by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,2702,2712,2722,2732,2742,2752,276. . .2,5072,508»

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I am inventing a new one, that Ted Cruz is secretly the illegitimate child of Lyndon Johnson.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Portrait_of_Lyndon_B._Johnson_in_Navy_Uniform_-_42-3-7_-_03-1942.jpg/800px-Portrait_of_Lyndon_B._Johnson_in_Navy_Uniform_-_42-3-7_-_03-1942.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Senator_Lyndon_Johnson.jpg

The resemblance is just uncanny.

Roborian wrote:the mindset of both parties is largely towards using large government and its programs and money to direct handouts in their preferred way, to different degrees. I think that quote is more accurate now than it was when he wrote it, now moreso than ever.

Thanks for replying to this one, I was kind of surprised no one was going to respond to me calling everyone nazis... People fail to realize that Korea and China are so obviously national socialist countries, not communist countries (N. Korea even removed any reference to communism in their own party documents). And yet almost every country is tending in that direction and mode of thinking also: we will give you socialism and we will maintain a robust nation-state. It is true of Italy and Hungary, sure, but also the UK, the US, the Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Turkey, you name it. The irony is so many people are actively rooting for the Republicans to become more like the national socialists: celebrating the end of fiscal conservatism and a GOP that may finally be "pro-life for the whole life" (read: hate abortion, love welfare). Hitler remains a byword of caution and evil, yet this has blinded us to the Hitler within us.

Still, I will add that part of the GOP/Conservative problem is that the left is all about pulling up roots and fences and building new monstrosities. It is impossible to simply rebuild these sorts of things, at least practically, and so the GOP is at a loss of what to do except be annoyed about it or play along or pull the brakes. Example: Obamacare passes, amid widespread Republican and popular protest. GOP promises a repeal and a replace. Why? Because after a few months Obamacare had shredded the old way of doing insurance plans in this country. You can't simply undo that, nor can you (politically speaking) torpedo a program that is insuring people and leave them out in the cold.
So now we are stuck with it. And meanwhile tons of people, inculding some I know personally, now just putter around with Obamacare, which they hated, as the new normal, forgetting that it (in the cases I know) ruined their old, better health plans and increased costs.

Of course it doesn't help that tradition and community and cultural democracy are nearly dead in America, certainly in politics. That is the ground conservativism is built on.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Thanks for replying to this one, I was kind of surprised no one was going to respond to me calling everyone nazis... People fail to realize that Korea and China are so obviously national socialist countries, not communist countries (N. Korea even removed any reference to communism in their own party documents). And yet almost every country is tending in that direction and mode of thinking also: we will give you socialism and we will maintain a robust nation-state. It is true of Italy and Hungary, sure, but also the UK, the US, the Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Turkey, you name it. The irony is so many people are actively rooting for the Republicans to become more like the national socialists: celebrating the end of fiscal conservatism and a GOP that may finally be "pro-life for the whole life" (read: hate abortion, love welfare). Hitler remains a byword of caution and evil, yet this has blinded us to the Hitler within us.

I doubt it is ever really going to come back, but 'fascism' being used as just a synonym for 'evil' has people entirely lost on what it actually is, was meant to be, and how it is rapidly becoming mainstream in the actual ideological sense rather than the pejorative 'hate minorities and kill people' sense. Fascism was the middle ground between Capitalism and Communism, to the point where the connections became entirely explicit: FDR praised Mussolini's Fascism, Mussolini praised FDR and considered New Deal politics to be largely fascist-and they were, not meaning that they were evil, but that they fit the ideological mold. 'Stakeholder capitalism' is fundamentally fascist economics, and the closest U.S. analogue to a fascist politician is probably Elizabeth Warren, with her notions of bringing private corporations under the umbrella of government to direct themselves towards what she considers to be the national interest: and to show how the right is doing the same, Tucker Carlson is largely similar, as is Josh Hawley. An American fascist is Elizabeth Warren's economics, possibly with, though not necessarily needing, a dash of John McCain on the side.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Still, I will add that part of the GOP/Conservative problem is that the left is all about pulling up roots and fences and building new monstrosities. It is impossible to simply rebuild these sorts of things, at least practically, and so the GOP is at a loss of what to do except be annoyed about it or play along or pull the brakes. Example: Obamacare passes, amid widespread Republican and popular protest. GOP promises a repeal and a replace. Why? Because after a few months Obamacare had shredded the old way of doing insurance plans in this country. You can't simply undo that, nor can you (politically speaking) torpedo a program that is insuring people and leave them out in the cold.
So now we are stuck with it. And meanwhile tons of people, inculding some I know personally, now just putter around with Obamacare, which they hated, as the new normal, forgetting that it (in the cases I know) ruined their old, better health plans and increased costs.

