Now these idiots can not actually pass a budget, however they have plenty of time for stupid games. Apparently there are 2 memos regarding this topic, a GOP version and DEM version. And the GOP folks are voting against the recommendation of the Justice department... Which called the releasing of the memo "extraordinarily reckless” and could harm national security and ongoing investigations."
Meaning they will release the GOP version, and not the DEM version. (at least not at this time)
VOX GOP Votes to Release GOP Memo
Fox News Memo
Why can't these people focus on running the country? I mean is a simple budget too much to ask? We are almost half way through the year!!!
Meaning they will release the GOP version, and not the DEM version. (at least not at this time)
VOX GOP Votes to Release GOP Memo
Fox News Memo
Why can't these people focus on running the country? I mean is a simple budget too much to ask? We are almost half way through the year!!!
98 comments:
Why can't these people focus on running the country?
Money, mainly. These days the job of Congressman is mostly a matter of making fundraising calls or facilitating fundraising calls. The country is failing. This is just another aspect of it.
--Hiram
Things don't happen in Washington unless they have a political constituency. Budgets don't have lobbyists. They don't make political contributions. They never vote. I have yet to see one on a Sunday morning talk show. They don't phone in to Fox and Friends. The upshot of all of this is that no one cares about them.
There is also a problem here. Budgets don't exist. What does exist is spending and taxes. A budget is simply a way at looking at these two things. And both spending and taxes do have large and powerful constituencies. And you can't address those issues without dealing with those constituencies.
People think government should work like a business. Well, there are all sorts of different businesses that work in all sort of different ways. Many businesses have a boss, who has authority over employees. The problem in Washington is that no one of importance works for anyone.
--Hiram
"Why can't these people focus on running the country?"
Less government is better government...or so you keep saying.
Moose
The whole Trumpworld idea that the *FBI* was biased in favor of Hillary and is now conspiring against Trump is so ludicrous as to defy belief. Let's not forget that one of the reasons Comey made the late-October nothingburger announcement that likely cost Hillary the election was because he knew someone in the NYC FBI office -- which had been leaking like a sieve to folks like Rudy Giuliani the entire campaign -- would leak it if Comey didn't do anything.
And the FBI failed to mention the fact that Trump was under investigation before the election, too. But, derp, Deep State, derp!
The whole FBI loved Hillary thing is amusing to folks like me. We always assumed that the security establishment in Washington was pro Republican. It's a bit of conventional wisdom which was universally taken for granted on my side of things. That the FBI chose to involve itself in the Hillary email thing at all, was regarded by us as evidence of that. The idea that Hillary's email practices raised issues of criminal liability was both laughable and absurd.
Now, we are asked to believe, that the FBI was on Hillary's side all along. It begs the question, that many of us think about but are shy of asking: Just how stupid does Trump and his enablers think we are? On a scale of one to a zillion?
--Hiram
Or perhaps more correctly, how stupid do Trump's opponents Think we are? When the head of the FBI comes out and says that Hillary was clearly guilty of "gross negligence" But fails to use those words because they carry criminal charges and penalties, and then proceeds to overstep his authority and say that no prosecution should take place, what is any intelligent human being supposed to think except that "the fix is in"?
how stupid do Trump's opponents Think we are?
Well...
Choice of words matters I suppose. Trump uses the word "collusion", because it doesn't have the criminal connotation of it's synonym "conspiracy".
The argument for gross negligence, in a legal proceeding, falls apart. The computer guy is asked, Do you use a firewall? yes. Do you have a security program? Yes. That is way beyond enough to refute a gross negligence charge. The fact is, the government uses Russian software. What that means is that using government servers, arguably, is vastly more negligent than using private servers. Imagine the fun a defense attorney would have had with that. The reality of the internet, any version of the internet, is that is insecure. That's just as true for government servers as it is for private servers. If using it is gross negligence, pretty much all of us could end up in the big house.
--Hiram
Moose,
Wanting less government control and wealth transfer is one thing.
Wanting a government that performs its duties responsibly and effectively is quite another... :-)
Hmmm. All well and good except that the use of a private server is in and of itself a violation of federal law. Receipt or transmittal of confidential information outside the government service is a violation of federal law. Hillary supporters tried to say that she had no intention to break those laws, but the criminal standard of gross negligence does not require intent.
What are we trying to defend here? The right of politicians to be above the laws that apply to all the rest of us? Like Obamacare?
Wanting a government that performs its duties responsibly and effectively is quite another.
But you advocate for putting people in government who don't like government. This is what you get.
Moose
Receipt or transmittal of confidential information outside the government service is a violation of federal law.
