Buyers remorse yet? This guy's still a joke who thinks being president should be a part time job.
Media outlets have expressed widespread concern about the lack of access to Trump. On Tuesday night, he took his family to a New York restaurant for dinner, and the so-called press pool, which is meant to be the public's eyes on the president-elect, was not notified.
CNN's Sara Murray told Anderson Cooper on Tuesday night that this "appears to be yet another misunderstanding of exactly how much gravity his new title as president-elect holds. If something, God forbid, were to happen to him, that's a matter not only of public record but also a matter of national security, given that he is next in line to take the White House."
@ineth: Another list of real, actual events! Thank you.
But I have gone through your entire list of citations, including the citations within your citations, and they do not support the argument you're trying to make about the Democratic party and abortion. I will note them one by one:
Thanks for reasonably disagreeing, rather than accusing me of "wanting to punish women" or calling misgivings about Democrat politics and corruption a crazy conspiracy theory.
My responses to some of the individual points:
[spoiler] First off, I think you make some good points. For example that The Federalist made a really poor argument in complaining that Democrats refused to pass legislation with a poison pill attached. Bundling controversial bills with unrelated popular bills, is definitely dishonest and undermines democracy. Both parties have done it before, but it's especially disappointing from the GOP since they pledged they would "end the practice".
I'll also have to do more research (and may change my mind) about the issue of pregnancy counselors being legally required to refer to abortion but not adoption. On the one hand, laywers and judges are notoriously pedantic, and the difference between the words "or" and "and" in that law may actually be important. But on the other hand, the way that argument was presented in the source was sloppy, and maybe it really is much ado about nothing.
However, other times it seems to me like you're just grasping at technicalities to dismiss any evidence of bad faith and bad actions by the Democratic Party.
--A Montgomery County law required “limited-service pregnancy centers” to post a sign saying "a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional." "The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons."-- A limited service pregnancy center does not have medical professionals on staff; Planned Parenthood does. So this sign is also an accurate reflection of the services being provided, and the people on staff. 1e. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8807
Just because a statement is technically accurate, doesn't mean that a government is being fair and justified in forcing institutions to put up a sign with said statement (while not requiring other institutions to put up any sign).
As the quoted article says, the counseling at the pro-choice centers in question is also not provided by doctors. That they employ doctors for other tasks (i.e. abortions), is rather irrelevant here: Women seeking pregnancy counseling will be counseled by non-doctors no matter whether they go to a pro-choice or pro-life center in this scenario.
If the Democrats writing the law were actually motivated by consumer protection, and thought a mandatory sign was necessary to avoid misleading people, they could have required all centers who let non-doctors do the counseling to put up a sign to that effect.
Instead, they tied the requirement to put up the sign to the irrelevant condition of also employing a doctor (for other services), which, in practice, "just so happened" to draw the line between the pro- and anti-abortion centers in question.
Can you really not see anything shady about that?
The cases where pro-life centers were forced to put up signs saying that they "do not provide abortions or birth control referrals" should not be so easily dismissed either. Prominently advertising what services you don't provide, definitely can give a weird impression to potential clients even if they didn't intend to seek those services in the first place. If lawmakers force organizations they are politically opposed to to write their shortcomings on their forehead, so to speak, but don't require politically allied organizations to advertise their own shortcomings, that definitely reeks of abuse of power.
Not to mention that it forces the affected organizations to submit to the lawmaker's ideological framing of the issue, i.e. the lawmaker's idea of what kinds of controversial services a certain type of organization should provide and thus constitute a short-coming worthy of a sign if they don't. The organizations are forced to effectively put this viewpoint (that goes against their religion and conscience) into writing and display it in their window. This treads on thin ice w.r.t. the First Amendment, which protects not only against suppression of speech but also against compelled speech.
10. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1) --"Last week, due to Sen. Rand Paul’s prompting, national media asked Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz whether she believed aborting full-term, seven-pound babies should be legal. Her response—that an abortion on a full-term child was the mother’s constitutional right—is clearly extreme and deserves the revulsion it has met."-- According to (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hits-back-rand-paul-abortion-fight), what Wasserman-Schultz said was that she would “support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved – period.” Unless women and doctors all support full-term abortions, this comment does not support the Federalist's characterization at all. Wasserman-Schultz did not say she supported them; she said the government wasn't the boss here.
Come on now. If a party leader is asked whether something should be legal or illegal and they respond that the decision should be up to the people doing it, then they're saying that they want it to be legal.
That's what "legal" means – that people can decide for themselves whether they want to do something without being limited by the government. That's what she suggests for ninth-month abortions. (Of course, the baby is not among the people who get a choice.)
The Federalist might have editorialized a bit in describing her position in terms of "constitutional right", which may or may not be how she sees it. But Wasserman-Schultz absolutely supported the legality of aborting full-term, seven-pound babies in that reply of hers to Senator Paul's question.
Maybe you think she doesn't really believe it, or that her position doesn't represent the DNC which she was the chairperson of at the time. But it's what she said.
"Not a medical term" is a very popular red herring among pro-choice advocacy groups.
So what if it isn't a medical term? You don't need to use Latin terminology to write a sensible law. In fact, using specific medical procedure names would leave an easy loop-hole for doctors to just invent a new-but-effectively-the-same procedure under a different medical name, and no longer be subject to the law. The word "dismemberment" is sufficiently clear that it would allow judges and juries to determine whether an abortion provider is guilty of it.
"Partial birth abortions" are frequently dismissed using the same trick. That's not what the medical textbooks call it, so it must all be in the imagination of crazy pro-lifers, nothing to see here, right? Wrong. It's actually a pretty accurate plain-English descriptions of what happens during such a procedure.