Of course it doesn't help that tradition and community and cultural democracy are nearly dead in America, certainly in politics. That is the ground conservativism is built on.

Conservatism bears the fundamental weakness of being cautious and institutionalist, which is not surprising, since those are their hallmarks, but in the perpetual struggle between the radical and the gradual, it puts them at an intrinsic disadvantage in that conservative losses are permanent, they are stubborn on the defense, but when the line breaks, it breaks, because, as you note with Obamacare, there's a unwillingness to take drastic action to return to the status quo. You instead see very cautious uses of power while in power, and incremental moves back, which will then be wiped out entirely by the next leap forward from the progressive side.

It is a valid and sobering point to raise the question: In the last fifty years, what exactly have conservatives conserved? It is not so much that politics has been a give-and-take, but that it has solely been a taking, and the only 'victories' that could be found are in ties, the 'victory' of a stalemate. William F. Buckley said "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'", and conservatives have taken that to heart-but it fundamentally does not work, and I think Buckley is wrong, in that he is advancing a fundamentally European notion of what conservatism is. American conservativism is different in that, while like European conservatism it seeks to preserve structures of the past, the European structures being preserved are aristocratic, 'conservative' themselves, but America seeks to conserve the Constitution, the single greatest liberal and outright revolutionary governing document ever conceived. Current conservatism is just being the brake pads while liberals are driving the car, and it can go nowhere from that, America cannot be Europe. The only path forward for conservatism in America is to adopt the methods of the radical and the progressive in order to return to the conservative founding principle. If 'conservative' just means 'gradual' there is not any future, it has to mean something more.

I always thought it was weird what it means for something to be a "country". For instance, England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland are all countries according to Wikipedia, but wikipedia also says the UK is a country. I have heard the EU (made up of technically sovereign nations) being compared to the US (common market and i think they have open borders. I think some want to even create a military, though I actually dont even think the EU is a defensive pact) or being called a "super state". On the other hand, our states have less sovereignty (but they do handle, or are constitutionallly supposed to handle, almost all issues not related to foreign policy/defense). The Civil war kind of established the precedent that "states" werent allowed to secede: I suppose that would be the difference between a country and a dependent semi-sovereign 'state'. To be honest, I think secession is probably constitutional (if states joined the Union voluntary, i would assume they could leave). I wonder when the British gave many of their colonies full sovereignty and stopped taxing them. For instance, I dont know how Canada went from a British colony to being considered a sovereign country which owes allegiance to the British head of state. There was actually an invitation for Canada to join the union in the articles of confederation: "Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be..."

Warm Greetings,

As both our regions have embassies established, we cordially invite members of this region to take part in the RCN & Friends Tri-Sport Tournament

The RCN Tri-Sport Tournament sign up has now been posted on the NS Sports Thread

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=504263

West Phoenicia
President of the RCN

West Phoenicia wrote:Warm Greetings,

As both our regions have embassies established, we cordially invite members of this region to take part in the RCN & Friends Tri-Sport Tournament

The RCN Tri-Sport Tournament sign up has now been posted on the NS Sports Thread

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=504263

West Phoenicia
President of the RCN

I have to say that Gladiator fights, Chariot racing and.....rugby sevens is an interesting combination.

Roborian wrote:I have to say that Gladiator fights, Chariot racing and.....rugby sevens is an interesting combination.