I don't know the being referred to, but it's obviously unconstitutional because no one can control what's sent to them by email. As for confidential information, Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State and the handling of confidential information was something pretty much within her authority. My mind can get around the alternative, really. I mean, how does information get designated as "confidential"? Some junior clerk in the State Dempartment stamps it "confidential" and his determination is binding like through all America? And what is the point of information, confidential or otherwise if you can't use it? And how could senior policy officials not have the authority to use it as they see fit? How could they do their job otherwise? And what are we asking here? For senior government officials to be trailed constantly by lawyers charged with reviewing emails for violations of arcane statutes, rules and regulations? Has any government ever operated like that? Does the Trump State Department operate that way? Is there really much to be gained if we allow criminal lawyers to take over the world?
--Hiram
Moose,
Again you seem confused...
I know of know who doesn't like government... It is what government does and how much it costs that are the issue.
That's laughable.
When you consider government to be the problem, you don't like government.
Moose
I think you would be hard pressed to find someone say they want to eliminate our local, state and/or federal governments?
Though there are many on both sides who would like to change the scope and method of operation of our current governments.
I am a big fan of the electoral college and how it weights the votes so that small population areas can not be trampled by big population areas. Where as many Liberals here wish the majority vote always won.
Does that mean the Liberals hate government?
am a big fan of the electoral college and how it weights the votes so that small population areas can not be trampled by big population areas.
Most small population areas are completely ignored by presidential campaigns. Large states are where presidential campaigns are fought. Trump won because he carried large states like Pennsylvania and Florida. In what way are they not trampled? The price for giving undue importance to such states is that literally three million votes were thrown out because the people who cast them happened to live in the wrong place.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Since you dislike this aspect of our government...
Is Moose correct that you "don't like government"...
There are lots of things about the constitution I am critical of. The framers of the constitution committed the original political sin by not abolishing racism. The consequences of that have been historically catastrophic, and we live with them even today, 230 years later. Because of the constitution, this business about favoring rural state people talk about, the federal government for the first 70 years of our history, was unable to peacefully eliminate slavery, resulting in a civil war, and for the next hundred or so years was unable to come to grips with the aftermath of slavery. This isn't good.
I don't actually think the constitution works. It was a decent enough try for a first time, but the whole checks and balances stuff is just nonsense. What's happening today vividly demonstrate what's wrong with the system but it's been building for a long time.
So do I like government? Not the political system much, but it's the only one we have, and there is no reasonable or practical alternative to it. We are pretty much stuck with it.
--Hiram
'Is Moose correct that you "don't like government"...'
You don't get to mis-represent my statements.
The Constitution is not the government. If it were, we wouldn't need people to do the work.
Moose
Moose,
As long as amendments are allowed, of course the Constitution is controlled by the government and us citizens.
Let's try another one, you don't like that:
- that government does not make the "wealthy pay their fair share"
- that government does not hand out enough welfare or healthcare
- government does build light rail, bike paths, etc
- etc
Does this mean that "you don't like government?"
Nah. Not having this discussion. You like to sit there and tell people what they think/like/believe, creating the ultimate strawman.
Enjoy your day.
Moose
Sounds fine, hopefully you will just reconsider your statements...
"When you consider government to be the problem, you don't like government."
"But you advocate for putting people in government who don't like government. This is what you get."
The reality is that I advocate for putting people in government who want:
- to limit it's control of the private sphere
- to promote competition
- to make it more effective, efficient, etc
- policies and programs do not promote citizens making poor life decisions
- to ensure only legal residents reside in the USA
I greatly appreciate government, it is the entity that ensures our freedoms, security and property rights.
Okay, I'll bite.
The reality is that I advocate for putting people in government who want:
- to limit the damage the private sphere can inflict on people and the environment
- to promote equal access and opportunity
- to make it more responsive to humans
- policies and programs do not actively hurt citizens or cause them strife
- to ensure that the people who come here seeking a better life are treated with dignity and respect
Moose
See, we can both like government while wanting it to do different things.
The government you desire just is too controlling, expensive and enabling of dependency for my tastes.
I find it curious that you are against the things I listed. It would seem you're against feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, welcoming the stranger, etc. Do you call yourself a Christian? Your attitude surely isn't.
I already know your answer, but a civilization is not merely a whole bunch of individuals in the same place.
Moose
PMFBI, but Moose, if you had suggested that Christians should be doing those things in your second list, I would be forced to agree with you. But when you couch it in terms of GOVERNMENT doing these things, you are proposing not a Christian lifestyle but a Robin Hood approach – a zero-sum game which robs from everybody.