I think it's as The Fedearlist article says: "there is no clean and humane way to kill a seven-pound, full-term baby" – and late-term abortion advocates understand this and fear its implications deep down (everyone has a conscience), but their political ideology demands of them that they look away. Any plain-English phrase that actually describes what is happening without euphemism or obfuscation, i.e. makes them "look", is a thorn in their side, and they try to keep such language out of official legislation and regulations at all costs. [/spoiler]
People might be capable of buyer's remorse if they actually had a clue how government functions. It doesn't run itself. The idea that you would want someone with zero experience in ANY other profession or job is ludicrous, but apparently fine for the most important job on Earth. Would you hire a plumber who had never worked on a pipe in his life, had no concept of where to start, but promised to "make your toilet great again"?? The idea that you'd want someone who knows what the hell is going on isn't liberal elitism, it's a basic standard people would apply to any other aspect of their lives.
People might be capable of buyer's remorse if they actually had a clue how government functions. It doesn't run itself. The idea that you would want someone with zero experience in ANY other profession or job is ludicrous, but apparently fine for the most important job on Earth. Would you hire a plumber who had never worked on a pipe in his life, had no concept of where to start, but promised to "make your toilet great again"?? The idea that you'd want someone who knows what the hell is going on isn't liberal elitism, it's a basic standard people would apply to any other aspect of their lives.
Crazy thing is that inexperienced braggart comes with his own propaganda firms disguised as "news". Fox News, Breitbart, NeoNazi Times, etc.
@TStael Well, it was an honest question. I would think that health education would be more important than simply throwing condoms around. Or is a decent health class considered birth control? Condoms are definitely helpful, but they are inanimate objects. Their lack of availability doesn't mean as much when compared to the choices people make. They could be given out at every street corner, but it comes down to people's choices whether to use them, or if they are even aware of the existence of birth control. It all comes back to education.
My answer was also honest - surely?
I just don't think the purpose of health education is to make arbitary moral judgements - but to teach people about feelings and relationships, love and consent, and sexual health as in preventing unwanted pregnancies and avoiding STIs.
The problem is, I hope you'll recognize ThacoBell, that people who usually say: "Keep your pants on" are also those whom are negative towards sexual education and family planning in general.
No evidence backs them. Empathy is clearly not at their backs either, nor respect of autonomy of others.
Consensual, optimally protected intercourse either in a committed relationship, or as a mutually wanted casual sexual release is generally positive for human health, and brings pleasure and happiness.
Consensual is the cue, obviously.
I don't exactly see how you think restricting condoms or pills is going to improve anyone's lot - only it will hurt the poorest the most, obviously. "Proles had better keep their pants on. Or suffer!"
Do you favour sexual enjoyment without fear of negative consequences to be restricted to the higher social classes? If not, I would suggest trying to understand these concerns from a humane standpoint, not just some irresponsible people wanting to be frivolous.
That treasonous orangutan. If he had steak that would be Moosogyny. Impeach him.
Joke right? Trump Steaks were a thing before other such noted scams as Trump University and his presidental campaign.
Mr. Trump you going to build a wall? Well maybe a fence in some places.
Mr. Trump you going to deport 10M illegal immigrants? Well...
Mr. Trump you going to lock up Hillary Clinton? Maybe not.....
Mr. Trump are you going to divest yourself of foreign enterprises and other conflicts of interest damaging to national security? I'll hand of my company to my kids but first they need Top Secret Clearances so that I can pass them information that benefits my business.
Mr. Trump are you going to push for term limits from a GOP controlled House and Senate. *silence*
Freedom of religion.....as long as it's the right one
"A Georgia state legislator introduced a bill on Wednesday that would restrict the rights of observant Muslim women. The proposed bill would bar Muslim women from wearing burqas and veils while driving on public roads and preclude them from donning traditional head-covering attire for the photos they use on Georgia driver’s licenses."
In the meantime, one of Trump's top choices for AG looking into bringing back a National Registry of Muslim Immigrants. But you know, we should wait for him to pivot, give it a chance. Once he's in office he'll change. This is actually what authoritarians COUNT ON. Making their rhetoric so over the top that no one takes it seriously, when it is, in fact, exactly what they mean.
Freedom of religion.....as long as it's the right one
"A Georgia state legislator introduced a bill on Wednesday that would restrict the rights of observant Muslim women. The proposed bill would bar Muslim women from wearing burqas and veils while driving on public roads and preclude them from donning traditional head-covering attire for the photos they use on Georgia driver’s licenses."
In the meantime, one of Trump's top choices for AG looking into bringing back a National Registry of Muslim Immigrants. But you know, we should wait for him to pivot, give it a chance. Once he's in office he'll change. This is actually what authoritarians COUNT ON. Making their rhetoric so over the top that no one takes it seriously, when it is, in fact, exactly what they mean.
Hijabs and Burka's are not religious symbols, they are cultural symbols. Muslim women do not need to wear them.
Hijabs (head scarfs) should still be acceptable for photo identification as all facial features will be visible when referencing the photo. Burka's or veils cover the face and should not be allowed. Common sense.
A full Burka, can restrict vision considerably and shouldn't be worn when driving as it creates too many blind spots for women. A viel that covers the face, but not the eyes shouldn't restrict the driver and should be allowed.
You're going to dictate for another person whether they think their garments are religious or cultural?? Interesting slope. I'd like to propose a law against Christian women wearing sunglasses.
