Indictments over Planned Parenthood videos announced

[Jon]

Conveniently clouded by all the accusations thrown at conservatives about abortions and birth control, among other things, is the fundamental belief in individual responsibility...something liberals seem to abhor fundamentally.

some of us just realize that no matter how many times you say it that a certain percentage of the population will simply never take that responsibility for themselves. Human nature is what it is and I prefer to take reality over wishful thinking

 

[CajunCrimson]

Conveniently clouded by all the accusations thrown at conservatives about abortions and birth control, among other things, is the fundamental belief in individual responsibility...something liberals seem to abhor fundamentally.

Individual Responsibility = Smaller Government = GOP

So, they have no choice but to abhor it......it's in the morning talking points......as a sticky note at the top, right next to the Ban of all LSU Football Fans.

 

[RTR91]

some of us just realize that no matter how many times you say it that a certain percentage of the population will simply never take that responsibility for themselves. Human nature is what it is and I prefer to take reality over wishful thinking

Except with guns of course...

 

[CajunCrimson]

some of us just realize that no matter how many times you say it that a certain percentage of the population will simply never take that responsibility for themselves. Human nature is what it is and I prefer to take reality over wishful thinking

The problem is - is that "reality" is now subjective.....

We can look at the same issue - see the same problem - yet see the cause of the problem two totally different ways -- with each party seeing only the parts they want to see. Thus dual reality.

 

[Jon]

Except with guns of course...

I like guns

I own guns

don't get your point? Do you mean that some people won't take responsibility so we shouldn't have guns?

 

[RTR91]

I like guns

I own guns

don't get your point? Do you mean that some people won't take responsibility so we shouldn't have guns?

Look at the post I responded to:

some of us just realize that no matter how many times you say it that a certain percentage of the population will simply never take that responsibility for themselves. Human nature is what it is and I prefer to take reality over wishful thinking

So this idea that some have it to take reality over wishful thinking. That doesn't appear to be the case in gun control, though.

 

[Jon]

I think people are just confused about your political positions. You don't seem to hew to any ideology. Sometimes I think you're a statist, sometimes I think you're a libertarian, sometimes I think you're crazy.

Heh

totally fair answer and glad to see I've evolved from Statist in your eyes

my ideologies are fairly odd and I know it

Libertarianism appeals most to me but I also understand that it, like most political philosophies look better on paper than in practice. That a certain percentage of people, no matter what we do will be addicts, or crazy, or just plain too damn stupid and I don't think that as one of the most wealthy civilizations that the world has ever known we should just abandon these people to suffer.

in the end I see myself as a fiscally conservative pragmatic humanist and I could be the only one

 

[crimsonaudio]

in the end I see myself as a fiscally conservative pragmatic humanist and I could be the only one

I don't think so.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Heh

totally fair answer and glad to see I've evolved from Statist in your eyes

my ideologies are fairly odd and I know it

Libertarianism appeals most to me but I also understand that it, like most political philosophies look better on paper than in practice. That a certain percentage of people, no matter what we do will be addicts, or crazy, or just plain too damn stupid and I don't think that as one of the most wealthy civilizations that the world has ever known we should just abandon these people to suffer.

in the end I see myself as a fiscally conservative pragmatic humanist and I could be the only one

That pretty well sums up my positions. I consider myself a political iconoclast and I reject pigeonholes. If someone wants to crawl into one, fine. Just don't try to stuff me into one...

 

[92tide]

Heh

totally fair answer and glad to see I've evolved from Statist in your eyes

my ideologies are fairly odd and I know it

Libertarianism appeals most to me but I also understand that it, like most political philosophies look better on paper than in practice. That a certain percentage of people, no matter what we do will be addicts, or crazy, or just plain too damn stupid and I don't think that as one of the most wealthy civilizations that the world has ever known we should just abandon these people to suffer.

in the end I see myself as a fiscally conservative pragmatic humanist and I could be the only one

although you are likely a bit more fiscally conservative than i, that pretty much describes me

 

[Tide1986]

I think people are just confused about your political positions. You don't seem to hew to any ideology. Sometimes I think you're a statist, sometimes I think you're a libertarian, sometimes I think you're crazy.

Given his desire to force his humanist views on others through the use of government power, you are probably correct in your statist view.

 

[chanson78]

Because the rationale for birth control programs was cost savings, because there was a stated preference for funding birth control over welfare, and because a comparison was made to at least one other option (abstinence) for controlling births. Sterilization happens to be another option, which is arguably at least as effective as temporary birth control measures. I see no slippery slope or straw man with respect to discussing the efficacy of sterilization as another option for controlling births and welfare expenses.

Somehow, call me crazy I know, I don't believe that people would voluntarily ask for euthanasia or sterilization. That is the fundamental difference and why what you stated is most definitely a straw man. Furthermore its the standard slippery slope tactic taken by starting from one position and taking it to its usually illogical extreme. This program in Colorado provided birth control to women who wanted it yet could not afford it. Completely different than the euthanasia and sterilization arguments.

Given his desire to force his humanist views on others through the use of government power, you are probably correct in your statist view.

Taking this current topic, irrespective of other thread posts made by Jon, how in the world is he trying to force his humanist views on others? Providing information regarding the efficacy of a state funded and provided birth control program to women who want to use it is so far from advocating the use of government power to force humanist views on others that sometimes I think we are speaking two different languages. Granted this thread has diverged into a completely different discussion than the one that originally started, yet even in the original discussion (pre-Colorado program), I have yet to see Jon advocate for any government mandated humanist view acceptance program.

 

[Tide1986]

Somehow, call me crazy I know, I don't believe that people would voluntarily ask for euthanasia or sterilization. That is the fundamental difference and why what you stated is most definitely a straw man. Furthermore its the standard slippery slope tactic taken by starting from one position and taking it to its usually illogical extreme. This program in Colorado provided birth control to women who wanted it yet could not afford it. Completely different than the euthanasia and sterilization arguments.



Taking this current topic, irrespective of other thread posts made by Jon, how in the world is he trying to force his humanist views on others? Providing information regarding the efficacy of a state funded and provided birth control program to women who want to use it is so far from advocating the use of government power to force humanist views on others that sometimes I think we are speaking two different languages. Granted this thread has diverged into a completely different discussion than the one that originally started, yet even in the original discussion (pre-Colorado program), I have yet to see Jon advocate for any government mandated humanist view acceptance program.

As you can imagine, I don't see eye-to-eye with you regarding your first paragraph.

Regarding your second paragraph, Jon answered your question with this thought:

That a certain percentage of people, no matter what we do will be addicts, or crazy, or just plain too damn stupid and I don't think that as one of the most wealthy civilizations that the world has ever known we should just abandon these people to suffer.

This thought then seems to influence his perspective on the role of government.

 

[Jon]

I love when I have to talk with customers for a few hours and come back to see others speaking for me

thanks for chiming in chanson

I'll put it this way to 86, did you see the word pragmatic in my description of my political philosophy? Do you know what that word means? If not I'll help

Pragmatic
adjective
dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Political pragmatism is a uniquely American philosophy, developed here and observed by Tocqueville during his American journeys. It is a philosophy that says, 'if it works, we don't really care why.' It is a rejection of theory and ideology for means-tested facts and reality

that means I try, not always successfully but I try to think through as many of the angles as I can to find the right solution to a problem and let the evidence lead wherever it leads. Sometimes it leads to a Government based solution. Often it doesn't but sometimes it does and that doesn't make me a Statist even though sometimes the evidence leads me to favor a statist solution to a single issue.

 

[Tide1986]

I love when I have to talk with customers for a few hours and come back to see others speaking for me

thanks for chiming in chanson

I'll put it this way to 86, did you see the word pragmatic in my description of my political philosophy? Do you know what that word means? If not I'll help



that means I try, not always successfully but I try to think through as many of the angles as I can to find the right solution to a problem and let the evidence lead wherever it leads. Sometimes it leads to a Government based solution. Often it doesn't but sometimes it does and that doesn't make me a Statist even though sometimes the evidence leads me to favor a statist solution to a single issue.

If I agreed with the underlying assumptions of your "pragmatic" view stated herein (i.e free birth control provided by taxpayers through government), I would likely come to the same conclusion.

 

[Tide1986]

Getting ready to sing Kumbaya in here.

Yeah, right.

 

[Gr8hope]

Chanson, I went to euthanasia in response to the suggestion that abortion saved money down the line in costs for children who are not wanted or cared for by their parents. So I wondered if Jon thought euthanasia would be acceptable too.

 

[bamacon]

If whether a baby lives or dies is a choice why isn't the same afforded to my gun of choice? Or magazines for said gun? I want the the govt. out of my gun collection.

 

[CharminTide]

Just an anecdote on terminology, FWIW:

Among other things, I perform autopsies. A large proportion of our cases are actually nonviable fetuses, where the question of interest is whether there is some genetic/syndromic reason that the fetus expired either in utero, or soon after birth (for future family planning). When we write our autopsy reports, we are extraordinarily particular about the language we use. Terms such as "baby" or "child" are avoided, as these are obviously emotionally charged, and potentially emotionally manipulative. In particular, "baby" is not even recognized medical nomenclature in this time setting. The medical and scientific term for a human offspring beyond 8-9 weeks is "fetus." It remains a fetus throughout the remainder of gestation until it is expelled through the birth canal. If it is alive at that time, it is an infant. Although "baby" has a relatively broad definition in medicine, it is not a term used to describe offspring prior to the stage of infancy.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Just an anecdote on terminology, FWIW:

Among other things, I perform autopsies. A large proportion of our cases are actually nonviable fetuses, where the question of interest is whether there is some genetic/syndromic reason that the fetus expired either in utero, or soon after birth (for future family planning). When we write our autopsy reports, we are extraordinarily particular about the language we use. Terms such as "baby" or "child" are avoided, as these are obviously emotionally charged, and potentially emotionally manipulative. In particular, "baby" is not even recognized medical nomenclature in this time setting. The medical and scientific term for a human offspring beyond 8-9 weeks is "fetus." It remains a fetus throughout the remainder of gestation until it is expelled through the birth canal. If it is alive at that time, it is an infant. Although "baby" has a relatively broad definition in medicine, it is not a term used to describe offspring prior to the stage of infancy.

What I find interesting, is that we act like the official medical terms were found in some medical "Bible"....that was found during the discovery of our planet. We, in turn, must use these non-emotional medical terms because we all know how non-emotional an occasion is when an infant is allowed to survive on its own. Especially after its journey through the birth canal when it gets promoted from fetus to a being which cannot be executed.

I wonder if these same people will view the remainder of their own lives with such medical splendor. How they aren't a mother or father, they are a paternal figure or a maternal one. They should never consider themselves to ever be a Mommy, or Daddy, or Poppy, Grammie, Paw Paw, Mom, Dad, Nu Nu, Me Maw, Doodie, Nonnie, Nanna, or Pop. They will tell their second generational off-spring to only refer to them as "second generational paternal figure" and they should never be moved to tears, oh sorry, I mean emotional dissension of fluids through ducts beneath the eyes....when their second generational offspring states "I Love You"

We should always look at the world without emotion, not just when unborn babies are intentionally killed and sold for scrap.