elections result in people elevated to office for a clearly specified term.

Those offices have specifically defined responsibilities.
Yes, and once again: (enough) Republicans were elected to control the senate. Those elections count just as much as the presidential election.
   63. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:36 PM (#5156651)
Forbidding abortion does reduce the freedom of women and control over their own body (which I care about a great deal).

So do laws restricting people's ability to control their body by making a fist and swinging their arm such that their fist hits someone's face. But somehow you're ok with those restrictions.
   64. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:36 PM (#5156652)
LOL.

Being on birth control makes a pregnancy via consensual sex non-consensual?


It's a ridiculous argument.
   65. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:36 PM (#5156653)
So, Joe supports abortion rights. Good to know.

I've always supported abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk. No big breaking news there.
   66. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:37 PM (#5156654)
Scalia Was Almost Never The Most Conservative Justice On The Supreme Court

An interesting read. What's most revealing is the near-pack mentality of the liberal wing since Kagan and Sotomayor joined the Court.
   67. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:38 PM (#5156655)
It's been Republican SOP for nearly 25 years - if you lose, you only lost because the other side either cheated or because there was some disqualifier the public wasn't aware of.
Uh huh. Republicans shouldn't have argued that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections.
   68. CrosbyBird Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:39 PM (#5156656)
Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis.

Aside from being kidnapped, no adult passenger in a car gets injured in an accident without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to accidental injury. Aside from being force-fed, no consumer of food gets food poisoning without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to food poisoning.

Consenting to X, which has the potential to lead to Y, is not consenting to Y. This is particularly true when we have technology Z, which can effectively eliminate condition Y.

I support abortion but I don't see a need to lie about what's going on.

I don't think it's at all dishonest to distinguish consent to intercourse from consent to childbearing, since it is possible and quite customary to have intercourse without the intention of reproducing, and because we have the capacity to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

One might claim that the personhood of the unborn or the sanctity of even a potential life justifies forcing a woman to carry a child to term despite lack of consent, but that is a different sort of argument entirely.
   69. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:39 PM (#5156657)
Abortion does remove a potential life and allowing it does devalue life (which I care about a great deal). Forbidding abortion does reduce the freedom of women and control over their own body (which I care about a great deal).


Where does the father's interest in the "fetus" come in?

His rights and interests are irrelevant to the left. It's all up to the woman, because it's "her body" blah blah. If she kills the baby he has no say. If she has the baby he has no say -- and he has to pay for it. Nowhere either under the law or even in the calculus of the left in framing the debate does the father's interests play in at all.
   70. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:40 PM (#5156658)
saying that pregnancy "devalues life" is highly, highly silly bordering on unhinged


Good thing no one said any such thing, because that would be unhinged.

So? It's the taxpayer's checkbook that "goes through" paying taxes after all.


Yes. And, so what? I mean that is a terrible analogy, it would be hard to come up with a worse one.

So do laws restricting people's ability to control their body by making a fist and swinging their arm such that their fist hits someone's face.


I stand corrected.
   71. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:41 PM (#5156659)
Aside from rape (but not incest), no woman gets pregnant without agreeing to engage in certain actions that could lead to pregnancy; women don't get pregnant magically through the ether or by osmosis.

And so we're back to the proposition that pregnancy is punishment for women who have sex. Which some claimed was an opinion nobody shares.
Reading is still fundamental. You'll notice the lack of the word "punishment" or any other forms of the word from the quoted statement. It's certainly a consequence of having sex, but again, only liberals think that having a child is punishment.
   72. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:44 PM (#5156660)
Good thing no one said any such thing, because that would be unhinged.

You did. You said it a little differently, but that was the unavoidable underlying claim.

Yes. And, so what? I mean that is a terrible analogy, it would be hard to come up with a worse one.

No, it's a perfectly fine analogy and works perfectly well post-viability.

I stand corrected.

Concession accepted.

(Look, it rhymes!!)
   73. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:44 PM (#5156661)
Where does the father's interest in the "fetus" come in?


Why the scare quotes? Honestly your use of quotes is very odd.

Anyway the father has an interest, but not as big a one as the woman's (for what I hope - perhaps in vain - are obvious reasons). Since it is a binary decision the majority interest has the final say.

Of course the father can use his powers of persuasion (which were sufficient to get the mother in bed after all) to convince the woman to his side, so he has a say.

Where do you think the father's interest should lie? How should his interest be represented?
   74. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:46 PM (#5156663)
Concession accepted.


Agreed, I accept it also. I am surprised you conceded so easily. Perhaps you are turning over a new leaf? It is a new thread after all.
   75. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:46 PM (#5156664)
Reading is still fundamental. You'll notice the lack of the word "punishment" or any other forms of the word from the quoted statement. It's certainly a consequence of having sex, but again, only liberals think that having a child is punishment.