Moose,
Jerry and I are some what aligned on this one. I happily freely give thousands of dollars per year to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, heal the sick, welcome the stranger, etc.
That does not mean that I need to support that these are key roles of a successful government. Please remember that I believe in forcing people to learn how to fish. Just enabling them to live their lives begging for fish is too cruel for me...
Please note that I am happy to invite 1,000,000+ strangers into the USA each year. I just expect them to follow the immigration laws of the USA.
And more importantly I support helping them in their home country. Whether it be Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Mexico or other. One does not need to invite a stranger into your home to help them.
take a missionary trip outside the US sometime. Build a school or help dig a well. you won't think again about asking them to Give up everything and come to America, legally or otherwise.
Well. That comment was confusing.
I suppose, if you have not had the experience. It's perfectly clear to me.
So, you proved my point. You don't understand the point of living collectively. You see merely a bunch on individuals, but fail to see the good that can be done only by collections of individuals. You see it as either/or. I see it as both/and. You're asking for a government of the people and by the people, but not FOR the people.
Presumably, you belong to a parish with a church building. Also presumably, that building was built because of the work of the parishioners, collectively.
So, you're in favor of the institutions created by the collective, as long as they benefit you, and you falsely believe that you built your own success from the ground up. But you bristle and balk at things that demonstrably favor the very people the government is meant to be for.
Moose
Actually I believe in holding all American citizens for being responsible and contributing citizens within our society.
We invest hundreds of thousand per person or more in public education, welfare, etc. I do expect each person to learn, work, save, invest, raise children responsibly and help care for the truly disabled. (ie learn to fish, not freeload and be dependent on others)
Actually, I think John and I might agree that human nature is to look out for #1, and that society "collectively" thrives when each of us seeks "enlightened self-interest." Sometimes that means we do for ourselves and, in doing so, drive such desirable societal traits as division of labor, capital improvements and infrastructure, and charitable and civic organization. Nowhere in there does government have any place except preventing us from harming one another, providing for our common defense, and generally stay out of the way.
People will naturally be "responsible" for themselves unless politicians step in with "I will take care of you, and somebody else will pay for it."
"Nowhere in there does government have any place except preventing us from harming one another..."
But you disagree with...
- to limit the damage the private sphere can inflict on people and the environment
- to promote equal access and opportunity
- to make it more responsive to humans
- policies and programs do not actively hurt citizens or cause them strife
- to ensure that the people who come here seeking a better life are treated with dignity and respect
...the failure of which DOES harm people.
So you don't want people to harm people, but you want the government to either actively harm people or to stay out of the way so that people can harm people. Brilliant! And you think Liberals are confused!
Again. You think it's EITHER the government OR the people. I believe it's BOTH the government AND the people.
"...and generally stay out of the way."
Unless you want to marry someone of your own choosing or make the responsible choice for society and your own future by having an abortion.
Moose
Moose
Moose,
Please explain how you come to this conclusion?
"you want the government to either actively harm people or to stay out of the way so that people can harm people"
Now I do agree that regulations need to evaluated for costs and benefits. Some regulations are good and some are over kill.
Is government enforcing our laws regarding immigration what you consider harming people?
And is allowing people to experience the natural consequences of their choices and actions in somehow related? If someone fails to learn, work, make good choices, etc... Does society owe them something? Does it make sense to transfer their costs to others in society?
"Please explain how you come to this conclusion?"
Again, for the obtuse:
"But you disagree with...
- to limit the damage the private sphere can inflict on people and the environment
- to promote equal access and opportunity
- to make it more responsive to humans
- policies and programs do not actively hurt citizens or cause them strife
- to ensure that the people who come here seeking a better life are treated with dignity and respect
...the failure of which DOES harm people."
Moose
Moose,
I think you a confusing "harming people" with:
- enforcing our country's laws
- allowing people to manage their personal consequences
- weighing the harm prevented and caused via regulations
- etc
Please remember that regulations can help people and the environment.
But they can also take away jobs, tax revenue, etc
Please remember that all of receive a free education, and many receive free food, housing, etc. This of course costs other citizens for better or worse, and may make our country less competitive. Helping others is great, enabling them to stay dependent is bad.
I agree that government should make sure our infrastructure is good, schools are good, police and rescue personnel are great, businesses are supported, etc. Not sure what "responsive" means to you? Do you mean enabling dependency?
And I am happy to treat illegal residents with dignity and respect as we deport them to the back of the "legal immigration" line. Their being here is costing American citizens and people waiting in the legal immigration line.