@TStael You misunderstand me. I'm not saying restricting birth control is helpful or good, neither was I making a moral judgement. My point was simply that education is more important. You can make any tool in the world available to everybody, but without the knowledge or judgement of how or when to use it, that tool is wasted and serves no one. Condoms and pills are inanimate, its people that decide how, when, or what they do. This could just be my experience, but everytime the concept of "should birth control be available to teenagers" comes up, no one discusses also educating our children on why its important to begin with. I'm not anti birth control, one child is enough for my wife and I believe me, but the importance of proper health and sex education should never take a back seat to what are simply tools.
That treasonous orangutan. If he had steak that would be Moosogyny. Impeach him.
Joke right? Trump Steaks were a thing before other such noted scams as Trump University and his presidental campaign.
Mr. Trump you going to build a wall? Well maybe a fence in some places.
Mr. Trump you going to deport 10M illegal immigrants? Well...
Mr. Trump you going to lock up Hillary Clinton? Maybe not.....
Mr. Trump are you going to divest yourself of foreign enterprises and other conflicts of interest damaging to national security? I'll hand of my company to my kids but first they need Top Secret Clearances so that I can pass them information that benefits my business.
Mr. Trump are you going to push for term limits from a GOP controlled House and Senate. *silence*
I apologize if I caused you any pain or discomfort with my joke. I will let you know like i have said earlier in this thread that I do not have a dog in this fight but I like to point out the ones that do.
Regarding the hijab: Muslim critics of the veil have pointed out, correctly, that the hijab predates Mohammad by hundreds of years, and the Quran does not mandate it. Although Muslims today ascribe religious meaning to it and there are nonreligious reasons for wearing it as well, the hijab, historically, is an Arab custom and not an Islamic rule.
Regarding the hijab: Muslim critics of the veil have pointed out, correctly, that the hijab predates Mohammad by hundreds of years, and the Quran does not mandate it. Although Muslims today ascribe religious meaning to it and there are nonreligious reasons for wearing it as well, the hijab, historically, is an Arab custom and not an Islamic rule.
I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that you can't simply arbitrarily decide whether it constitutes religious meaning to any particular individual. If theological precedent is the road we're going to go down to make a decision like this, there is no bottom to that hole if you decide to jump in it.
@Shandyr Since that the percentage of times that sex does not result in pregnancy is significantly higher than the percentage of times that sex does result in pregnancy I don't believe God intended sex to be solely for the reason of procreation.
@Shandyr Since that the percentage of times that sex does not result in pregnancy is significantly higher than the percentage of times that sex does result in pregnancy I don't believe God intended sex to be solely for the reason of procreation.
I get the feeling Shandyr wrote that entire post in heavy sarcasm, but I'm free to be corrected.
You're going to dictate for another person whether they think their garments are religious or cultural?? Interesting slope. I'd like to propose a law against Christian women wearing sunglasses.
Ummm, no. The tenets of the actual religion dictate that. As @semiticgod stated that the Quran doesn't mandate it's use.
Just like you shouldn't wear a crucifix while operating a printing press. The chain can get stuck in the gears and you can literally lose your head. Christians are not mandated to wear a crucifix by the New Testament, but many do to express their belief in Jesus Christ. A printing company has the right to deny their employees from wearing any loose clothing or jewelry, regardless if it is expressing ones religious belief or not. It comes down to employee safety.
And once again, separate religion and state please. It should be illegal to wear anything that obscures a person's vision while driving a motor vehicle. This is for public safety and not to prevent a certain religion from expressing itself.
And please keep in mind, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right, and if you can not follow the rules set for any reason, then you should not be operating a motor vehicle.
You're going to dictate for another person whether they think their garments are religious or cultural?? Interesting slope. I'd like to propose a law against Christian women wearing sunglasses.
Ummm, no. The tenets of the actual religion dictate that. As @semiticgod stated that the Quran doesn't mandate it's use.
Just like you shouldn't wear a crucifix while operating a printing press. The chain can get stuck in the gears and you can literally lose your head. Christians are not mandated to wear a crucifix by the New Testament, but many do to express their belief in Jesus Christ. A printing company has the right to deny their employees from wearing any loose clothing or jewelry, regardless if it is expressing ones religious belief or not. It comes down to employee safety.
And once again, separate religion and state please. It should be illegal to wear anything that obscures a person's vision while driving a motor vehicle. This is for public safety and not to prevent a certain religion from expressing itself.
And please keep in mind, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right, and if you can not follow the rules set for any reason, then you should not be operating a motor vehicle.
That whole sunglasses thing, does not make sense.
Hopefully that clarified things.
If I thought for one second that this proposed law was actually to promote safe driving, instead of a transparent attempt to score points off Islamaphobia, I'd tend to agree with everything you just said. But I don't believe it is, and the motives behind the bill, especially in this political climate, are what I care about.
And again, whether or not the Quran mandates it's use is immaterial to whether any specific person BELIEVES it does. There are dozens of denominations of Christianity. I could invent an offshoot of either Islam or Christianity tomorrow and it would be no less valid, legally speaking, than any other. That's how it has to work, or it doesn't work at all.
In the end, arguing about the semantics of car safety when the intent of the bill is so obviously to play to the right-wing base of this lawmaker isn't something I'm particularly interested in, though if that's truly what you believe is going on then I certainly have neither the time nor inclination to convince you otherwise. And that's all I'll say on the subject.
First off, I want to say for the 2nd time, I think you are misunderstanding me and what I am trying to communicate. It seems like you are arguing with me to convince me of something I already believe. From @FinneousPJ 's snide remark, which I believe is directed at pro-life people everywhere, I get the feeling you are no the only one. So, for the record, I want to make this very clear:
I am pro-choice.
If you need evidence, here is a quote from me a few days ago:
Yes, let's allow abortion, but not because we don't want to wear a condom or don't want to get "fixed".
