7 ms·

I agree with you, Romney has been relatively much more sane than other Republicans. I would have even voted for him if he was able to run as Massachusetts Gover

by v64 10y ago

I agree with you, Romney has been relatively much more sane than other Republicans. I would have even voted for him if he was able to run as Massachusetts Governor Romney and not Pandering to the Insane Right Wing Romney. But he's certainly an outlier among the present class of Republicans. I think the Republican Party's pro-life position to be discriminatory against women. No one can force you to be an organ donor. Even if donating your organs would save someone's life, you have autonomy over your body and you are allowed to decline to be an organ donor. How is abortion any different? Even if you could save the baby's life, a woman should have complete autonomy over her body, period. Immigration is a huge issue, and I really thought the GOP was turning the corner on it, but it's all fallen apart since the GOP decided it would rather pander to an angry white base. Hopefully Trump will lose big and the GOP will actually follow the research they did in 2012. You sound like a reasonable person. I agree that wage discrimination and police violence aren't black and white issues. I agree that SJWism stifles honest debate. But I believe that climate change is real. I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste. I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse. I believe that it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation or gender identity is. These aren't partisan issues in my mind; it's reality. Romney seems to understand this. But I'm from East Texas, and I know for every one of him, there's a dozen Louie Gohmerts. The GOP needs to get its shit together and jettison the insane branch of its tent before we end up with a de facto one party political system.

cb18 10y ago
No one can force you to be an organ donor. Even if donating your organs would save someone's life, you have autonomy over your body and you are allowed to decline to be an organ donor. How is abortion any different? An organ is a component of a body. A baby is an entire human life form. You can't take an organ out of a body and have it grow up to be a poet or an astronaut. If a baby in the womb is simply "a woman's body," what about the 50% of genetic material from the father? I think the Republican Party's pro-life position to be discriminatory against women. How is it discriminatory against women? Women are the only sex that gestate. Opponents of abortion simply feel that much abortion is highly questionable ethically and feel that a society's treatment of the weakest and most defenseless among them speaks much about the character of their society. If men gestated they'd feel the same way. In modern society women do have complete autonomous control over their bodies in determining whether or not to become pregnant.
- v64 10y ago
  I think you missed the point of my analogy on abortion. Let's say there's someone you know who's going to die in 24 hours if she doesn't get a kidney transplant. She's too far down on the list to get one in that timeframe. Out of all the people she knows that have been tested, you're the only one who's a match. If you donate your kidney, she lives. If you don't donate your kidney, she dies. Either way, the government cannot compel you to donate your kidney to save her life. You can say "This is my body, my choice" and the woman dies. Same with abortion. The woman makes a choice about her body, the baby dies. This isn't the government's business. > Opponents of abortion simply feel that much abortion is highly questionable ethically and feel that a society's treatment of the weakest and most defenseless among them speaks much about the character of their society. Then by that logic, they should be arguing for organ donation to be mandatory. > In modern society women do have complete autonomous control over their bodies in determining whether or not to become pregnant. Tell that to a woman who gets pregnant from being raped.
  - cb18 10y ago
    So you're basically saying that all babies in the womb should be regarded as having an illness. The illness being whether or not the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy in an unnatural way. Just think about that, the stark unnaturalness of abortion. What other animal acts in such a way? There is nary a stronger force in nature than a mother's protection of her young. What is it about our society that compels women to do this? Does it have something to with the mixed messages being sent to women telling them they should act like men? Then by that logic, they should be arguing for organ donation to be mandatory. The crux of the illogic in this is that, left to take the natural course a baby is more often than not, not going to die. Whereas a terminal kidney disease patient, resulting from particular circumstances will die without intervention. Tell that to a woman who gets pregnant from being raped. I thought of that as I wrote that,(almost added a parenthetical). I think we can both agree that that is an edge case. An over-attention on edge cases can cloud our thinking about the larger issues.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
marcoperaza 10y ago
>Immigration is a huge issue, and I really thought the GOP was turning the corner on it, but it's all fallen apart since the GOP decided it would rather pander to an angry white base. Amnesty for current illegal immigrants + improved border security and visa enforcement, so that it never happens again, is the obvious answer to the immigration problem. What many people don't know is that the American people were sold on just that in 1986. It was a great compromise, a great humanitarian action, worthy of a great nation. Too bad it was a total lie. Amnesty was granted, but the improved enforcement never came. The Democrats were happy to keep importing voters and keep a hot-button issue alive. The Republicans were happy to keep importing cheap labor. The people, who wanted an end to uncontrolled immigration, were the suckers. Sanctuary cities that refuse to hand over dangerous criminals for deportation, and a federal government that usually declines deportation anyway, have only added fuel to the fire. The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again. >But I believe that climate change is real. The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy. >I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse. I disagree completely. The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We take for granted just how much Christianity has shaped our secular culture and morality. If you believe in your heart that abortion is the taking of a human life, then you have a duty to fight to end it. >I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste. I agree for the most part, but I've lately had doubts about my previous position that we should just legalize all drugs. Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase.
- v64 10y ago
  > The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again. So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall". > The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy. I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them. > The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We agree to disagree then. I believe religion is a highly personal issue that has no place in public discourse. I do not see Christianity's influence on our culture and morality as a positive thing. > Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase. I agree. When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.
barney54 10y ago
How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? The question is one of line drawing of when life begins that needs to be protected. The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. So the pro-life position is equal in it's belief about women's autonomy over their bodies. It's only that the pro-life position believe the fetus should be proetect earlier the women's autonomy over her body is equally protected.
- v64 10y ago
  > The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. > We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. This isn't obvious. Many conservatives believe abortion should be universally disallowed, including pregnancies resulting from rape.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    >I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. I think it's telling that instead of defending the core of your position, that abortion should always be allowed, you're falling back to periphery issues, such as what to do when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases, and it's really a sideshow to the main question.
    - v64 10y ago
      What I'm saying is that no matter what, a woman gets the final say over what happens to the undeveloped fetus that's inside of her. At the extreme end of that position, if one of them has to die, the woman gets to make the choice who, not the fetus, not the state. But even if the woman's life isn't at risk, the choice should still be her's. > Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases It doesn't matter, because they are many more who want to ban it entirely. Many religions, such as the Catholic Church, teach that there are no circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. Women have died in Catholic hospitals because of this doctrine. If we say some abortions are allowed, and some aren't, then we're politicizing what should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