Perhaps it's a rare bit of honest self-reflection by liberals — their existence being, of course, "punishment" for their poor mothers.
   76. zonk Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:47 PM (#5156665)
Apparently the "Elections have consequences" thing had an asterisk which rendered the statement only applicable to the executive branch.


Not true! Back in 2007, only congressional elections had consequences.


Of course, the 2007-2008 Congress did not/did:

1) Hold impeachment hearings over the, let's say, improprieties... of the Iraq war runup as the partisan base clearly desired

2) Even gave Bush his "surge"

3) Passed emergency legislation upon being begged to do so by Bush's Treasury secretary after Wall Street went kablooey

4) Confirm ~50 Bush judicial nominees

5) Ratify 16 different treaties negotiated by the Bush Administration

6) Enhance FISA at the administration's request and opposed by the 'base'.

   77. Greg K Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:48 PM (#5156666)
It's amazing to me that you guys have such lengthy conversations about abortion when the whole issue has already been sorted out in detail at Paddy's Pub.

Charlie: It's just I mean, I wish I could go back in time and do the right thing, you know?
Dee: Like be there for her?
Charlie: No. Get her an abortion.
Dee: So you're not allowed to use birth control, but abortions are no problem?
Charlie: All right. Okay. So now you're, like, a word genius, and everything I say, you twist it around and make me look dumb.
Dennis: Charlie's right though. He should have at least had a say in the matter.
Dee: It's her body, and it's her decision.
Dennis: No, I'm sorry, it's not just her decision. The man should get a vote.
Dee: Well, ultimately it's her choice.
Dennis: It is not just her choice.
Mac: It's nobody's choice. It should be left up to God!


EDIT: Bitter Mouse is a poor substitute for Sweet Dee though...he's likely not gangly enough to provide the same kind of physical comedy.
   78. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:48 PM (#5156667)
Perhaps you guys shouldn't have lost the Senate?

Nonresponsive. Split government doesn't mean SCOTUS vacancies aren't SCOTUS vacancies. Should we never fill vacancies until the Senate and WH are controlled by the same party?
Look, McConnell was obviously engaging in hyperbole. If Obama wanted to nominate Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones, I'm sure that the Senate would be happy to act.
   79. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:48 PM (#5156668)
(for what I hope - perhaps in vain - are obvious reasons)

They aren't obvious and you're only saying they're obvious because you have no convincing explanation for the distinction.

In fact, post-viability, they're coterminus with the mother's interests -- indeed, they're precisely the same as they are post-birth.
   80. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:49 PM (#5156669)
Agreed, I accept it also.

LOL.

What are you, ten years old or something?
   81. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:51 PM (#5156670)
Consenting to X, which has the potential to lead to Y, is not consenting to Y.


What I argued was that consenting to X which has the potential to lead to Y is consenting to X which has the potential to lead to Y. It doesn't even make any sense to say that someone "consented" to a pregnancy. One consents to the actions which may lead to pregnancy.
   82. Mefisto Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:52 PM (#5156672)
It's certainly a consequence of having sex, but again, only liberals think that having a child is punishment.


Excellent. All those children waiting for adoption just became yours.
   83. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:52 PM (#5156673)
In fact, post-viability, they're coterminus with the mother's interests -- indeed, they're precisely the same as they are post-birth.


You realize we were talking about the father's interests, right? The father's interests are not necessarily coterminus (sic*) with the mother's at all. Often they are, but there is nothing that mandates they are. Often one parent very much wants a child and the other wants nothing to do with it.

* The wrong word to use and spelled wrong. Oh well.
   84. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:54 PM (#5156675)
What are you, ten years old or something?


This carries more weight from someone who doesn't respond "LOL" and "Concession Accepted" every time they start to lose and argument or get bored.
   85. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:56 PM (#5156676)
You realize we were talking about the father's interests, right?

Yes.

Often one parent very much wants a child and the other wants nothing to do with it.

Only in the Dictionary of Human Definitions does "interests" mean "interest."

The wrong word to use

Not in English.
   86. Greg K Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:57 PM (#5156678)

What I argued was that consenting to X which has the potential to lead to Y is consenting to X which has the potential to lead to Y. It doesn't even make any sense to say that someone "consented" to a pregnancy. One consents to the actions which may lead to pregnancy.

Out of curiosity, where do things stand on birth control fraud (a la the annoying elder son from Weeds poking pinholes in a condom in hopes of getting his girlfriend pregnant). She consents to an action that she thinks is going to give her a 2% (or whatever) chance of getting pregnant when in fact she's engaging in an action where the likelihood is much higher. Or alternatively a woman lying about her birth control to the man. Is there some sort of legal recourse there?
   87. zonk Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:57 PM (#5156679)
Look, McConnell was obviously engaging in hyperbole. If Obama wanted to nominate Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones, I'm sure that the Senate would be happy to act.