Moose,
If you have kids... Are you going to:
- keep giving them money so they become dependent?
- not force them to do their homework, learn, improve, etc?
- let them break the rules when they wish?
- drop everything the scratch their knee?
You see folks like me as cruel, I see it as caring.
It seems you want the tax payers to be a helicopter parent to anyone on American soil who struggles... Whether they are here legally or not. This unfortunately is not good for the country or the recipient in the long run.
Moose,
So here is a test... What you do about our friend Angel Adams?
Would you keep sending her money and buying her a bigger house?
Would this be good for America, the rest of us tax payers or her kids?
One more time:
- to limit the damage the private sphere can inflict on people and the environment (people are harmed if this doesn't happen)
- to promote equal access and opportunity (people are harmed if this doesn't happen)
- to make it more responsive to humans (people are harmed if this doesn't happen)
- policies and programs do not actively hurt citizens or cause them strife (people are harmed if policies and programs harm them)
- to ensure that the people who come here seeking a better life are treated with dignity and respect (people who are turned away may come to harm)
Hey, I get it. You don't care if people are harmed as long as the law is followed or they're getting what they 'rightly deserve'. But remember, it was legal in Germany to put Jews in concentration camps.
Moose
So I get it, you want to protect everyone from everything no matter their choices, the costs, the consequences, etc. And somehow you think it is governments jobs to do this.
Back to my question, how do you want protect Angel Adam's kids from her?
"...you want to protect everyone from everything..."
Try again. This time, try to understand what I'm saying.
jerry earlier said, "Nowhere in there does government have any place except preventing us from harming one another..."
And you said you and jerry are aligned.
My preferred government does that.
Yours doesn't.
Moose
Ok, Moose, who is harmed if government takes your money and gives it to Angel Adams so she can have more kids she has no desire or ability to care for? Who is harmed if we allow immigrants to come here and kill our citizens? Who is harmed if government shuts down the coal industry, costing millions of jobs and leaving millions more to starve and freeze without coal power?
Please remember that rarely do Jerry and I agree beyond some basic ideas.
Of course I agree that a key purpose of government is to create and enforce the laws that give our society order and facilitate interpersonal and inter business transactions.
They also enable us to have property rights, without government the person would the biggest gun could take whatever they want from anyone.
I have never met a person who wants to our country to become an anarchy, have you?
The questions are:
- What to do about unsuccessful people? Do we have government force them to change and improve? Do we have government just write them checks from the wallets of successful people?
- How many regulations are optimal since they all have benefits and cost?
- Do we really want government to welcome people who enter our country illegally and/or over stay their visa?
And I am really serious... What should our government do about Angel Adams from your perspective?
"Who is harmed if government takes your money and gives it to Angel Adams so she can have more kids she has no desire or ability to care for?"
Her children are being harmed. Why does she still have custody of the children?
"Who is harmed if we allow immigrants to come here and kill our citizens?"
Hyperbole. They're not the ones killing our fellow citizens.
"Who is harmed if government shuts down the coal industry..."
Hyperbole. There will always be an energy industry. If you're so concerned for the workers of the coal sector, petition the government to spend money to retrain them for work in a different energy sector. But...remember, you and John believe that people need to do that for themselves.
"What to do about unsuccessful people?"
I suppose we can just let them rot. Of course, that will cause harm to both them AND society (other people). The logical answer, then, is to help them.
"How many regulations are optimal since they all have benefits and cost?"
Are people or the environment being harmed? If so, the regulation is incorrect.
"Do we really want government to welcome people who enter our country illegally and/or over stay their visa?"
Are they people? If so, they should be treated with dignity and respect.
"What should our government do about Angel Adams from your perspective?"
The children are the ones being harmed. What regulation is in place to mitigate that?
Moose
To summarize some...
Angel Adams and Unsuccessful People: Not sure. Both Liberals and Conservatives think making and keeping babies is a right. I think it should be a privilege. As for why the kids have not been removed, Liberals would prefer to keep giving her money... Not sure why. Remember that being stupid and/or irresponsible is not cause for removing kids. One has to abusive or neglectful before that happens.
By the way, you have asked questions... Not said what you would do if you were in control.
Regs and Coal:
Coal regulations are a good example. They help some people and harm other people. Just as many regulations do.
Illegals:
So does "Dignity and Respect" mean we give everyone who shows up at our border or over stays their visa automatic citizenship? You are being vague in this area.
'So does "Dignity and Respect" mean we give everyone who shows up at our border or over stays their visa automatic citizenship?'
It means treating them with dignity and respect. The Republicans are spouting a lot of legalism, but not dignity or respect. I'll stick with the Democrats.
"One has to abusive or neglectful before that happens."
It would seem we have not properly defined 'abuse' and 'neglect' if these kids aren't falling into that category.
Coal regs: How are people harmed? Do they not have the option to learn, work, and make good choices (your words) in preparing for a world without a coal industry?
Moose
Unsuccessful people: Hopefully someday Liberals and Conservatives will start putting the good of the kids ahead of the unsuccessful people and public employees. Not holding my breath. The kids really don't have lobbyists working for them.
Illegals: You really are avoiding this issue. Do we give everyone who shows up at our border or over stays their visa automatic citizenship? Can we not politely deport them to the back of the immigration line?
Regs: My point is made. Regs are just regs... They can help and hurt people at the same time. Each needs to considered carefully.
Conservatives have never shown that they are interested in putting the good of the kids ahead of even the birth of a fetus, so...good luck with that, I guess.
We're talking about coal, but it's not regulations that are causing the coal industry to collapse.
There aren't many companies making VHS or cassette tapes anymore...or even CDs for that matter...but there is still a huge recorded music industry. And it wasn't regulations that caused people to move on from cassettes and CDs...it was a better alternative.
Thankfully, there are progressive thinkers and innovators who look to the future rather than trying to recapture the past.
Moose
"Conservatives have never shown that they are interested in putting the good of the kids ahead of even the birth of a fetus, so...good luck with that, I guess."
Liberals seem adamant that "the good of the kid" requires that it be murdered before birth. And the only "interest" they seem to have is in spending lots of somebody else's money to warehouse them in penury and squalor.
"We're talking about coal, but it's not regulations that are causing the coal industry to collapse." That is absolutely wrong. federal regulations including Obama's "Clean Power Plan" and many others, constituted the "War on Coal," which in turn was based on the government desire to "fight global warming." Yet when the EPA was asked to justify these regulations that would bankrupt the coal industry, they were told that the total effect on global temperatures, 100 years from now, would be an insignificant 1/100 of a degree! It is the consummate example of an arbitrary regulation with an incredibly terrible cost/benefit.
"There aren't many companies making VHS or cassette tapes anymore...or even CDs for that matter...but there is still a huge recorded music industry. And it wasn't regulations that caused people to move on from cassettes and CDs...it was a better alternative."
Exactly. This is what happens in the free market. But when government regulates, innovation stops. Look at the energy industry. Government regulations require the installation of windmills and solar power, cripple nuclear power, and prevent new and better technologies like lithium fusion, thorium batteries, and waste cogeneration to name only a few, from being commercially developed.
"Thankfully, there are progressive thinkers…" I'm sorry, but that sounds like an oxymoron. I continue to believe that 300 million people are smarter and know better what they want and need than are a handful of Washington bureaucrats.
Unsuccessful people: The Liberal solutions and War on Poverty seem to have hurt the kids / families even more.
Illegals: Still avoiding...
Regs: We can try a different Reg if you don't like coal...
How about when folks regulate banks to make sure they only make high quality loans... Thereby preventing less affluent people from getting access to investment capital?
"Liberals seem adamant that "the good of the kid" requires that it be murdered before birth."
I'm more convinced now than ever that you don't know any Liberals.
"I continue to believe that 300 million people are smarter and know better what they want and need than are a handful of Washington bureaucrats."
No doubt you're right, but it's highly unlikely that you have your finger on the pulse of the citizenry.
Moose
Moose,
Personally I think Jerry just exaggerates sometimes to wind you up...
Just because I May (or may not) know any liberals willing to claim such, SOMEBODY keeps opposing any effort to change abortion law in accordance with Roe V Wade, permitting the abortion of millions of children. That to me constitutes harming them.
Moose, you are correct. I would Never say that I know exactly what medical care each of 300 million people may need or want, nor what they should pay for it, or what the doctor should be allowed to charge. Yet here we are, with somebody that is not me making all those decisions that I believe should be left to the individual.
"Yet here we are, with somebody that is not me making all those decisions that I believe should be left to the individual."
I agree...the corporate bureaucrats and bean counters at insurance companies get in the way of health care and health care outcomes entirely too often.
"...SOMEBODY keeps opposing any effort to change abortion law in accordance with Roe V Wade, permitting the abortion of millions of children."
Because it is an attempt by religious groups to erode the rights of the individual. Once started, where does it stop? If a government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, there is nothing to stop a future government from forcing a woman to have an abortion. Oh, and also, as far as I know, no one is aborting children. Fetuses, yes. Children, no.