It's what the people vote. Lol

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:Wow, Ben shapiro called Ron Paul "alt right" somehow. Annoying neo cons. There isnt anything special about you anymore Benny Boo you are an adult. He is gonna go get his cheerleading outfit for the middle east wars. He annoys me. "Hey Im ben shapiro i talk really fast so everyone thinks im smart" and have a really weird voice

Shapiro is extremely touchy on Israel, which is not surprising, even if it can get somewhat annoying. I don't think it discredits him, I think he's a legitimate conservative with a mostly solid and sincerely held intellectual basis, who generally does a better job of speaking to the ideology rather than just partisanship. He's imperfect, does a bit too much of tweaking his message and presentation to appeal to his audience, and can succumb to the identity politics he criticizes when it comes to real or perceived anti-semitism, but I think he is still one of the better voices on the right today.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:I always thought it was weird what it means for something to be a "country". For instance, England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland are all countries according to Wikipedia, but wikipedia also says the UK is a country. I have heard the EU (made up of technically sovereign nations) being compared to the US (common market and i think they have open borders. I think some want to even create a military, though I actually dont even think the EU is a defensive pact) or being called a "super state". On the other hand, our states have less sovereignty (but they do handle, or are constitutionallly supposed to handle, almost all issues not related to foreign policy/defense). The Civil war kind of established the precedent that "states" werent allowed to secede: I suppose that would be the difference between a country and a dependent semi-sovereign 'state'. To be honest, I think secession is probably constitutional (if states joined the Union voluntary, i would assume they could leave). I wonder when the British gave many of their colonies full sovereignty and stopped taxing them. For instance, I dont know how Canada went from a British colony to being considered a sovereign country which owes allegiance to the British head of state. There was actually an invitation for Canada to join the union in the articles of confederation: "Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be..."

Well country is a distinctly weird word period. If you look up its history it has no implication of being a political organization until extremely modern times, instead it was a loose term for a coherent land around a given city, castle (similar to the word county, but more based on natural geography): https://www.etymonline.com/word/country#etymonline_v_19172
It's a bit like a metropolitan statistical region today rather than a nationstate.

For you question about the British colonies, it kind of depends what you mean. All British colonies, from the beginning, were substantially independent, ours included. It is no stretch to say that the 13 colonies were each substantially more independent and self-governing than states in our union today or Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland currently.
Most early independence-advocates simply wanted "liberty and union" within the existing system of the British monarchy, it was only later that more and more became revolutionary (Benjamin Franklin is a good example of this). https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/before-old-glory-there-was-the-taunton-flag/
Canada gained legislative assemblies, endorsed by Parliament, in 1791. The modern Canadian government was more-or-less established by the 1867 Constitution Act. I know of no instance of actual British taxation in Canada before independence, but if it existed it was insubstantial (just like in the 13 colonies).

Speaking of Canada, some disturbing news from Aawia's neck of the woods: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56910393

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Speaking of Canada, some disturbing news from Aawia's neck of the woods: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56910393

Yeah, it's concerning, a church friend of mine and I were talking about this today and he was wondering if the glyphosate or other chemical spraying was causing it. But as far as I know, spraying is province-wide and it's odd that it is only on the Acadian peninsula.

Got my vaccine booked! I have 2 chronic conditions so I'm able to sneak in early, and while I hope I'm not pushing anyone else out, I will gladly get it now that I can. I trusted my doctors with my life when they were operating on my heart 7 years ago, I will trust them now.

I will also comment briefly on the morality of the fetal cell issue. Most vaccines themselves contain no fetal tissue, but the tissue was used during the development of these vaccines, or later on to test many of these vaccines. However, these were cells taken in the 70s and 80s and that are now grown in labs from these original cells. Were those abortions immoral tragedies? Yes, absolutely. But, like a murder victim being used as an organ donor, good can come from moral evil. I want to say that if abortion was required to continue the practices we have now I would probably find it harder to pursue these vaccines on moral grounds. However, if this tragedy is not repeated, and can be roundly condemned but still used, like the unethical experiments in WW2 that have since been used in medicine, then I can sleep at night soundly knowing that at least some good came out of the ending of this poor persons life.

Romans 8:28 says "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." This does not mean the events themselves are good, but rather they work together for good. I believe this is one of those cases, as the tragedy is passed and not repeated, and we are not furthering any immorality by partaking in these vaccines.

I long for the day when lab-grown cells can replace the cells used now, but until then, I think it is morally acceptable to use what we have now.

Also, if you are still hesitant, please see this article:

http://phillycatholiclife.org/life-affirming-choices-3/covid-19-vaccines-explained/

And this sheet:

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

to find covid vaccines that are morally clear in your eyes. As time goes on and choice widens I believe this objection will become less relevant in decisions relating to vaccinating vs. not vaccinating.

PS: I am scheduled to receive the Pfizer vaccine if you are curious.

I've a hypothetical on pro-life goals that I'm interested in hearing some opinions on, more or less what the fundamental principle behind advocacy is or ought to be (or just what your opinion is on it.)