I think it is safe to assume that you, @Ayiekie , feel similarly to this (or at the very least that you would expect results of widespread allowable abortion to be similar to what I believe) based on the following quotes from you. I also believe that it is safe assume that you believe it unlikely for women to want to use abortion as a form of birth control from these quotes.
Abortion is an unpleasant and often traumatising procedure. People do not do it for fun (well, except in conspiracy theory land). "Oh crap, this baby didn't get both blonde hair genes, DELETE DELETE DELETE" is not going to happen.
It's not how real human beings act. Rich people will be willing to pay for cosmetic features if the fetus' DNA can be manipulated, but very few people are ever going to take an "abort until you get it right" option even were it perfectly legal and easy to do.
Now that we have established some common ground, please stop speaking as though you are trying to convince me to believe the same as you in this issue. From what I have understood from your current posts, I believe that I already do, unless I am completely misunderstanding you.
The only way to make eugenics not pseudoscience would be for evolution to work in a manner completely different to reality and more in line with the thinking of mostly scientifically illiterate Europeans of the first half of 20th century.
To put it more plainly, eugenics will always be pseudoscience no matter what we can do with our genetic code. The entire philosophy and body of thinking behind it is more mystical than scientific. And it's tied very deeply into racism and unscientific racial philosophy in general, of course.
It is like I said, the advent of CRSIPR technology will change everything about our current knowledge of genetics. It is that science-fiction-fantasy become reality. It is still in the beginning stages, but it's awesome power will put the questions and philosophical implications of eugenics all over the world, in every person's home.
I get the feeling from this quote that you don't understand what eugenics actually is. First, you tell me that
People predetermine "acceptable traits" for their children all the time. What religion you follow, what political party you vote for, your socioeconomic class - all these things are heavily predetermined by parents.
as a rationalization for a eugenic philosophy, which, as I said, religious and political teachings have nothing to do with eugenics. Then you say
No, we really aren't. Parents who abort a fetus with Downs Syndrome (something, for the record, my wife and I discussed whether we would do, without reaching a definite conclusion, but it turned out to be a moot point - this is not an idle discussion for me) are not doing so because they want to "improve the human race". They are doing so because for personal reasons they are unwilling, or unable to provide the level of extra care such a child will require. It is actually much more comparable to the situation in China, where rural families especially were financially burdened by having a female child.
which makes a denial that we are currently not employing a current form of eugenic philosophy that seems to be based on a slip-shop, hasty description of the philosophy that I wrote here:
Eugenics is the philosphy that we should "improve" the gene pool by either decreasing and/or eliminating "undesirable" genetic traits or by increasing and/or rewarding the amount of "desirable" genetic traits in our society as a whole.
There is much more to the philosophy than the motivation of improving the human gene pool, which motivation seems to be held mostly by scientists and political leaders. Of course parents aren't aborting their children for the vague, altruistic reason, "Well, I guess we should abort our child to improve the gene pool." They are doing it for very personal reasons that have nothing to do with what I was trying to communicate. Perhaps it would behoove you to do some research of your own into eugenic philosophy, as I do not believe I am adequate to explain it. I recommend this in order to eliminate any further arguments over semantics, which I believe your points are based on.
If - and that is a large if - CRISPR-based technology can do everything it promises, it will still not be particularly relevant to why most people get abortions (they are primarily for people who cannot carry the child to term for medical reasons, have fetuses with extreme problems, or who simply do not desire to have a baby). If anything, the technology might reduce the number of abortions since certain fetal defects are genetic in nature (but this is assuming a lot about how effective and affordable the technology may grow to be). I honestly don't know why you keep associating abortion as an issue with it. Being able to tweak the genes in a fetus isn't going to lead to more abortions (well, maybe some accidental ones). Incidentally, the extremely high likelihood of fetuses being killed or having undesirable side-effects by use of such an immature technology is likely to keep designer gene therapy for children out of the marketplace for a very long time, to say nothing of the "tampering in God's domain" sorts.
But hell, let's go crazy and imagine that CRISPR-based technology leads to a world where you can get your child not just freedom from genetic diseases (like heart disease, or ADHD), but also some immunity to other notable scourges (anti-malarial genetics without sickle-cell anemia, let's say), or a cocktail of genes tuned to allow long life with no averse side effects no matter who you give them to. We could go even crazier and imagine you can build people with physical superiority in some respects, or with some of the tools needed to be excellent at sports (although such genetically modified people would undoubtedly be banned from the Olympics and other competitions).
I believe it is logical to assume that CRISPR, especially in it's early stages, will reduce the number of abortions either by designing babies in the first place or curing them of illnesses after they are born. My quote here
The fear is that abortion will be combined with eugenic philosophy and CRISPR technology to become an accepted or even desired step in reproducing, sort of like, "Well, I dont really like the way this fetus is turning out, so let's abort and start over."
is, I believe, one of many reasons why pro-life and pro-choice are teaming up to block the development of the technology. I personally do not like this, because I have a genetic defect that I want cured, and CRISPR may be the only cure.
I will say, however, that your skepticism of the potential power that CRISPR contains is indicative of one of two things: You either do not understand how the human genome operates on a basic level or you believe a form of medical science that is not accepted by the mainstream medical community. I do not mean to insult you at all, and I hope that you are not insulted. Perhaps you will take a moment to perform some research of your own into this, or at the very least, read through a brief analogy that I have provided below in spoilers?
Genes are like blueprints. Our cells are like the contractors that build a structue. Our bodies are like the buildings that the contractors work on. For many years, we have been trying to understand the prints (genes). We still do not understand them, but we have an ok understanding of how the contractors (cells) work. The human genome project was a massive attempt to try to understand and categorize the genes of humans. Although it did not have the effect we were hoping for, it did help us understand a little bit more. Up until this point, gene editing has been more like throwing globs of paint while blindfolded at the prints in an effort to get the contractors to change what they are building. This has usually been done by trail and error (mostly error), but a few instances of gene editing have randomly worked out in our favor, most notably among livestock and produce. CRISPR gives us the most basic tools (paper, rulers, pencils, following the analogy) to make our own prints as the architect. There is even talk of eliminating the effects of aging by using CRISPR, and there is certainly some justified fear surrounding the technology. Trust me, this technology is definitely no joke. But I, personally, can't wait for it to be developed.
Plus, people tend towards an unscientific view (propelled by the media, and Jurassic Park, thanks Crichton) of just how relevant genetics are to what you end up being in life. They're important, but they're also just one part of the picture. I mentioned ADHD above - it seems to have an inheritance component (but not a 100% one), but it is also dramatically increased if the mother smokes during pregnancy. Tons of things about you are affected by your environment, the environment your mother is in while pregnant, and many other factors. Plus, single genes don't actually tend to determine anything by themselves, but instead complex groups provide (as far as our science knows, and I don't see why or how CRISPR can change that) mere possibilities and likelihoods for the vast majority of outcomes. This will make it quite difficult to do designer gene therapies that a) guarantee success for anything more complex than hair colour, and b) also guarantee not having unwanted side effects, because you're actually going to be changing out a group of genes with myriad effects.
Just in case you haven't read enough, there's an article I liked on the topic at the Atlantic:
Yes!! Wonderful! I also believe that genes controlling every aspect of our lives is incorrect. I believe in a form of epigenetics, where genes are adjusted by living cells based on their perception of the environment, which is based on our perception of the environment. One of my favorite scientists is Bruce Lipton who is otherwise ignored by the mainstream medical community. He proposed the idea, back in the 80s and 90s, that genes controlling everything about us has led us to a sort of victim mentality. Now, many years later, medical science has slowly, grudgingly accepted some of the more undeniable facts of genes being controlled by the environment in which they are placed. Children that are twins have been monumental in the furthering of this theory. The points of CRISPR, however, still stand. It provides a way for others to manipulate our genetic code.
I'll also put a question to you: what, precisely, are you worried is going to happen? Not vagaries about "eugenics", but what do you actually foresee a real, living human being doing with this technology on a given day in the future that concerns you?
Again, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not frightened by this technology. I am super excited for it, which is one of the reasons why I wanted to share it with everyone here. I just hope it is developed and implemented soon. But like every major technology, it is important to acknowledge that power can be used for both good things and evil things. There is also a gray area in between good and evil extremes which I believe this technology will one day bring to the forefront of everyone's consciousness. We should educate ourselves now with lessons from the past, both of learning from the extremism of Nazi Germany's employment of eugenics and euthanasia, and accepting that perhaps there is a middle ground, and maybe even a good aspect of eugenic philosophy. So I ask again...where is the line? Who decides whether or not our current primitive implementation of a eugenic philosophy against Down Syndrome is good or bad? Who decides what constitutes a "desirable" genetic trait? If the answer is, "Mashedtaters, you can decide for yourself what is or isn't a 'desirable' genetic trait for you, and everyone else can decide for themselves." Then I will be like, "YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!" But if the answer is, "Mashedtaters, the government, or the doctor, or religion, or lobbyists, or Ralph down the street is going to decide what is or isn't a 'desirable' genetic trait for you and for everyone else as well." Then I will be like, "Whoah, hold on! Wait a minute! Who the fu** do you think you are????!!!!!"
This'll be shorter, as I said most of what I wanted to say in the other post. That being said, I will again register my disagreement that abortions due to massive defects like Downs Syndrome are related to eugenics. Your own article that you linked to shows how personal a decision it is, how little it conforms to the "expected" beliefs of pro-choice or pro-life parents.
That being said, not to say your anecdotal experiences are false, but I am skeptical of the idea that abortion is widely "advocated" for a fetus with Downs Syndrome, by doctors or the media. It does not square at all with how the topic is treated with any media from the US I've seen.
I can only assume that you are negatively associating the term eugenics with the Nazis as a bad thing, and that you otherwise do not understand the philosophy as a whole. Eugenics is just a name for the philosophy that we can reduce defects and other "undesirable" genetic traits or increase "desirable" genetic traits in our population. The motivation for the establishment of this philosophy in history by governments and scientists has been an effort improve the gene pool, but that is not the only motivation for employing eugenic practices. Historically it has been implemented by preventing and/or rewarding the reproduction of specific people, but modern technology and medical advancements have changed the way people reproduce and thus have changed the way the philosophy can be implemented.
What is or isn't desirable is completely relative to the advocate, which is the only reason why it is a dangerous philosophy. Some people believe Down Syndrome is "undesirable". Others do not.
Chorionic villus sampling is the name of the test to detect Down Syndrome, among other defects, in the fetus. I had to do some research to remember the test.
There is a reason to detect abnormalities in the fetus, and it's not only to "prepare" the parents for the "worst". It is so that the parents can decide if they wish to perform an abortion. Taken from a pamphlet on the very top of Googling this test:
There is time to terminate the pregnancy (have an abortion) after CVS shows an abnormality, if you feel this is the right decision for you. An advantage of CVS is that you usually get the results earlier in the pregnancy. The type of termination you are offered depends on how many weeks pregnant you are when you decide to end the pregnancy. Since CVS is preformed so early then, if this is your choice, it is likely that you will just need a simple procedure to terminate the pregnancy, and will not need to have an induced labour. If you have an amniocentesis (which is done later) and choose to end the pregnancy at a later stage, this may mean an induced labour. However, in either case, the type of termination will depend on how many weeks pregnant you are when you decide to end the pregnancy. You should discuss this with your doctor or midwife.
Equally, if the results of CVS show a problem, you may choose to continue with the pregnancy. With the knowledge of the results, you can start to prepare for the birth and care of your baby who is likely to have special needs. The baby may need special care or surgical care immediately after they are born. Prior knowledge means that you can plan to give birth in a hospital where all the appropriate facilities are available. Source:http://patient.info/health/chorionic-villus-sampling-leaflet
And you are skeptical that there are doctors out there advocating for an abortion when discussing a test that is performed for a reason of deciding whether or not an abortion should be performed? This is a popular philosophy, subconscious or not, and it is most likely not motivated by improving the gene pool. It is probably more motivated by their desire to avoid a complicated birth, or even perhaps to avoid what they perceive to be a stressful life for the parents. Whatever the motivation, this is modern eugenics by definition.
My sister has Aspergers, and probably so do I (there is no co-morbidity allowed between it and ADHD in medical diagnosis, even though there is no reason to believe they can't coexist). It is absolutely and completely a defect. So is ADHD. So is BPD. So are most mental illnesses.
While I can appreciate the unwillingness to define the abnormal state of one's own or a loved one's brain as "defective", they are defective nonetheless. In happiness, ability to have and keep relationships, scholastic achievement, ability to have and hold down a job, and many other categories, everything I mentioned above is a powerful negative indicator. That doesn't mean they can't overcome it and lead a fulfilling life, any more than your own condition does. But it makes it harder. And much harder still if you're not born in the wealthy first world with its safety net, support structures, and readily available advanced medical care.
If gene therapy can eradicate any of the above, then we would be well-served if it could do so.
However, I doubt that people will abort a fetus because it has a higher than normal chance (note that this is all genetics is likely to ever be able to tell us) to have Aspergers, so I don't see how it relates to your argument immediately prior.
If you believe that Aspergers is a defect, then I will say that is for you to decide. It is not for governments, doctors, schools, scientists, or people who don't know you to decide. There are people I have met who like having Aspergers. I personally consider it a personality difference. That was exactly my point. Who decides what is or isn't an "desirable" genetic trait? You? Me? If I decided that Aspergers is a "desirable" genetic trait, then you would be pissed at me. If you decide that Aspergers is an "undesirable" genetic trait, then I would be pissed at you. It is all relative. That relativity is exactly why eugenics is a dangerous philosophy. And that is exactly why I could never get behind it as a philosophy. I believe in curing defects, don't get me wrong. I look forward to the implementation of the CRISPR technology helping people, and getting their issues cured. But eugenics is separate from curing people, and it is a dangerous road.
Consensual, optimally protected intercourse either in a committed relationship, or as a mutually wanted casual sexual release is generally positive for human health, and brings pleasure and happiness.
Aren't you forgetting something or rather someone important?
God. Not all of us humans know what God wants and knows, but some of us do. And should we not listen to those enlightened by God's wisdom?
God invented sex for procreation. If you have sex for pleasure (and especially if you have it before marriage!) are you not defying God?
What good is a "generally positive" effect for human health if you will end up in hell?
You should at least consider adjusting your lifestyle to what other people tell you that God wants.
Comments
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995600
Media outlets have expressed widespread concern about the lack of access to Trump. On Tuesday night, he took his family to a New York restaurant for dinner, and the so-called press pool, which is meant to be the public's eyes on the president-elect, was not notified.
CNN's Sara Murray told Anderson Cooper on Tuesday night that this "appears to be yet another misunderstanding of exactly how much gravity his new title as president-elect holds. If something, God forbid, were to happen to him, that's a matter not only of public record but also a matter of national security, given that he is next in line to take the White House."
My responses to some of the individual points:
[spoiler]
First off, I think you make some good points. For example that The Federalist made a really poor argument in complaining that Democrats refused to pass legislation with a poison pill attached. Bundling controversial bills with unrelated popular bills, is definitely dishonest and undermines democracy. Both parties have done it before, but it's especially disappointing from the GOP since they pledged they would "end the practice".
I'll also have to do more research (and may change my mind) about the issue of pregnancy counselors being legally required to refer to abortion but not adoption. On the one hand, laywers and judges are notoriously pedantic, and the difference between the words "or" and "and" in that law may actually be important. But on the other hand, the way that argument was presented in the source was sloppy, and maybe it really is much ado about nothing.
However, other times it seems to me like you're just grasping at technicalities to dismiss any evidence of bad faith and bad actions by the Democratic Party.
---
Like this one: Just because a statement is technically accurate, doesn't mean that a government is being fair and justified in forcing institutions to put up a sign with said statement (while not requiring other institutions to put up any sign).
As the quoted article says, the counseling at the pro-choice centers in question is also not provided by doctors. That they employ doctors for other tasks (i.e. abortions), is rather irrelevant here: Women seeking pregnancy counseling will be counseled by non-doctors no matter whether they go to a pro-choice or pro-life center in this scenario.
If the Democrats writing the law were actually motivated by consumer protection, and thought a mandatory sign was necessary to avoid misleading people, they could have required all centers who let non-doctors do the counseling to put up a sign to that effect.
Instead, they tied the requirement to put up the sign to the irrelevant condition of also employing a doctor (for other services), which, in practice, "just so happened" to draw the line between the pro- and anti-abortion centers in question.
Can you really not see anything shady about that?
The cases where pro-life centers were forced to put up signs saying that they "do not provide abortions or birth control referrals" should not be so easily dismissed either. Prominently advertising what services you don't provide, definitely can give a weird impression to potential clients even if they didn't intend to seek those services in the first place. If lawmakers force organizations they are politically opposed to to write their shortcomings on their forehead, so to speak, but don't require politically allied organizations to advertise their own shortcomings, that definitely reeks of abuse of power.
Not to mention that it forces the affected organizations to submit to the lawmaker's ideological framing of the issue, i.e. the lawmaker's idea of what kinds of controversial services a certain type of organization should provide and thus constitute a short-coming worthy of a sign if they don't. The organizations are forced to effectively put this viewpoint (that goes against their religion and conscience) into writing and display it in their window. This treads on thin ice w.r.t. the First Amendment, which protects not only against suppression of speech but also against compelled speech.
---
Or this one: Come on now. If a party leader is asked whether something should be legal or illegal and they respond that the decision should be up to the people doing it, then they're saying that they want it to be legal.
That's what "legal" means – that people can decide for themselves whether they want to do something without being limited by the government. That's what she suggests for ninth-month abortions. (Of course, the baby is not among the people who get a choice.)
The Federalist might have editorialized a bit in describing her position in terms of "constitutional right", which may or may not be how she sees it.
But Wasserman-Schultz absolutely supported the legality of aborting full-term, seven-pound babies in that reply of hers to Senator Paul's question.
Maybe you think she doesn't really believe it, or that her position doesn't represent the DNC which she was the chairperson of at the time. But it's what she said.
--- "Not a medical term" is a very popular red herring among pro-choice advocacy groups.
So what if it isn't a medical term? You don't need to use Latin terminology to write a sensible law. In fact, using specific medical procedure names would leave an easy loop-hole for doctors to just invent a new-but-effectively-the-same procedure under a different medical name, and no longer be subject to the law. The word "dismemberment" is sufficiently clear that it would allow judges and juries to determine whether an abortion provider is guilty of it.
"Partial birth abortions" are frequently dismissed using the same trick. That's not what the medical textbooks call it, so it must all be in the imagination of crazy pro-lifers, nothing to see here, right? Wrong. It's actually a pretty accurate plain-English descriptions of what happens during such a procedure.
I think it's as The Fedearlist article says: "there is no clean and humane way to kill a seven-pound, full-term baby" – and late-term abortion advocates understand this and fear its implications deep down (everyone has a conscience), but their political ideology demands of them that they look away. Any plain-English phrase that actually describes what is happening without euphemism or obfuscation, i.e. makes them "look", is a thorn in their side, and they try to keep such language out of official legislation and regulations at all costs.
[/spoiler]
I just don't think the purpose of health education is to make arbitary moral judgements - but to teach people about feelings and relationships, love and consent, and sexual health as in preventing unwanted pregnancies and avoiding STIs.
The problem is, I hope you'll recognize ThacoBell, that people who usually say: "Keep your pants on" are also those whom are negative towards sexual education and family planning in general.
No evidence backs them. Empathy is clearly not at their backs either, nor respect of autonomy of others.
Consensual, optimally protected intercourse either in a committed relationship, or as a mutually wanted casual sexual release is generally positive for human health, and brings pleasure and happiness.
Consensual is the cue, obviously.
I don't exactly see how you think restricting condoms or pills is going to improve anyone's lot - only it will hurt the poorest the most, obviously. "Proles had better keep their pants on. Or suffer!"
Do you favour sexual enjoyment without fear of negative consequences to be restricted to the higher social classes? If not, I would suggest trying to understand these concerns from a humane standpoint, not just some irresponsible people wanting to be frivolous.
Mr. Trump you going to build a wall? Well maybe a fence in some places.
Mr. Trump you going to deport 10M illegal immigrants? Well...
Mr. Trump you going to lock up Hillary Clinton? Maybe not.....
Mr. Trump are you going to divest yourself of foreign enterprises and other conflicts of interest damaging to national security? I'll hand of my company to my kids but first they need Top Secret Clearances so that I can pass them information that benefits my business.
Mr. Trump are you going to push for term limits from a GOP controlled House and Senate. *silence*
Hey! @God! We gotta question!
"A Georgia state legislator introduced a bill on Wednesday that would restrict the rights of observant Muslim women. The proposed bill would bar Muslim women from wearing burqas and veils while driving on public roads and preclude them from donning traditional head-covering attire for the photos they use on Georgia driver’s licenses."
In the meantime, one of Trump's top choices for AG looking into bringing back a National Registry of Muslim Immigrants. But you know, we should wait for him to pivot, give it a chance. Once he's in office he'll change. This is actually what authoritarians COUNT ON. Making their rhetoric so over the top that no one takes it seriously, when it is, in fact, exactly what they mean.
Hijabs (head scarfs) should still be acceptable for photo identification as all facial features will be visible when referencing the photo. Burka's or veils cover the face and should not be allowed. Common sense.
A full Burka, can restrict vision considerably and shouldn't be worn when driving as it creates too many blind spots for women. A viel that covers the face, but not the eyes shouldn't restrict the driver and should be allowed.
Just like you shouldn't wear a crucifix while operating a printing press. The chain can get stuck in the gears and you can literally lose your head. Christians are not mandated to wear a crucifix by the New Testament, but many do to express their belief in Jesus Christ. A printing company has the right to deny their employees from wearing any loose clothing or jewelry, regardless if it is expressing ones religious belief or not. It comes down to employee safety.
And once again, separate religion and state please. It should be illegal to wear anything that obscures a person's vision while driving a motor vehicle. This is for public safety and not to prevent a certain religion from expressing itself.
And please keep in mind, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right, and if you can not follow the rules set for any reason, then you should not be operating a motor vehicle.
That whole sunglasses thing, does not make sense.
Hopefully that clarified things.
And again, whether or not the Quran mandates it's use is immaterial to whether any specific person BELIEVES it does. There are dozens of denominations of Christianity. I could invent an offshoot of either Islam or Christianity tomorrow and it would be no less valid, legally speaking, than any other. That's how it has to work, or it doesn't work at all.
In the end, arguing about the semantics of car safety when the intent of the bill is so obviously to play to the right-wing base of this lawmaker isn't something I'm particularly interested in, though if that's truly what you believe is going on then I certainly have neither the time nor inclination to convince you otherwise. And that's all I'll say on the subject.
What is it?
I am pro-choice.
If you need evidence, here is a quote from me a few days ago: I think it is safe to assume that you, @Ayiekie , feel similarly to this (or at the very least that you would expect results of widespread allowable abortion to be similar to what I believe) based on the following quotes from you. I also believe that it is safe assume that you believe it unlikely for women to want to use abortion as a form of birth control from these quotes. Now that we have established some common ground, please stop speaking as though you are trying to convince me to believe the same as you in this issue. From what I have understood from your current posts, I believe that I already do, unless I am completely misunderstanding you.
I get the feeling from this quote that you don't understand what eugenics actually is. First, you tell me that as a rationalization for a eugenic philosophy, which, as I said, religious and political teachings have nothing to do with eugenics. Then you say which makes a denial that we are currently not employing a current form of eugenic philosophy that seems to be based on a slip-shop, hasty description of the philosophy that I wrote here: There is much more to the philosophy than the motivation of improving the human gene pool, which motivation seems to be held mostly by scientists and political leaders. Of course parents aren't aborting their children for the vague, altruistic reason, "Well, I guess we should abort our child to improve the gene pool." They are doing it for very personal reasons that have nothing to do with what I was trying to communicate.
Perhaps it would behoove you to do some research of your own into eugenic philosophy, as I do not believe I am adequate to explain it. I recommend this in order to eliminate any further arguments over semantics, which I believe your points are based on.
I will say, however, that your skepticism of the potential power that CRISPR contains is indicative of one of two things: You either do not understand how the human genome operates on a basic level or you believe a form of medical science that is not accepted by the mainstream medical community. I do not mean to insult you at all, and I hope that you are not insulted. Perhaps you will take a moment to perform some research of your own into this, or at the very least, read through a brief analogy that I have provided below in spoilers?
For many years, we have been trying to understand the prints (genes). We still do not understand them, but we have an ok understanding of how the contractors (cells) work. The human genome project was a massive attempt to try to understand and categorize the genes of humans. Although it did not have the effect we were hoping for, it did help us understand a little bit more.
Up until this point, gene editing has been more like throwing globs of paint while blindfolded at the prints in an effort to get the contractors to change what they are building. This has usually been done by trail and error (mostly error), but a few instances of gene editing have randomly worked out in our favor, most notably among livestock and produce.
CRISPR gives us the most basic tools (paper, rulers, pencils, following the analogy) to make our own prints as the architect. There is even talk of eliminating the effects of aging by using CRISPR, and there is certainly some justified fear surrounding the technology.
Trust me, this technology is definitely no joke. But I, personally, can't wait for it to be developed.
The points of CRISPR, however, still stand. It provides a way for others to manipulate our genetic code.
So I ask again...where is the line?
Who decides whether or not our current primitive implementation of a eugenic philosophy against Down Syndrome is good or bad? Who decides what constitutes a "desirable" genetic trait? If the answer is, "Mashedtaters, you can decide for yourself what is or isn't a 'desirable' genetic trait for you, and everyone else can decide for themselves." Then I will be like, "YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!" But if the answer is, "Mashedtaters, the government, or the doctor, or religion, or lobbyists, or Ralph down the street is going to decide what is or isn't a 'desirable' genetic trait for you and for everyone else as well." Then I will be like, "Whoah, hold on! Wait a minute! Who the fu** do you think you are????!!!!!"
What is or isn't desirable is completely relative to the advocate, which is the only reason why it is a dangerous philosophy. Some people believe Down Syndrome is "undesirable". Others do not.
Chorionic villus sampling is the name of the test to detect Down Syndrome, among other defects, in the fetus. I had to do some research to remember the test.
Source:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/chorionic-villus-sampling/basics/definition/prc-20013566
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorionic_villus_sampling
There is a reason to detect abnormalities in the fetus, and it's not only to "prepare" the parents for the "worst". It is so that the parents can decide if they wish to perform an abortion.
Taken from a pamphlet on the very top of Googling this test:
Equally, if the results of CVS show a problem, you may choose to continue with the pregnancy. With the knowledge of the results, you can start to prepare for the birth and care of your baby who is likely to have special needs. The baby may need special care or surgical care immediately after they are born. Prior knowledge means that you can plan to give birth in a hospital where all the appropriate facilities are available.
Source:http://patient.info/health/chorionic-villus-sampling-leaflet
That was exactly my point. Who decides what is or isn't an "desirable" genetic trait?
You?
Me?
If I decided that Aspergers is a "desirable" genetic trait, then you would be pissed at me. If you decide that Aspergers is an "undesirable" genetic trait, then I would be pissed at you.
It is all relative. That relativity is exactly why eugenics is a dangerous philosophy. And that is exactly why I could never get behind it as a philosophy.
I believe in curing defects, don't get me wrong. I look forward to the implementation of the CRISPR technology helping people, and getting their issues cured.
But eugenics is separate from curing people, and it is a dangerous road.
YEAH!!!!! Isn't it awesome???!!?!?!?!?!?!!
Hopefully we will stop blocking ourselves and get this technology developed soon.