Moose
Moose,
Actually you can skip having insurance and pay your own medical bills now. Now big companies required...
Also, is "James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world, until that record was broken in 2014. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 pound 6 ounces (624 g). He survived."
a fetus or a baby?
Oops... "No big companies required"
"Actually you can skip having insurance and pay your own medical bills now."
Great! Then there's no one standing in the way of your health care.
"a fetus or a baby?"
It was a fetus, then it was a baby. I understand language can be difficult sometimes, but this one is pretty simple. With the rhetoric that jerry throws around, it won't be long before he's talking about women aborting full-grown adults. Language matters. A fetus is not a child.
I mean, I suppose, instead of aborting an unwanted but viable fetus, they could be incubated after being removed from the mother. How many of your tax dollars will you agree to spend on that program? Or perhaps we could compensate mothers for carrying unwanted fetuses to term. How many of your tax dollars would you agree to spend on that program?
Moose
You can hide behind terminology as much as you want to but:
James the 21 week old fetus...
is the same being as
James the 21 week old preemie...
And he is so cute in that picture!!! :-)
By the way, please remember that I am begrudgingly fine with first trimester abortions. But as Roe v Wade wisely ruled... by viability the baby also has rights.
That's fine. But what are you going to do with unwanted babies?
Moose
First: there is adoption.
Second: there is no excuse an expectant Mother can not have their abortion in the first 4 months.
In fact the vast majority currently occur before 16 weeks now.
And many of those aborted after that time will likely die naturally. They are not aborted because the Mother does not want them. They are aborted because they threaten the Mother's health or they have serious health issues.
Please remember that I support euthanasia.
I am fine ending the lives of very disabled / sick individuals based around some legal criteria. I just don't want the decision based on whether that human is in a woman's womb or in the hospital's incubator.
To put that in perspective... Are you willing to smother our cute little 21 week old James to death in his incubator?
If not, under what circumstances would that be acceptable?
Moose, your abortion dilemma is already law. Roe v. Wade says states may regulate at 20 weeks. And the courts have ruled that after 20 weeks, elective abortions may no longer be available, as a matter of contract law between two "persons." SOMEBODY keeps fighting these legal and commonsense restrictions, for example by insisting that a 9-month-old human being is a "fetus" and not a "baby." I try not to hate anybody, but I have a very low tolerance for stupidity among politicians.
Correction. It is not 20 weeks. It is viability which was ~24 weeks, but with technology is approaching ~21 weeks.
Jerry,
The other question is when a Mother is at risk or the baby will die... Who do you think should make the decision regarding terminating the pregnancy? Some politician or the Mother?
Neither side is clean in this stupidity...
John, is adoption accounting for all of the unwanted babies? I've heard of people adopting from other countries. Does that mean that every unwanted baby in this country is already being adopted? If not, why not? If not, what is happening to those babies?
Everybody knows what the goal of the anti-choice folks is: to make abortion illegal. It is not a secret. THAT is why people fight further restrictions, jerry.
There are already VERY few abortions done after 20 weeks, and I have no real issue with saving those unborn lives, but you haven't answered the question of what to do with them if they are unwanted. Can you force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term? Can you force her to not drink alcohol? You're talking about supposedly free people, here. In these cases, the most logical thing would be to remove an unwanted fetus from the mother, incubate it, and place it for adoption at the appropriate time. So, after 20 weeks, the contract is in place; the fetus must be born. Time for a new government program, by the sound of things. There aren't many cases (yet), so it won't cost too much.
I presume you're okay with legal abortion before 20 weeks, jerry?
Moose
From what I understand, infants are easy to get adopted.
It is older kids that people are less excited about adopting.
Please remember that even 2% of 500,000 is 10,000 late term abortions.
And yes I am happy forcing a Mother to carry a healthy fetus to term after 20 weeks if her pregnancy is low or moderate risk. She had 20 weeks to get out of the deal, now she owns her decision.
"And yes I am happy forcing a Mother to carry a healthy fetus to term after 20 weeks if her pregnancy is low or moderate risk."
Why do you hate freedom, John?
Moose
I don't hate freedom, I love cute little babies.
Why do you want to saw cute little babies into pieces on the whim of a woman?
Okay...stepping back away from the hyperbole.
You want to force women to be incubators. That flies in the face of the Constitution. Better to rip the fetus out as soon as she decides she doesn't want it and incubate it separately.
Moose
Moose,
Let me guess... You are not a Parent...
Please remember that with the Freedom to become a Parent...
One accepts the Responsibilities of becoming a Parent...
I simply don't get to starve or suffocate my child because I have had a change of heart.
If you can not understand this... Please never have or adopt children.
"Please remember that with the Freedom to become a Parent...
One accepts the Responsibilities of becoming a Parent..."
So when the woman decides she doesn't want the responsibility by bringing a pregnancy to term, you'll force her to.
She is not then free.
Again, if you insist that a fetus at 20 weeks is a separate, viable human being, and we don't allow people to kill separate, viable human beings, then the 'baby' must be taken from her. It would be no different than if the parents of a five-year old child no longer wanted to be parents. We wouldn't allow them to kill the child. The child would be taken away.
Please be consistent.
Moose
Moose,
I wish you luck with this strange argument, I do not think it will fly anywhere except in your head.
The safest place for that young baby is in it's Mom's womb, we will happily let her give it up once it is born. Until then it is her Parental duty to care for, feed and nurture her child until it is safely delivered.
If she wants to be truly free, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place. Freedom comes with consequences and responsibilities.
Now playing with your idea a little...
Can you think of any other example where a Parent is allowed to put a child's life at risk because they want to be free of that child?
Now if the Mother's life is at risk, I understand that choice needs to be made.
But what you are proposing would be similar to little Mose's being placed in that basket in the river... One crocodile in the wrong place and there would been no parting of the Red Sea...
"Until then it is her Parental duty to care for, feed and nurture her child until it is safely delivered."
"Can you think of any other example where a Parent is allowed to put a child's life at risk because they want to be free of that child?"
And what do we do with parents or the children of parents who have decided to put the life of their child at risk?
"...we will happily let her give it up once it is born."
Then she is not free.
"...she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place."
Maybe the father of the child shouldn't have gotten her pregnant. Maybe her parents should have taught her better. Maybe she works for an employer who won't allow the medical coverage to cover contraception. Maybe the contraception failed. Maybe this, maybe that, but you chose to blame the woman.
Moose
We usually charge them with "child endangerment", "neglect", etc and they go to jail or experience some other punishment. Parents are not free to do such things.
Of course this discussion is focused around the Mother because you choose to make it so. I am arguing that the Father and Child have rights in this decision, you are arguing that only the woman has rights.
"We usually charge them with "child endangerment", "neglect", etc and they go to jail or experience some other punishment. Parents are not free to do such things."
I guess we'll have to put those pregnant women in jail "to protect the 'baby'" until it's born, then. Throw the fathers in, too. Unless you're considering forcing the woman to carry to term as 'punishment', in which case the father should be thrown in jail or otherwise punished. Maybe a large fine. That should teach people to not have sex.
Moose
Or... The woman can just choose to:
- have that abortion before wk 20...
- carry the baby until it is fully developed...
So many choices, so little time...
Or the father can choose to have the baby aborted before wk 20, no?
Moose
According to your logic he should be free to do so...
I mean what if he does not want to pay that child support...
Should he be free to avoid doing so?
Should he be forced to pay child support?
John, the preponderance of stupidity is the one wanting to exercise "rights" over scientific, legal, and ethical fact.
Abortions after 20 weeks may be regulated by law, with exceptions for the "life and health of the mother." The breakpoint was set because of "viability" (arbitrarily). Abortions after 20 (or maybe it's 24) weeks create MORE risk for the mother than carrying the child to term. And if a woman carries the child that long, it is NOT unwanted. What kind of vermin are you calling these women? They're real human beings. They may have made a bad or unfortunate choice, but that one mistake does not forfeit their humanity.
And yes, I think forcing the father to pay child support is a perfectly reasonable idea. People react to incentives and disincentives. If we erase the moral and legal strictures against premarital sex and abortion, then maybe raw economic considerations are useful.
Source? "Abortions after 20 (or maybe it's 24) weeks create MORE risk for the mother than carrying the child to term."
As for unwanted... To change one's mind is a woman's prerogative in most cases... And I can see a few women freaking when things get further along.
Of course the most ironic part of this discussion is you... The don't let get government:
- interfere with Parental decisions guy.
- get between a doctor and the patient guy.
Being one of the biggest advocates for the government interfering and regulating one of the most personal choices a mother can face.
The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of the SMALL MINORITY of 20+ week abortions occur because there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with baby or pregnancy.
Of course the other sad reality is that the Religious Right are the first to demand that high risk pregnancies not be aborted...
And the last to want to fund Medicaid, Social Security, etc when that little baby comes out with serious birth defects, chronic health or developmental problems, etc.
As we all know, Conservatives care about every child until it is born.
Then they claim that it someone else's responsibility... :-(
OK, you're right. I'm a terrible person, as is every member of the Religious Right (whoever they are). Even when I agree with you.
Not terrible... Just inconsistent and illogical...
If one wants to seize responsibility for a fetus because life matters.
Then they should ensure that life is cared for and nurtured immediately after it leaves the womb.
Not turn their back and leave that nurturing to people who have proved themselves irresponsible.
Wait a minute. How is it inconsistent and illogical to say that I want to prevent murders, so then every potential murder victim suddenly becomes my responsibility?
First, it is legal so it is not a murder...
You want society to ensure those lives enter our world because they are precious...
Do they somehow become less precious when they pass through the woman's cervix?
Is that life being snuffed out in the womb worse than that life being wasted neglected starved imprisoned etc by irresponsible incompetent BMs and BDs?
I don't think so...
It is easy for the Religious Right to preach and try to pass laws to limit a woman's right to choose. I mean it really costs them nothing.
It is sacrificing to ensure the kids are raised well that is much more taxing and a sign of true faithfulness.
Not just turning away and saying that is the BMs / BDs responsibility.
Whose responsibility is it if a man and woman conceive a child? Whose responsibility is it if a woman births a child? It makes no sense at all to assign the responsibility for the child to some other person, group or society at large.
And you are arguing definitions. Abortion is not murder because you say so? The courts disagree with you, after the point of viability at least. It is easy to reduce crime, one simply decriminalizes the act, whatever it is. That does not make it right any more than criminalizing it makes it wrong. It is what it is. "A respect for life" is an important part of a society and culture. One can recognize, as my church doctrine does, "the occasional tragic conflict of life with life" without drifting into abortions of convenience.
Are we supposed to hate politicians who have moral and ethical standards? Or only the ones who lack them?
"Whose responsibility is it if a woman births a child?"
I would think it would be the responsibility of those people who have taken away her freedom to do otherwise.
My opinion carries no weight regarding if it is legal or not. Our society's laws determine this.
I would not consider that mandating a life be born, and ignoring that life soon after because it may cost one something is ethical by any means. Seems hypocritical to me.
Who takes away her freedom to NOT birth a child, when she has complete to attempt to avoid pregnancy, and when abortion-- necessary or otherwise-- is available for 5 full months, by law?
I would not consider it ethical to deprive another human being of life and endangering my own, just because that life was "inconvenient" in some way. And if you fail to discharge your responsibility to your child, you can give it up, or have it taken from you.
Now if religious right people were willing to make it easy:
- for a young woman to learn about her sexuality and birth control options
- for a poor woman to access and afford long acting reversible contraception
- for a woman to exercise her right to abort the fetus during the first ~16 weeks
That would be one thing. Unfortunately that it is opposite of their goal...
These hypocrites says that life matters while striving to:
- keep young women ignorant
- make it hard for them to obtain Long Acting Reversible Contraception
- make it impossible for them to obtain the morning after pill or an early abortion.
Now if people do believe a baby's life is precious. They should do everything they can to:
- ensure accidental pregnancies do not occur
- ensure the pregnancy can be terminated early if that is the Mother's choice
- if born ensure that child is raised very well
Now you may be luke warm on early abortion freedom... However you actively:
- support keeping young women ignorant
- keeping it expensive for them to access birth control
- and letting the unlucky babies fend for itself.
Then later you support helping lucky poor kids to run from these truly unlucky children through your support of vouchers.
In summary, you may not be a strong Religious Right supporter, but you are very close.
Whereas Moose seems to be at the other end of the continuum.
Sorry, but I simply cannot debate both you AND the straw man you have made of me. 10-7
Sounds good. I am sure the topic will come up again.
"Now if religious right people were willing to make it easy:
- for a young woman to learn about her sexuality and birth control options
- for a poor woman to access and afford long acting reversible contraception
- for a woman to exercise her right to abort the fetus during the first ~16 weeks
That would be one thing. Unfortunately that it is opposite of their goal...
These hypocrites says that life matters while striving to:
- keep young women ignorant
- make it hard for them to obtain Long Acting Reversible Contraception
- make it impossible for them to obtain the morning after pill or an early abortion.
Now if people do believe a baby's life is precious. They should do everything they can to:
- ensure accidental pregnancies do not occur
- ensure the pregnancy can be terminated early if that is the Mother's choice
- if born ensure that child is raised very well
Now you may be luke warm on early abortion freedom... However you actively:
- support keeping young women ignorant
- keeping it expensive for them to access birth control
- and letting the unlucky babies fend for itself."
We agree 100% on all of this.
Moose
Post a Comment