So, the hypothetical:

The pro-life movement is going to have success in one area, and because you have a arbitrarily limited magic wand, you can choose one and only one.

Option 1: Cultural victory. Abortion comes to be viewed as broadly immoral and far less people choose to have one as a result. However, due to contrived circumstances, say a packed SCOTUS, it remains and will remain fully legal for elective reasons, and abortions are still carried out, just at lower rates as less people are seeking them.

Option 2: Legal victory. Roe/Casey are either overturned or struck down by Constitutional amendment without any significant chance of being counter-overturned. However, a black market in illegal abortions springs up, and proves difficult to effectively combat.

Now the catch: in the first scenario, the abortion rate is down to 25 per thousand live births. In the second, the illegal abortion rate is estimated at 50 per thousand. (These numbers are arbitrary and probably unrealistic, but this is a thought experiment, not an accurate situation, trolley-problem style)

Which option do you choose? How much does the ratio matter? Would it be different if it were 1.25:1 advantage for Option 1? 4:1? Is the fundamental goal the absolute reduction of abortion rates, even without legal protections, or those legal protections, even if criminal abortions remain?

Roborian wrote:I've a hypothetical on pro-life goals that I'm interested in hearing some opinions on, more or less what the fundamental principle behind advocacy is or ought to be (or just what your opinion is on it.)

So, the hypothetical:

The pro-life movement is going to have success in one area, and because you have a arbitrarily limited magic wand, you can choose one and only one.

Option 1: Cultural victory. Abortion comes to be viewed as broadly immoral and far less people choose to have one as a result. However, due to contrived circumstances, say a packed SCOTUS, it remains and will remain fully legal for elective reasons, and abortions are still carried out, just at lower rates as less people are seeking them.

Option 2: Legal victory. Roe/Casey are either overturned or struck down by Constitutional amendment without any significant chance of being counter-overturned. However, a black market in illegal abortions springs up, and proves difficult to effectively combat.

Now the catch: in the first scenario, the abortion rate is down to 25 per thousand live births. In the second, the illegal abortion rate is estimated at 50 per thousand. (These numbers are arbitrary and probably unrealistic, but this is a thought experiment, not an accurate situation, trolley-problem style)

Which option do you choose? How much does the ratio matter? Would it be different if it were 1.25:1 advantage for Option 1? 4:1? Is the fundamental goal the absolute reduction of abortion rates, even without legal protections, or those legal protections, even if criminal abortions remain?

I'd pick Option 1. Less abortions overall, less women getting maimed or killed in back alleys. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Though as you noted, this is a hypothetical situation.

Aawia wrote:Got my vaccine booked! I have 2 chronic conditions so I'm able to sneak in early, and while I hope I'm not pushing anyone else out, I will gladly get it now that I can.

PS: I am scheduled to receive the Pfizer vaccine if you are curious.

I got my second dose of Pfizer back in March. Number one was fine but number two gave me a fever so you'll probably want to take Tylenol that night to prevent any side effects.

Edit: I was able to get it early since I help design medical equipment.

Roborian wrote:I've a hypothetical on pro-life goals that I'm interested in hearing some opinions on, more or less what the fundamental principle behind advocacy is or ought to be (or just what your opinion is on it.)

So, the hypothetical:

The pro-life movement is going to have success in one area, and because you have a arbitrarily limited magic wand, you can choose one and only one.

Option 1: Cultural victory. Abortion comes to be viewed as broadly immoral and far less people choose to have one as a result. However, due to contrived circumstances, say a packed SCOTUS, it remains and will remain fully legal for elective reasons, and abortions are still carried out, just at lower rates as less people are seeking them.

Option 2: Legal victory. Roe/Casey are either overturned or struck down by Constitutional amendment without any significant chance of being counter-overturned. However, a black market in illegal abortions springs up, and proves difficult to effectively combat.

Now the catch: in the first scenario, the abortion rate is down to 25 per thousand live births. In the second, the illegal abortion rate is estimated at 50 per thousand. (These numbers are arbitrary and probably unrealistic, but this is a thought experiment, not an accurate situation, trolley-problem style)

Which option do you choose? How much does the ratio matter? Would it be different if it were 1.25:1 advantage for Option 1? 4:1? Is the fundamental goal the absolute reduction of abortion rates, even without legal protections, or those legal protections, even if criminal abortions remain?

Option 1. The focus of any pro-life group should be on making abortion unthinkable, not just illegal. Laws against abortion do lower abortion rates, but so does targeting the reasons that women seek abortions. A world where the prevailing culture discourages women from seeking abortion and gives them the assistance they need to care for their babies sounds like a pretty great world, even if abortion remains legal.

The Rouge Christmas State wrote:I got my second dose of Pfizer back in March. Number one was fine but number two gave me a fever so you'll probably want to take Tylenol that night to prevent any side effects.

Edit: I was able to get it early since I help design medical equipment.

Same here. The second dose gave me chills and a low fever for a day.

New Dolgaria wrote:I'd pick Option 1. Less abortions overall, less women getting maimed or killed in back alleys. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Though as you noted, this is a hypothetical situation.

Phydios wrote:Option 1. The focus of any pro-life group should be on making abortion unthinkable, not just illegal. Laws against abortion do lower abortion rates, but so does targeting the reasons that women seek abortions. A world where the prevailing culture discourages women from seeking abortion and gives them the assistance they need to care for their babies sounds like a pretty great world, even if abortion remains legal.

Interesting, thanks for responding. I am a bit surprised to see things lean so much towards #1, but I think they're both wholly valid positions/motivations which is what I think makes it so interesting.

I've gone back and forth a bit on this, but I think I ultimately fall on the side of Option #2. The basic take would be based around the idea that there is always going to be criminal behavior, up to and including homicide, adult or otherwise, and that (from my take) there is more importance in providing for the legal recognition/defense of life over the raw numbers of killings. It may sort of be around an idea of exercising authority where it can be, sort of the same argument that we don't support military intervention in every conflict around the globe even if it could save lives, but we focus on the domestic sphere, or it might be something of a 'justice'-first take in putting more emphasis on the law itself upholding morality over seeking to affect the number of moral/immoral individual actions.

I do frankly think that Option #1 has the better claim to being "Pro-Life", the second option is maybe more something along the lines of "Pro-Personhood", though they do certainly both fall under the umbrella of the pro-life movement today, just different focuses.

Roborian wrote:I've a hypothetical on pro-life goals that I'm interested in hearing some opinions on, more or less what the fundamental principle behind advocacy is or ought to be (or just what your opinion is on it.)

So, the hypothetical:

The pro-life movement is going to have success in one area, and because you have a arbitrarily limited magic wand, you can choose one and only one.

Option 1: Cultural victory. Abortion comes to be viewed as broadly immoral and far less people choose to have one as a result. However, due to contrived circumstances, say a packed SCOTUS, it remains and will remain fully legal for elective reasons, and abortions are still carried out, just at lower rates as less people are seeking them.

Option 2: Legal victory. Roe/Casey are either overturned or struck down by Constitutional amendment without any significant chance of being counter-overturned. However, a black market in illegal abortions springs up, and proves difficult to effectively combat.

Now the catch: in the first scenario, the abortion rate is down to 25 per thousand live births. In the second, the illegal abortion rate is estimated at 50 per thousand. (These numbers are arbitrary and probably unrealistic, but this is a thought experiment, not an accurate situation, trolley-problem style)

Which option do you choose? How much does the ratio matter? Would it be different if it were 1.25:1 advantage for Option 1? 4:1? Is the fundamental goal the absolute reduction of abortion rates, even without legal protections, or those legal protections, even if criminal abortions remain?

In particular, I would prefer cultural victory, but maintaining the current legislation of my country, Brazil (not allowed, except anencephaly, rape and in cases of high-risk pregnancies).

Good and Gentle God,
We pray in gratitude for our mothers and for all the women of history who have joined with you in the wonder of bringing forth new life. You who became human through a woman, grant to all mothers the courage they need to face the uncertain future that life with children always brings.

Give them the strength to live and to be loved in return, not perfectly, but humanly. Give them the faithful support of family and friends as they care for the physical and spiritual growth of their children. Give them joy and delight in their children to sustain them through the trials of motherhood. Most of all, give them the wisdom to turn to you for help when they need it most.

Amen.

Roborian wrote:I've a hypothetical on pro-life goals that I'm interested in hearing some opinions on, more or less what the fundamental principle behind advocacy is or ought to be (or just what your opinion is on it.)

So, the hypothetical:

The pro-life movement is going to have success in one area, and because you have a arbitrarily limited magic wand, you can choose one and only one.

Option 1: Cultural victory. Abortion comes to be viewed as broadly immoral and far less people choose to have one as a result. However, due to contrived circumstances, say a packed SCOTUS, it remains and will remain fully legal for elective reasons, and abortions are still carried out, just at lower rates as less people are seeking them.

Option 2: Legal victory. Roe/Casey are either overturned or struck down by Constitutional amendment without any significant chance of being counter-overturned. However, a black market in illegal abortions springs up, and proves difficult to effectively combat.

Now the catch: in the first scenario, the abortion rate is down to 25 per thousand live births. In the second, the illegal abortion rate is estimated at 50 per thousand. (These numbers are arbitrary and probably unrealistic, but this is a thought experiment, not an accurate situation, trolley-problem style)

Which option do you choose? How much does the ratio matter? Would it be different if it were 1.25:1 advantage for Option 1? 4:1? Is the fundamental goal the absolute reduction of abortion rates, even without legal protections, or those legal protections, even if criminal abortions remain?

Option 1, definitely. Option 2 would be viewed as an extrinsic mandate and be greeted with anger and resentment. Rioting in the streets and mass protests would undoubtedly ensue. The purpose of the pro-life movement, in my view, is to make abortion a non-desirable outcome and give other options than killing the innocent baby. (Side note: Paid parental leave, streamlining the adoption system, having workplaces with lactation rooms, increasing childcare and daycare options, etc. would all be very helpful and give women the structural support necessary to want to have the pregnancy go to term. I'm glad some of these made the cut in Biden's proposal.) We need to change minds on the procedure, not simply win a legal victory that produces a spike in back alley abortions, which would occur inevitably. Women would be at the mercy of unqualified hacks, there would be no regulation on pricing, and women would be injured/die in the process, all of which happened pre-1973. With a black market, who's going to give laws on sanitizing tools and basic hygiene? Women could suffer from hemorrhages and bleed to death, as many did pre-1973. Women could also "trigger" a miscarriage to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy (If you've seen the movie Leave her to Heaven, there's a scene of just that). An informal word of mouth network would develop again for women to go get the procedure, regardless of the price gouging or qualifications of the abortionist. Option 1 would seek to dissuade people of pro-abortion convictions, which should be the end-goal. Having the procedure viewed negatively would be a net positive, while the unfortunate women who still choose the procedure would at least be able to get it safely.

Horatius Cocles wrote:Option 1, definitely. Option 2 would be viewed as an extrinsic mandate and be greeted with anger and resentment. Rioting in the streets and mass protests would undoubtedly ensue. The purpose of the pro-life movement, in my view, is to make abortion a non-desirable outcome and give other options than killing the innocent baby. (Side note: Paid parental leave, streamlining the adoption system, having workplaces with lactation rooms, increasing childcare and daycare options, etc. would all be very helpful and give women the structural support necessary to want to have the pregnancy go to term. I'm glad some of these made the cut in Biden's proposal.) We need to change minds on the procedure, not simply win a legal victory that produces a spike in back alley abortions, which would occur inevitably. Women would be at the mercy of unqualified hacks, there would be no regulation on pricing, and women would be injured/die in the process, all of which happened pre-1973. With a black market, who's going to give laws on sanitizing tools and basic hygiene? Women could suffer from hemorrhages and bleed to death, as many did pre-1973. Women could also "trigger" a miscarriage to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy (If you've seen the movie Leave her to Heaven, there's a scene of just that). An informal word of mouth network would develop again for women to go get the procedure, regardless of the price gouging or qualifications of the abortionist. Option 1 would seek to dissuade people of pro-abortion convictions, which should be the end-goal. Having the procedure viewed negatively would be a net positive, while the unfortunate women who still choose the procedure would at least be able to get it safely.

That definitely reinforces that the difference is centered around a difference in opinions on the purpose of the pro-life movement. From my perspective, the fundamental purpose of the movement is the legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being with the fundamental right to life. I would compare it to slavery, where the purpose of abolitionists was not to make slavery an unacceptable cultural institution, and have less and less people choose to engage in the practice, but to have legal recognition of the fundamental right of freedom of all people, even if it would breed resentment among people who would reject that fundamental human right, either of Life or of Liberty in the two cases.

