Is Anyone Watching this Palin Disaster Unfold? What was McCain Thinking? - Page 29 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #281 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 10:27 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
You seem equally fixated on associating me with the ProLife movement, and thusly, it's "excuses".

I've been consistent in arguing that the uncertainty surrounding the moment of viability, or the absence of real tests that can be agreed upon to establish viability, mean that you have to err on the side of caution - meaning assume the child will gestate to term. Go ahead and argue that an unborn child doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt; or argue that you know empirically that a fetus is inviable and unable to respond to sensory stimulation before a certain date.

If a viability test can be agreed upon, I'm all behind it. Roe v. Wade isn't it.
How do you feel about contraceptives?

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #282 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 10:35 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
I think they're the perfectly reasonable tools employed by people who want to have sex but not become parents. I'm a great fan of them.

NOW can we all agree this isn't a morality issue?
Qubes is offline  
post #283 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 10:39 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
It isn't? Your concession is accepted with gratitude and humility, sir. You fought the good fight.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #284 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:17 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
I think they're the perfectly reasonable tools employed by people who want to have sex but not become parents. I'm a great fan of them.

NOW can we all agree this isn't a morality issue?
I never thought there was a morality issue associated with this Palin pick for McCain's VP slot unpeeling like an onion with a rotten core.

This whole morality thing got going with the discussion about abortion, pro-Life and pro-Choice. A good deal of unwanted pregnancies come from unprotected sex by people who were unable to resist the drive to have sex, even though they did not want to become parents. A good deal of them didn't have access to contraceptives because there are people who make it difficult for them to have access to contraceptives.

Almost all humans begin to experience the drive to have sex before they are out of their parents' home and church's sphere of influence. When those influences make the availability or use of contraceptives difficult, yet do nothing to mitigate the growing urge to fuck, you get a set of conditions where what you did and I did and others have done is not a viable option. There are other situations, such as the fact that contraceptives, effective ones, typically fall to the female to use (guys are the least responsible parties for the most part and just don't use condoms "because" and as evidence look at the male homosexual activities that spread AIDS), and typically require a doctor's prescription and that is a difficult position to put a young teenage girl in a woman's body in - "sneaking" to a doctor, and using her allowance or part time job earnings to pay for the visit and the prescription, then hiding the pills from Mom and Dad.....just so she and Johnny can fuck like rabbits. And that says nothing about the people who live in basic squalor, where access to a doctor and drug store involves either leaving your neighborhood because there are no doctor's offices or pharmacies in these areas of squalor, or spending a lot of time at "clinics." Time not always likely to be available to the females of the species.

So, faced with the knowledge but not the experience, or means or ability to be deceptive to one's parents, but a lathered up gash and a heavy breathing boner for the dozenth time, bad decisions are made. It is routine. To deny it, while doing nothing to help these people make good decisions and then denying the young woman the right to make a choice, in private, without the influences of the same crowd who kept contraceptives just out of reach at the time they were most needed, is not helping.

So, as I see it we have a choice to make about choice. The choices are to stop pretending abstinence is a valid concept since Mother Nature, if not God, has made abstinence a successful approach for either aberrant humans or old people who have decided they don't like sex with other humans (unless they are under the age of 15, and likely the same sex, and...) and make contraceptives available to those humans just getting their first tastes of the drive to have sex that GOD instilled in humans (and dogs and monkeys and all living things) if we don't want them to have unwanted children. Free, available, say, as easy as drugs, cigarettes and beer, to young women.

Or we live with what we have, and see some women go through the agony of aborting a fetus. Put a time limit on it, but understand the time limit is arbitrary. There can be no scientifically conducted study to figure out, scientifically, what you would like QBN. This has to be arbitrary. Just like, in the Catholic Church's outlook, placing a mechanical or chemical barrier to those living little sperms that prevents them from getting to their living little egg target in that phenomena of nature that will take that bit of snot like discharge from the end of a dirty dick after it has seized upon that egg and turn it into a human being is also wrong. That act is hardly distinguished from abortion - yet many Catholics use contraceptives against the Popes' decrees on the matter.

With no real support for women who don't have abortions and then raise their kids alone into lives of poverty and suffering, where the same things happen again and again, I see this as a religious tool for making political power from a common set of human circumstances and detest it. Let the women have a choice, put some limitations on the exercising of the choice if you must, and then let them live with their choices. Men can not understand the scope of the anguish associated with the choice or justifiably enforce a limitation on the available options if they are not willing to share in the responsibility for the "choice" they leave the woman. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #285 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:45 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
You seem equally fixated on associating me with the ProLife movement, and thusly, it's "excuses".

I've been consistent in arguing that the uncertainty surrounding the moment of viability, or the absence of real tests that can be agreed upon to establish viability, mean that you have to err on the side of caution - meaning assume the child will gestate to term. Go ahead and argue that an unborn child doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt; or argue that you know empirically that a fetus is inviable and unable to respond to sensory stimulation before a certain date.

If a viability test can be agreed upon, I'm all behind it. Roe v. Wade isn't it.
Nice moral argument, but where you err is in not realizing that abortion is a legal, not moral argument.

The COTUS does not concern itself with "viability", that question is already decided in the 14th Amendment, which specifies that a US citizen, a class of human beings the COTUS states is entitled to rights under the COTUS, is someone who has been "naturally born or naturalized". Read it yourself.

It gives no rights to anyone (or thing to you anti-zygotes) who has not actually been born yet- that is the settled law on which Roe v Wade is based, none of the actual legal arguments have anything to do with the "viability" red herring.

The second point of law is in the 13th Amendment, which states no citizen shall be forced to endure involuntary servitude. Motherhood, like it or not, is servitude. The very basis of the American Idea is the idea that we all have an ultimate right to control our own destiny if we live lawfully, and that the state has no business to decide what our destiny shall be other than to take that right to determine our own destiny away if we break the law - an idea born of The Revolution of 1776 against the idea that some of us are "noble" and others "commoners". Our revolution said there is no distinction legally from the rights of one person to those of another, and this idea emanating from the Declaration of Independence was finally codified directly in the COTUS in 1865 in the 14th Amendment.

If abortion was illegal, women would no longer have that right, their choice of personal destiny would not be that of their own, but of the state, which would command her to have a child and to spend a third of her life raising it. Abortion, which may or may not be immoral from one person to the next, is legal.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 09-02-2008 at 11:48 AM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #286 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:49 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
Of course it was out of line - so was Shane's assertion that you can inflict whatever pain you want on any other living thing as long as it can't feel or remember it. Barbaric.




It was a hypothetical situation, posed based on taking Shane's suggestion - everyone should be in the adoption market if they want a voice about abortion - to it's logical end.



If someone wants to show me either the decision support checklist for how many children it's acceptable or required to have, I'm all game. Didn't know there was one. Of course, you know, that little knife cuts both ways. Perhaps people who don't have kids feel as if they've no choice but to argue for abortion, for fear of answering this ridiculous and irrelevant question.

I've got plenty of reasons that we have only one child, and don't need to answer that to anyone. I find the entire question over the line. It's a perverse attempt to distract from the issue at hand. WE have exercised careful judgement with regard to procreation...and now I'm to be thrown on the fire for acting responsibly? Whatever.
As an only myself, I know my parents went through that issue with questions all the time. "Health" was apparently not a good enough answer. And wifie and I have gotten it for years. Her spinal fusion keeps her from having kids and both of our travel schedules keeps us from being able to adopt [we have tried].

There is NO easy answer which is why I hold those who quickly say "haven't you people considered adoption as an alternative" to the fire. Seems many want it both ways. They don't want others to have choice but don't want to pick up the slack for adopting those kids that they want to force to be born themselves.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #287 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:50 AM
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
Nice moral argument, but where you err is in not realizing that abortion is a legal, not moral argument.

The COTUS does not concern itself with "viability", that question is already decided in the 14th Amendment, which specifies that a US citizen, a class of human beings the COTUS states is entitled to rights under the COTUS, is someone who has been "naturally born or naturalized". Read it yourself.

It gives no rights to anyone (or thing to you anti-zygotes) who has not actually been born yet- that is the settled law on which Roe v Wade is based, none of the actual legal arguments have anything to do with the "viability" red herring.

The second point of law is in the 13th Amendment, which states no citizen shall be forced to endure involuntary servitude. Motherhood, like it or not, is servitude. The very basis of the American Idea is the idea that we all have an ultimate right to control our own destiny if we live lawfully, and that the state has no business to decide what our destiny shall be other than to take that right to determine our own destiny away if we break the law - an idea born of The Revolution of 1776 against the idea that some of us are "noble" and others "commoners". Our revolution said there is no distinction legally from the rights of one person to those of another, and this idea emanating from the Declaration of Independence was finally codified directly in the COTUS in 1865 in the 14th Amendment.