by v64 10y ago

cb18 10y ago

No one can force you to be an organ donor. Even if donating your organs would save someone's life, you have autonomy over your body and you are allowed to decline to be an organ donor. How is abortion any different? An organ is a component of a body. A baby is an entire human life form. You can't take an organ out of a body and have it grow up to be a poet or an astronaut. If a baby in the womb is simply "a woman's body," what about the 50% of genetic material from the father? I think the Republican Party's pro-life position to be discriminatory against women. How is it discriminatory against women? Women are the only sex that gestate. Opponents of abortion simply feel that much abortion is highly questionable ethically and feel that a society's treatment of the weakest and most defenseless among them speaks much about the character of their society. If men gestated they'd feel the same way. In modern society women do have complete autonomous control over their bodies in determining whether or not to become pregnant.

v64 10y ago
I think you missed the point of my analogy on abortion. Let's say there's someone you know who's going to die in 24 hours if she doesn't get a kidney transplant. She's too far down on the list to get one in that timeframe. Out of all the people she knows that have been tested, you're the only one who's a match. If you donate your kidney, she lives. If you don't donate your kidney, she dies. Either way, the government cannot compel you to donate your kidney to save her life. You can say "This is my body, my choice" and the woman dies. Same with abortion. The woman makes a choice about her body, the baby dies. This isn't the government's business. > Opponents of abortion simply feel that much abortion is highly questionable ethically and feel that a society's treatment of the weakest and most defenseless among them speaks much about the character of their society. Then by that logic, they should be arguing for organ donation to be mandatory. > In modern society women do have complete autonomous control over their bodies in determining whether or not to become pregnant. Tell that to a woman who gets pregnant from being raped.
- cb18 10y ago
  So you're basically saying that all babies in the womb should be regarded as having an illness. The illness being whether or not the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy in an unnatural way. Just think about that, the stark unnaturalness of abortion. What other animal acts in such a way? There is nary a stronger force in nature than a mother's protection of her young. What is it about our society that compels women to do this? Does it have something to with the mixed messages being sent to women telling them they should act like men? Then by that logic, they should be arguing for organ donation to be mandatory. The crux of the illogic in this is that, left to take the natural course a baby is more often than not, not going to die. Whereas a terminal kidney disease patient, resulting from particular circumstances will die without intervention. Tell that to a woman who gets pregnant from being raped. I thought of that as I wrote that,(almost added a parenthetical). I think we can both agree that that is an edge case. An over-attention on edge cases can cloud our thinking about the larger issues.
  - jacquesm 10y ago

marcoperaza 10y ago

>Immigration is a huge issue, and I really thought the GOP was turning the corner on it, but it's all fallen apart since the GOP decided it would rather pander to an angry white base. Amnesty for current illegal immigrants + improved border security and visa enforcement, so that it never happens again, is the obvious answer to the immigration problem. What many people don't know is that the American people were sold on just that in 1986. It was a great compromise, a great humanitarian action, worthy of a great nation. Too bad it was a total lie. Amnesty was granted, but the improved enforcement never came. The Democrats were happy to keep importing voters and keep a hot-button issue alive. The Republicans were happy to keep importing cheap labor. The people, who wanted an end to uncontrolled immigration, were the suckers. Sanctuary cities that refuse to hand over dangerous criminals for deportation, and a federal government that usually declines deportation anyway, have only added fuel to the fire. The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again. >But I believe that climate change is real. The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy. >I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse. I disagree completely. The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We take for granted just how much Christianity has shaped our secular culture and morality. If you believe in your heart that abortion is the taking of a human life, then you have a duty to fight to end it. >I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste. I agree for the most part, but I've lately had doubts about my previous position that we should just legalize all drugs. Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase.

v64 10y ago
> The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again. So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall". > The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy. I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them. > The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We agree to disagree then. I believe religion is a highly personal issue that has no place in public discourse. I do not see Christianity's influence on our culture and morality as a positive thing. > Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase. I agree. When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.

barney54 10y ago

How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? The question is one of line drawing of when life begins that needs to be protected. The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. So the pro-life position is equal in it's belief about women's autonomy over their bodies. It's only that the pro-life position believe the fetus should be proetect earlier the women's autonomy over her body is equally protected.

v64 10y ago
> The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women. I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. > We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. This isn't obvious. Many conservatives believe abortion should be universally disallowed, including pregnancies resulting from rape.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside. I think it's telling that instead of defending the core of your position, that abortion should always be allowed, you're falling back to periphery issues, such as what to do when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases, and it's really a sideshow to the main question.
  - v64 10y ago
    What I'm saying is that no matter what, a woman gets the final say over what happens to the undeveloped fetus that's inside of her. At the extreme end of that position, if one of them has to die, the woman gets to make the choice who, not the fetus, not the state. But even if the woman's life isn't at risk, the choice should still be her's. > Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases It doesn't matter, because they are many more who want to ban it entirely. Many religions, such as the Catholic Church, teach that there are no circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. Women have died in Catholic hospitals because of this doctrine. If we say some abortions are allowed, and some aren't, then we're politicizing what should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.