Perhaps part of it is that I do not consider highly as a motivating factor the difficulties one might face in seeking to illegally obtain an abortion. Certainly something like concerns over unregulated cost would not even cross my mind, and even in the question of safety, I see it almost as if someone who was planning to release a poisonous gas in a murder attempt accidentally poisoning themselves because they had to get ingredients from shady dealers-the level of sympathy is rather low for a person actively attempting to kill another and being frustrated by not having an easy legal means to do so. I'm open to the idea that this is a bad mindset to have and something of a failing on my part, insufficient empathy, but at the bare minimum I do not think that it is cause for redirection of governmental resources: if someone is seeking a back-alley abortion, my response would not be to look to provide a safe legal outlet to kill the child while the culture battle continues in the background, but to double down on enforcement efforts to relocate the abortionists offering such executions from back alleys to prison cells.

Roborian wrote:That definitely reinforces that the difference is centered around a difference in opinions on the purpose of the pro-life movement. From my perspective, the fundamental purpose of the movement is the legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being with the fundamental right to life.

What good does this do if they are still being killed?

Roborian wrote:I see it almost as if someone who was planning to release a poisonous gas in a murder attempt accidentally poisoning themselves because they had to get ingredients from shady dealers-the level of sympathy is rather low for a person actively attempting to kill another and being frustrated by not having an easy legal means to do so.

Portraying abortion-seeking women as the villains does not help anyone except Planned Parenthood. Those women are the victims of a culture that tells them, "Having a baby would ruin your life and ruin your career aspirations. You will never be free again. You need to terminate this pregnancy and put it behind you." Most abortions are done for social and economic reasons. Kill those reasons - convince women that they are capable of raising a child and give them the support that they need - and you kill the abortion industry.

But if we don't? If we just pat ourselves on the back for having chased the industry underground and secured legal recognition of abortion as murder? If we vilify women for being convinced to get an abortion, turning it into a scarlet letter? Then we cannot call ourselves pro-life. We can only call ourselves pro-birth, or "pro-personhood" as you called it. We paint Planned Parenthood in a very sympathetic light while they make millions off of lies, deceit, and emotional manipulation, and we support their lies about how opposition to abortion is born out of hatred for women. We win the battle, but we lose the war.

Phydios wrote:What good does this do if they are still being killed?

Outside of the hypothetical, where the numbers were just concocted to create the dilemma, bans are going to be effective. Not perfectly effective: no law of any kind is perfectly effective, but a ban on abortion tomorrow would immediately reduce abortion rates more than decades of advocacy, just as, to return to the abolition example, the 13th Amendment did dramatically more to bring slavery to an end than decades of abolitionist rhetoric. The rhetoric is not useless, it is worthwhile, but outside of hypotheticals it will likely never do even a fraction as much as criminalization.

Even if one does take the assumption that bans are almost singularly ineffective (which I would argue is more likely a failure of enforcement than of kind), I am of the belief that there is value in affirmation of rights in law, even if violated by criminality. This is far more philosophical than practical, but I would hold that having a de jure acknowledgement has worth in and of itself. For an example used earlier, I would consider a society in which forced sex was criminalized, such as ours, to be more moral than one in which it was legal, but simply occurred less often due to cultural factors. Sanction in law for deeply immoral behavior that harms others is central to what law ought to be, I think it fits the image of the authority which wields the sword in Romans 13.

Phydios wrote:Portraying abortion-seeking women as the villains does not help anyone except Planned Parenthood. Those women are the victims of a culture that tells them, "Having a baby would ruin your life and ruin your career aspirations. You will never be free again. You need to terminate this pregnancy and put it behind you." Most abortions are done for social and economic reasons. Kill those reasons - convince women that they are capable of raising a child and give them the support that they need - and you kill the abortion industry.

I fundamentally reject this premise, because I see it fundamentally disproved in actual action. Can abortion rates be lowered by providing such support? Absolutely, and it is worthwhile to do so-but you will never kill the abortion industry in that way. Wealthy women, powerful women, multi-millionaires who need never fear any want have abortions, and in large numbers. Women like Lena Dunham actively state how they wish they had had an abortion because they see abortion as a good in and of itself-no system of child welfare or maternal support is going to stop those killings. I very much support such efforts as a compliment to the push for criminalization, but they are a compliment, and can never be a replacement.

Phydios wrote:

But if we don't? If we just pat ourselves on the back for having chased the industry underground and secured legal recognition of abortion as murder? If we vilify women for being convinced to get an abortion, turning it into a scarlet letter? Then we cannot call ourselves pro-life. We can only call ourselves pro-birth, or "pro-personhood" as you called it. We paint Planned Parenthood in a very sympathetic light while they make millions off of lies, deceit, and emotional manipulation, and we support their lies about how opposition to abortion is born out of hatred for women. We win the battle, but we lose the war.

To consider that kind of argument, the pro-personhood argument, as 'hatred for women' is to internalize Planned Parenthood's own rhetoric, it's absurd. The villification of homicide is valid, for homicide, adult, child, or unborn, is villainous. I, as I believe I mentioned above, think that the legal onus should not be put on the woman, but on the actual abortionist carrying out the killing, as has been the standard for most all theoretical or attempted pro-life legislation, but, as much as perhaps language ought to be softly advanced for political purposes, we cannot minimize the immense significance of these killings in our own minds-they remain murders as much as any other, and if we fear painting killings as a 'scarlet letter' more than we fear failing to stop those killings, then we've defeated ourselves before we even reach the battlefield.

I'll make a reference one more time to slavery, because I believe that abortion and slavery have been the two great sins of the United States, and they are drawn from similar bases, the declaration that a certain group of humans are less than human. There were always cultural efforts to defeat slavery, efforts to minimize the effect on slaveowners, to allow for compensation, gradual emancipation, to focus on voluntary manumission over legal abolition, etc. They had some effect. They were not worthless, and they were most certainly more moderate in being conciliatory towards slaveowners and those who supported the practice, and looking to avoid being too aggressive. But they did not stop the practice, did not even put a significant dent in it. The practice of slavery was stopped when the hammer was put down, the Constitution amended, and it was made unequivocally clear that such action was criminal, and the law would be enforced to such an extent that the United States held a military occupation against its own citizenry. Far beyond a scarlet letter. We are extremely fortunate that we can avoid such extreme action-but we cripple our own movement if we look to block ourselves from the most basic step of criminalizing homicide out of fear of it being considered mean-spirited to save life in such a matter.

Roborian wrote:

Perhaps part of it is that I do not consider highly as a motivating factor the difficulties one might face in seeking to illegally obtain an abortion. Certainly something like concerns over unregulated cost would not even cross my mind, and even in the question of safety, I see it almost as if someone who was planning to release a poisonous gas in a murder attempt accidentally poisoning themselves because they had to get ingredients from shady dealers-the level of sympathy is rather low for a person actively attempting to kill another and being frustrated by not having an easy legal means to do so. I'm open to the idea that this is a bad mindset to have and something of a failing on my part, insufficient empathy, but at the bare minimum I do not think that it is cause for redirection of governmental resources: if someone is seeking a back-alley abortion, my response would not be to look to provide a safe legal outlet to kill the child while the culture battle continues in the background, but to double down on enforcement efforts to relocate the abortionists offering such executions from back alleys to prison cells.

If making abortion totally illegal is the end-goal of the pro-life movement, then it ought to think about what will happen to the women seeking underground abortions. Those women will always exist, and we must take them into consideration if we claim to be "pro-life." Your argument leaves you wide open to the criticism that the pro-life movement doesn't value women beyond passing the child through the birth canal. As for not thinking about the hygiene or safety, as a woman it is easy for me to think about the trouble those women would go through. As a man, you'll never have to undergo any part of the pregnancy process, which is strenuous as it is without the thought of procuring an abortion. It may be the wrong decision, certainly, but is there need for the woman to die or suffer from hemorrhage or uterine perforation? The women who sought abortions pre-1973 all had to think about hygiene, safety, and pricing. For that matter, it should be thought about in modern day abortion "clinics." There is no reason to subject the abortion seeking woman to a quack doctor that can cause grievous bodily injury to the most delicate area of her body. And even if we could round up all the abortionists and throw them in jail, then women would simply do DIY abortions with even worse results. After a botched operation or even a "successful" abortion, women could end up with serious damage to the cervix due to utterly incompetent "doctors." And that's not even getting into the territory of abortion "doctors" that raped and abused the women in their "care." In an illegal abortion setting, there's no way to hold the abuser accountable for such hideous actions.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301

«12. . .2,2702,2712,2722,2732,2742,2752,276. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement