Kavanaugh hearing

[Forty Two]

Joe if Kavanaugh is not evil, then supporting him is not complicity in "the evil." It's only if Kavanaugh is evil that anyone who supports him is complicit in that evil.

[Tero]

The government jurisdiction does not extend to the uterus. A matter for 2 people. Appeal to them.

[Cunt]

The government jurisdiction does not extend to the uterus. A matter for 2 people. Appeal to them.

What a kindergarten view of things. Unsurprising coming from you, Tero.

It's a matter for ONE person. It's a lot more terrible than a team decision. One person will have all the consequences, so no-one else can really weigh in.

I would very much like to see medical support for that decision, but I'm from Canada, so don't know how it should play out in a pay-to-play medical system.

[Tero]

The impregnator of course has no decision making power. But many an impregnator used to ”do the right thing” and agree to ”settle down”, no matter how much fun they planned to have in their 20s before hearing the news.

In the days of my parents, quite often the solution was to give up the kid. Abortion was illegal and there was no welfare state in 1950.

[Forty Two]

The government jurisdiction does not extend to the uterus. A matter for 2 people. Appeal to them.

Is this an area where the US should differ from other western industrialized countries? Every other western, civilized, European country regulates and limits abortion to some extent. Are they violating women's rights?

[Forty Two]

duplicate

[Forty Two]

The impregnator of course has no decision making power. But many an impregnator used to ”do the right thing” and agree to ”settle down”, no matter how much fun they planned to have in their 20s before hearing the news.

You put do the right thing in quotes, as if it's not....

I think anyone who looks into the eyes of 3 to 7 year old, and sees how they react to a parent leaving for work or an appointment and how they react when the parent arrives back home, and sees how much they value each parent's attention, can explain to you how it is the right thing to do to give up one kind of fun for another.

[Joe]

Joe if Kavanaugh is not evil, then supporting him is not complicity in "the evil." It's only if Kavanaugh is evil that anyone who supports him is complicit in that evil.

Forty Two, I don't think this reasoning is solid. It's affirming the consequent or something like it.

From the evidence you've presented the evil is confirming Kavanaugh. Opposing his confirmation for his politics, temperament, work record, or views doesn't necessarily mean the guy is evil. Robert Bork is considered by most folks to be a decent and intelligent jurist, but he was rejected because his views were considered out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

Kavanaugh being evil is only one possible reason to oppose confirmation.

[Brian Peacock]

Joe if Kavanaugh is not evil, then supporting him is not complicity in "the evil." It's only if Kavanaugh is evil that anyone who supports him is complicit in that evil.

You're mixing your metaphors with your absolute claims to objective facts, again Booker did not call Kavanaugh 'evil incarnate' as you claimed (though you will never own that claim I guess), but Trump did call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions, didn't he? Now, the question is not how long you are prepared to stir a distracting spat about the true meaning of evil and who applied it to whom - but how long are you going to fudge the issue of Kavanaugh's partisan alignment with the GOP?

I get the feeling you're waiting for FOXNEWS to work out where your moral compass should be pointing on this, eh?

[Forty Two]

The government jurisdiction does not extend to the uterus. A matter for 2 people. Appeal to them.

What a kindergarten view of things. Unsurprising coming from you, Tero.

It's a matter for ONE person. It's a lot more terrible than a team decision. One person will have all the consequences, so no-one else can really weigh in.

I would very much like to see medical support for that decision, but I'm from Canada, so don't know how it should play out in a pay-to-play medical system.

I would say it's the woman's option to have an abortion, and that option is unfettered and unlimited up to a certain point, as it probably needs to be. After a certain point, most western industrialized countires set up an upper limit beyond which an abortion is not a function of choice alone, but requires medical input. In other words, most countries set a limit of about 5 months as the outside limit - and then after that they drastically limit abortions and it's not just a matter of choice.

That seems to me to be a fair balance.

Unfortunately, fathers are left with less of a choice. Their unfettered choice ends pre-conception. After conception, they only have nature and agreement on the part of the woman to decide to have an abortion. Once the child is born, the bio-dad has the obligation to support the child. That's just one of the areas where men have a greater burden as a sex. Of course, that burden is offset by the greater burden women have in biologically being the ones that always have to carry the child.

Abortion, though, is a medical procedure, and as such, there is at least the same jurisdiction held by the state as applies to any other medical procedure, I would think.

[Cunt]

The government jurisdiction does not extend to the uterus. A matter for 2 people. Appeal to them.

What a kindergarten view of things. Unsurprising coming from you, Tero.

It's a matter for ONE person. It's a lot more terrible than a team decision. One person will have all the consequences, so no-one else can really weigh in.

I would very much like to see medical support for that decision, but I'm from Canada, so don't know how it should play out in a pay-to-play medical system.

I would say it's the woman's option to have an abortion, and that option is unfettered and unlimited up to a certain point, as it probably needs to be.

A gentle way of saying that a woman can end her pregnancy with the nuclear option, with or without permission.

After a certain point, most western industrialized countires set up an upper limit beyond which an abortion is not a function of choice alone, but requires medical input. In other words, most countries set a limit of about 5 months as the outside limit - and then after that they drastically limit abortions and it's not just a matter of choice.

It might be right, but it doesn't change who gets to make the real call.

Might makes right, Forty Two. In this case, the pregnant woman has all the might.

Terrible, unilateral might.

That seems to me to be a fair balance.

Fair is tough to find. I can't imagine a situation where I would suggest forcing continued pregnancy. To be fair, I'm a bit mushy on it...I would approve of doctors stealing, rather than killing, fetuses when they can, but that is about the doctors right.

Unfortunately, fathers are left with less of a choice. Their unfettered choice ends pre-conception. After conception, they only have nature and agreement on the part of the woman to decide to have an abortion. Once the child is born, the bio-dad has the obligation to support the child. That's just one of the areas where men have a greater burden as a sex. Of course, that burden is offset by the greater burden women have in biologically being the ones that always have to carry the child.

It would be nice if parents were never forced to be parents.

Often I have seen the results of this. So have most people. It isn't the nicest life for a child, to be an anchor for one or the other parent.

Abortion, though, is a medical procedure, and as such, there is at least the same jurisdiction held by the state as applies to any other medical procedure, I would think.

Probably true as things are. I would really like for everyone to have a switch they can turn on when they want to become a parent.

[Forty Two]

Joe if Kavanaugh is not evil, then supporting him is not complicity in "the evil." It's only if Kavanaugh is evil that anyone who supports him is complicit in that evil.

You're mixing your metaphors with your absolute claims to objective facts, again Booker did not call Kavanaugh 'evil incarnate' as you claimed (though you will never own that claim I guess), but Trump did call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions, didn't he? Now, the question is not how long you are prepared to stir a distracting spat about the true meaning of evil and who applied it to whom - but how long are you going to fudge the issue of Kavanaugh's partisan alignment with the GOP?

I get the feeling you're waiting for FOXNEWS to work out where your moral compass should be pointing on this, eh?

I'll own it - he never used the word incarnate, or the precise term "evil incarnate." But, when discussing this issue, we're all using paraphrases and such - like where someone said that Kavanaugh used the words "lefty extremists" - which he didn't use those words either. But, the gist of it is the same.

Booker said supporters of Kavanaugh were complicit in evil and complicit in the evil. Complicit means "involved in the wrongdoing or crimes of others." If supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, then Kavanaugh must be evil, no?

I haven't fudged any "alignment" of Kavanaugh. The guy worked in the Bush administration for years, on the Starr commission in the 1990s. He's a lifelong Republican. No getting around that.

Shove your moralizing somewhere. Self-righteousness is unappealing.

No, Trump did not call Democrats and journalists evil for reporting allegations and asking awkward questions. He called the people who brought the false allegations evil for bringing false allegations, and he said the Democrats set it up - and they did. Feinstein's conduct - the Avenatti thing - the Swetnick thing - these are bullshit allegations, raised for political purposes.

[Jason]

Do atheists believe in evil? If so, how do you define it?

[Cunt]

Do atheists believe in evil? If so, how do you define it?

That's another change from my forum participation. I used to think evil was a thing (like Good), but it isn't.

Trying to look deeper than 'it's evil' always produces more useful information.

[Forty Two]

The government jurisdiction does not extend to the uterus. A matter for 2 people. Appeal to them.

What a kindergarten view of things. Unsurprising coming from you, Tero.

It's a matter for ONE person. It's a lot more terrible than a team decision. One person will have all the consequences, so no-one else can really weigh in.

I would very much like to see medical support for that decision, but I'm from Canada, so don't know how it should play out in a pay-to-play medical system.

I would say it's the woman's option to have an abortion, and that option is unfettered and unlimited up to a certain point, as it probably needs to be.

A gentle way of saying that a woman can end her pregnancy with the nuclear option, with or without permission.

After a certain point, most western industrialized countires set up an upper limit beyond which an abortion is not a function of choice alone, but requires medical input. In other words, most countries set a limit of about 5 months as the outside limit - and then after that they drastically limit abortions and it's not just a matter of choice.

It might be right, but it doesn't change who gets to make the real call.

Might makes right, Forty Two. In this case, the pregnant woman has all the might.

Terrible, unilateral might.

That seems to me to be a fair balance.

Fair is tough to find. I can't imagine a situation where I would suggest forcing continued pregnancy. To be fair, I'm a bit mushy on it...I would approve of doctors stealing, rather than killing, fetuses when they can, but that is about the doctors right.

Unfortunately, fathers are left with less of a choice. Their unfettered choice ends pre-conception. After conception, they only have nature and agreement on the part of the woman to decide to have an abortion. Once the child is born, the bio-dad has the obligation to support the child. That's just one of the areas where men have a greater burden as a sex. Of course, that burden is offset by the greater burden women have in biologically being the ones that always have to carry the child.

It would be nice if parents were never forced to be parents.

Often I have seen the results of this. So have most people. It isn't the nicest life for a child, to be an anchor for one or the other parent.

Abortion, though, is a medical procedure, and as such, there is at least the same jurisdiction held by the state as applies to any other medical procedure, I would think.

Probably true as things are. I would really like for everyone to have a switch they can turn on when they want to become a parent.

Sure, I agree, I don't want anyone to have a child who doesn't want one. But, I can't imagine aborting a child that could generally survive if born prematurely, or close to it.

I recognize the need for abortions early on, but with ubiquitous contraceptives available with zero social stigma (in fact social encouragement), plus an unfettered option to abort for several months after becoming pregnant, it doesn't seem particularly egregious to say that after 20-some weeks, it might not be too seemly to pull the premie out and kill it.

There is also something to be said for the fact that if it is the choice of the mom and dad to have the child, then it is the responsibility of the mom and dad to support the child. I didn't ask them to have the kid, and neither did you, neither did society or the State - so, it would seem that logically, if we presume that people should pay for their own stuff, and that nobody has the right to compel other people or the state to write checks for them, the parents should be the ones primarily responsible for raising and caring for their children. The State should be there to give a hand up, or supply a safety net, not to be the parent.