And how about Sri Srinivasan? Confirmed to unanimously to the CA-DC, seems to have a sterling resume and be wholly qualified for the Supreme Court..
   88. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 04:58 PM (#5156680)
every time they start to lose and argument

No, I won the argument.

Here's a hint: When I make a substantive and supported claim, or analogy, and you say something like "that's a stupid analogy" or "only a fool thinks that," and nothing else, that means that I won. (And that there's a concession to be accepted, but I only accept certain ones.)
   89. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:01 PM (#5156681)
Why the scare quotes? Honestly your use of quotes is very odd.

Anyway the father has an interest, but not as big a one as the woman's (for what I hope - perhaps in vain - are obvious reasons). Since it is a binary decision the majority interest has the final say.


This is BS. We need to be concerned about the father's interest in the baby too, said no liberal ever.

Of course the father can use his powers of persuasion (which were sufficient to get the mother in bed after all) to convince the woman to his side, so he has a say.


He "has a say," but you're not concerned in the least about what his say is. No liberal ever is.

Where do you think the father's interest should lie? How should his interest be represented?


If the father wants the baby, the woman should bring it to term and then help pay for the child. What's good for one side should be good for the other. The only difference is the relatively minor inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months. Yes, yes, that's a horribly sexist opinion, I know. Get over yourselves. What it does is put the lie to liberals, who claim to want equality for women -- and yet here as we see they give women 100% of the rights and choices and leave 0% for the man.
   90. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:02 PM (#5156682)
And while I support abortion rights pre-viability, there's no question our culture's turning the "fetus" into the "other" goes hand in hand with our relentless war-making and our cultural conversion of the cultures we attack into the "other." It's a very small leap from letting a woman conspire to kill a viable child just because she feels like it and it's just a "fetus" anyway, to "Aw, who gives a #### about that bomb that hit a wedding; they're just Afghans anyway." Rationalizations about the other beget rationalizations about the other.
   91. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:04 PM (#5156684)
If the father wants the baby, the woman should bring it to term and then help pay for the child. What's good for one side should be good for the other. The only difference is the relatively minor inconvenience for being pregnant for nine months. Yes, yes, that's a horribly sexist opinion, I know. Get over yourselves. What it does is put the lie to liberals, who claim to want equality for women -- and yet here as we see they give women 100% of the rights and choices and leave 0% for the man.

Indeed. If a man has consensual sex with a woman, he's consenting to becoming a father. But if a woman has consensual sex with a man, she's not at all consenting to becoming a mother, and, in fact, a resulting pregnancy can even be said to be non-consensual.

Astonishingly absurd, even by the exceedingly low standards of liberal "logic."
   92. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:05 PM (#5156685)
I've consistently said Obama should do in this circumstance: select an eminently qualified, as non-ideological-as-humanly possible jurist. I said point blank that I don't think Obama should select an ideological fire-breather.

Well, in addition to the veteran Democratic jurists I previously mentioned, I also suggested that Joe Lieberman (a former Connecticut Attorney General, among his other credentials) could probably be confirmed, although about a third of each party might vote against him. Not seeing much evidence that Obama will follow my specific advice or Zonk's more generalized counsel.
   93. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:09 PM (#5156686)

And how about Sri Srinivasan? Confirmed to unanimously to the CA-DC, seems to have a sterling resume and be wholly qualified for the Supreme Court..


Robert Bork was also confirmed unanimously to the CA-DC and had a sterling resume.
   94. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:12 PM (#5156687)
Of course, the 2007-2008 Congress did not/did:

1) Hold impeachment hearings over the, let's say, improprieties... of the Iraq war runup as the partisan base clearly desired

2) Even gave Bush his "surge"

3) Passed emergency legislation upon being begged to do so by Bush's Treasury secretary after Wall Street went kablooey

4) Confirm ~50 Bush judicial nominees

5) Ratify 16 different treaties negotiated by the Bush Administration

6) Enhance FISA at the administration's request and opposed by the 'base'.

Corrections:

1) This Congress has yet to hold impeachment hearings either.

2) Actually, the House voted no on the surge, 246-182. Should we rehash all of the related quotes from Hillary! to Hagel to Pelosi? (Yeah, I didn't think so.)
   95. Howie Menckel Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:26 PM (#5156689)
Are there any countries (if there are, one in Europe would be a good guess) where if the man doesn't want the fetusbabychild, he doesn't have to pay child support?

Traditionally in the U.S. the idea was - "well, if the woman can't afford the newborn, someone has to pay for that, and of course that's the father."

But as the federal government plays a larger and larger role in social issues (to the chagrin of conservatives, I've noticed, heh) and issues of social equality, is that where we're headed? that's why I ask if some country has already made this shift.

there is a difference between trying to force a woman to take a baby she doesn't want to term for 9 months, vs forcing a man to pay child care for 18 years.

I can't honestly say I've thought about this issue too much, so be gentle.
:)
   96. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:27 PM (#5156690)
If a woman decides post-viability that she doesn't want her child, and also decides that she doesn't want to mess up her goodies, does she have the right to have a C-section and have the doctor strangle the child? Under the logic of the fanatics, there's no discernible reason she doesn't.
   97. zonk Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:27 PM (#5156691)
Robert Bork was also confirmed unanimously to the CA-DC and had a sterling resume.


Hey - I'm not saying a (theoretical) Srinivasan nominee should get a pro forma voice vote... I'll be fine with a Judiciary hearing, committee vote, and up-and-or-down full senate vote.
Corrections:

1) This Congress has yet to hold impeachment hearings either.

2) Actually, the House voted no on the surge, 246-182. Should we rehash all of the related quotes from Hillary! to Hagel to Pelosi? (Yeah, I didn't think so.)


Ahhh.... soo... impeachment hearings on what grounds? And a strongly worded resolution, but functional OK of the funding for the surge?

Seriously? That's the best you can do?
   98. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:31 PM (#5156692)

LOL. Biggest hack on BBTF.
   99. CrosbyBird Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:35 PM (#5156693)
It's all up to the woman, because it's "her body" blah blah.

That's a lot of blah blah, though.

I don't have a problem with allowing men to "opt-out" of pregnancy, mind you. If a woman doesn't want to raise a child without support from a man who doesn't want to be a father, she still has the options of abortion or adoption. (Although I'd also favor a pretty strong social safety net, so she is a lot less likely to need that support.)
   100. Orange Julius Is the New Black Posted: February 15, 2016 at 05:35 PM (#5156694)
Well, there's no way to respond to that without it being a straight line, but I think the right of abortion is almost entirely about those things. It's not about the relatively minor inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months; it's about the perception of what motherhood (which lasts a lot longer than nine months) does to a woman's life/career plans. And without abortion, unrestricted sex is just too risky on that basis.


One of the important dances on this subject is around the nature of womanhood. A short while back, I posted a radical feminist critique that proposed women are hamstrung by their very natures. Intercourse by nature is invasive, as is its results. While ideally it is by consent, that's never a necessary precondition to either sex or pregnancy.

When you are women's historical economic dependency upon men once impregnated, you are further limiting her life choices by limiting access to abortion.

Sure, we can discuss this issue up, down, and sideways, but like with sex, it doesn't have the same consequences and ramifications it does for women.
Page 1 of 26 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-24-16
(80 - 6:19pm, Jul 24)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogOTP 2016 July 18: Girls’ softball teams being shut out of city defibrillator policy, while boys’ teams given life-saving devices
(1739 - 6:10pm, Jul 24)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogChris Sales sent home because of argument over uniforms
(59 - 6:01pm, Jul 24)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogKen Griffey, Mike Piazza set for Hall of Fame | MLB.com
(10 - 5:53pm, Jul 24)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogReport: D-backs making teams aware Shelby Miller 'is available'
(5 - 5:17pm, Jul 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTed Berg: I badly wanted MLB to adopt replay before 2014. Now I find it boring and dumb
(57 - 5:08pm, Jul 24)
Last: There's a bustle in Misirlou's hedgerow

NewsblogYounger breed of techies replacing baseball lifers in GM roles - StarTribune.com
(14 - 4:34pm, Jul 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogReport: Yankees say Aroldis Chapman trade near | MLB.com
(47 - 4:28pm, Jul 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogChanges are coming to baseball Hall of Fame's veterans' committees | FOX Sports
(34 - 4:09pm, Jul 24)
Last: Rob_Wood

Newsblog#MLBRank: Barry Bonds, Ty Cobb make Stark's all-time top 10
(41 - 3:59pm, Jul 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: 2016 Summer Soccer Thread
(1499 - 2:57pm, Jul 24)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogIchiro Suzuki records 2 hits, 4 shy of 3,000 | MLB.com
(61 - 2:24pm, Jul 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRangers' Prince Fielder has herniated disk | texasrangers.com
(46 - 1:35pm, Jul 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: NBA Offseason Thread, July 2016
(803 - 1:15pm, Jul 24)
Last: maccoach57

NewsblogMoe Berg: Catcher, Lawyer, Horndog, Spy - Twinkie Town
(24 - 12:20pm, Jul 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

Page rendered in 0.6953 seconds
47 querie(s) executed