If abortion was illegal, women would no longer have that right, their choice of personal destiny would not be that of their own, but of the state, which would command her to have a child and to spend a third of her life raising it. Abortion, which may or may not be immoral from one person to the next, is legal.

That's as concise a description of the legal angle as I can remember reading.
Marsden is offline  
post #288 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:52 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
You can't substantiate that and you know it. China has a pretty hopping market...they aren't blond haired or blue eyed. Look into waiting lists at adoption clinics nationally....they aren't short.


What is the waiting period to adopt?
Our current waiting time for the placement of a healthy US-born Caucasian infant is approximately 6 to 24 months. For a healthy US-born Black or bi-racial (Caucasian/African-American) infant the wait is approximately 2 to 6 months.

...

The waiting time, from the time of your Registration through the placement and adoption, for a Russian or other Eastern European child is approximately 6-12 months. It is approximately 12 to 24 months for a Chinese child, and approximately 4-8 months for a Guatemalan child. For other countries it varies depending on the country.

Please note that in the China, Eastern Europe, Russia, and Guatemalan programs, all adopting families will need to travel to the foreign country. The stay in China is typically about 10-14 days. In Eastern Europe families may be required to make 2 trips. The first trip is 3-5 days in length and the second trip is about 10-15 days long. Travel time with Guatemala is approximately 3-4 business days.
No demand, I suppose...which is why there are companies that offer "adoption loans" from $10,000 up to $100,000 on 72 month terms.


And this process isn't a cakewalk for the adopting parents, either.

Waiting Lists - Adoption Encyclopedia
Waiting lists vary greatly from agency to agency and exist primarily as a function of the imbalance between the numbers of infants in need of families and the much larger numbers of couples and single persons who are interested in adopting children, especially infants. (Waiting lists are much shorter for individuals interested in adopting older children or children with SPECIAL NEEDS.


Some agencies require individuals to wait for at least a year before they may be studied while others will not accept applications after a certain number of applicants have registered and until they believe they will be able to do a home study and place a child with the applicant within a reasonable length of time.

Virtually all agencies maintain waiting lists of people who have been approved to adopt. Most agencies consider a group of approved families for the next child to be adopted. Many of these agencies also offer the birthmother the opportunity to choose the adopting family from a group of nonidentifying resumés of previously approved families.

Most prospective adoptive parents do not like the prospect of spending several years' time on a waiting list, even if they understand the main reason for the wait to be an imbalance in numbers. Social workers believe that one good by-product of waiting lists is they may give applicants time that is often needed to seriously reflect on adoption and to work through any final infertility conflicts the family may have.

Parents interested in adopting a child with special needs usually are specifically matched to a child in terms of being able to deal with these special needs, and therefore, their wait may be very brief or very lengthy depending on the type of child the family feels they can accept and also depending on the suitability of their family for the child.
You might want to check with state Foster Care agencies to see what the UNSCREENED children deal with. You only cherrypicked with those googles.

And remember, we are talking about US children here. THAT is the Roe v Wade issue at hand. Importing kids when US kids need adoption is another problem altogether.

As for companies making loans for adoptions, you don't think they might be doing that for profit do you? As I said, healthy white babies have no problem getting adopted.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #289 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:53 AM
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
a lathered up gash and a heavy breathing boner [...] that will take that bit of snot like discharge from the end of a dirty dick after it has seized upon that egg
You know what, I have just discovered a romantic little bit of text which, if included in abstinence programs nationwide, may actually be effective
Marsden is offline  
post #290 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 11:59 AM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsden View Post
That's as concise a description of the legal angle as I can remember reading.
I concur
Zeitgeist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Sarah Palin DP Off-Topic 103 09-01-2008 01:16 AM
    rear seats fold & unfold, help !!! khmer00ml320 W163 M-Class 1 03-19-2006 01:12 PM
    An Unnatural Disaster Alfa Off-Topic 25 09-12-2005 09:19 AM
    DVD success - Michael Palin - Sahara flick is worth the wait Thomas.Schumacher G-Class 5 04-14-2005 08:39 PM
    Key for my '98 won't unfold shkeller55 W163 M-Class 8 12-25-2002 06:35 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome