islander wrote: 
Pot has nothing to do with anything. 

So you sold yer boat, eh ?  Good for you.  Now you can buy all the Pixie Dust you want !

Like I said before, I pretty much ignore you unless you start up something with me.

 kurtster wrote:

You need to slow down on the pot, you are way behind. We've been off the boat for a while. 

if the supreme court cannot make decisions in 2022 based on current real-world situations and knowledge, then it's obsolete. trying to interpret what people meant 200 years ago and then trying to apply it to modern times is ridiculous. people can talk about "originalist" bs all they want, but this isn't 1800. this court is obsolete and has no business determining law for the modern times - it has shown itself to be a relic of times past.

 islander wrote: 
And I think of you pulling your boat up to the fuel dock these days and laugh my ass off.

 kurtster wrote:

You're a riot*.

*please don't

 islander wrote: 
Too late since I was working on the post below all day and believed that you would never answer the question and did not see this until posting mine.  So I made some assumptions about you as you have done about me above, again, as usual.  So there.

.
And yes you did owe me an explanation since it was you who engaged me first and called me out and I replied.  I did not call you out except in my reply to your accusations which I thought I addressed, evidently not though.  Nor do I read much of anything you post about anything unless you direct it to me and start something.  I largely ignore you and let you go your own merry way.

 Isabeau wrote: 
This is a highly semantical discussion.  You of all people should understand this as what WOKE is all about is rearranging the language, definitions and even inventing new words. And splitting hairs, be they curly or straight, short or long or any combination of the 4 possibilities in order to define things.  You cannot begin to solve a problem until it is defined and agreed upon.  Problem solving first step 101.  But if you keep changing language and definitions, we will never be able to solve anything.  And I would suggest that it is done so as to avoid solving anything.  

Again, all's that I said is that a conversation needs to be had as a collective society to define what human life is and when it begins and becomes meaningful.

And suggesting a conversation is a crime on my part ?  Really ?

Here let me rephrase my thought.  A conversation needs to be had as a collective society to define what human life is and when it begins and becomes meaningful when it attains rights.  Does that help ?

How about we just start talking about it with the goal of achieving some sort of consensus or finding if a consensus is even possible.  That is the primary point.  We cannot even agree on something as simple as when life begins.

You ask who will be the experts ?   If we already had "EXPERTS" this would have already been decided by now, right ?  We will find out when people come together and start talking to each other which is what I suggested.

Moving towards the middle of the 21st Century, evidently we are still unable to scientifically determine when human life begins despite a whole host of experts who have been speaking to this matter for what has been essentially forever already.

So try this ... The experts are all atheists.  That way religious beliefs are excluded from having any bearing on the answers.  Atheist biologists determine when life begins since you do not trust anyone with religious beliefs.  I guess we also need to determine when the fertilized egg is a human as opposed to some other species, right ?  Then to determine when the human life form attains actual rights, we have a panel of atheist lawyers.  They put forth their conclusions for society as a whole and the debate goes to a new level.

Then we have to consider limits if any based upon this consensus.  I know that people like you and islander and the Democratic Party as an official whole entity will have a hard time with having any limits on abortion.  You want it on demand at any point of the pregnancy without restrictions.  That is a rather extreme position, imo.  Unless it is found that a human life form has no rights until born alive, which could be the determination of the proposed panel(s).

But before we can even get to limits, if any, on abortion, the items I mentioned, imo, need to be resolved.  Once resolved we call a Constitutional Convention and incorporate this consensus as an Amendment, pass it and move on to something else.

For the record one more time.  I clearly stated earlier that an abortion is a medical procedure.  I am pro choice meaning that the decision lies with the host of this life form.  It does not mean that I am pro abortion.  It should be the host only who makes this decision.  The sperm donor has no rights in this decision process.  They can be included should the host wish it, but the host should have the last word.  The only role of government regarding abortion is to make sure that it is safe and safely done.  It is up to the host to find a qualified medical person to perform the abortion should they want one.  I agree with abortions in the cases of rape, incest and the health of the host.  I also agree with the initial determination of R v W that abortions should only be permitted up until the life form has viability outside the womb.  I would agree that the government may pay the cost in the cases of rape and incest since it is no fault of the host.  And perhaps in cases such as mentioned by SteelyD regarding the failed abortion attempt with the twin pregnancy which has high risk complications.  Access to birth control should be open and unrestricted except for medical reasons due to certain conditions present with a given potential host person / entity which is determined by a doctor and resolved with an Rx.

Lastly, I believe that life begins at conception / pollination. 

I fully understand my thoughts expressed above to be held by few here let alone considered reasonable at any level, but there they are.

Did I answer your questions ?

 kurtster wrote:

Not that I owe it to you, or that you even really care, but for the record:  I'm pro choice, generally pro - human which means women (who are human in my view) have autonomy over their bodies. Abortion is a medical procedure and You (larger you, government you, and Kurtster specifically) have as much business in that decision making for a woman as you would if they had a broken leg - NONE.   You want to care about children, there are millions all over the place that need genuine help, that you (larger/gov/K) are really in a position to help with. That you chose some oddball biblical (sort of) hack ideology to try and force you will on others  is pathetic. 

Also, I'm pro 2A. But the whole thing, including the bit about well regulated (originalism and all...). That would also help a lot of children, and women too.  If you need a gun to go to the grocery store, you need a better grocer or better ability to assess risk.

 kurtster wrote:

Kurt, all you do is choose to split short and curlies, not engage in real dialogue. Its always about everyone else honoring YOUR questions, yet their's are irrelevant.
Do tell me who are the 'experts' to decide what 'life' is. Again I ask, Life is a vaguery until you get down to what you mean. Physical Life? Emotional or Spiritual Life? 

YOU put that out there. I'm only trying to clarify. If I projected, well, my bad. As republicans refer to the insurrection, "let's just move on."
But again, you refuse to answer my original question, instead you go off on how YOURS hasn't been answered.
Hopscotch topic diversions are your go-to debate tactics.
Match. Set.

 islander wrote: 
My apologies.  I must have missed them from an earlier post of yours.  Perhaps you could direct me to that post or just restate them.

 kurtster wrote:

Oh jeez, you seem riled. My thoughts and beliefs are pretty clear to anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension.  That you can't or choose not to isn't my problem. 

 islander wrote: 
Like Izzy, you choose to ignore what was stated and project some bs instead.

Once you decide to get off the fence and actually declare a real position on a specific subject, then I might be willing to have a conversation with you.  You never say what you believe.  You just criticize others for their thoughts and beliefs while holding back your own.  Coward.

 Isabeau wrote: 
Really ?

A)  You left out the Democrats version.  On purpose no doubt.  And by omission of any mention of Democrats in your statement you imply that Medical Doctors are or must be Democrats by default.  And nowhere did I mention any party or religion.  You did that.

So in the spirit of your reply, I'll state it as life begins only after 24 hours of actual birth, because until then, the woman can decide she doesn't want the baby to survive anymore. That is the party's definition.  As intimated by the prior governor of Virginia who is an MD speaking about an abortion bill going through the Virginia legislature at the time. No one in the party has outright said that what he said is wrong.  To this day.  Instead they have just tried to defend him by saying he was misinterpreted. So it stands.

B)  This what I wrote ....  Someday this country is going to have to have a conversation and define what human life is and when it begins and becomes meaningful. I did not state what it is.  I stated that there is a need to define it, once and for all as there is no agreed upon definition.  What I think it is does not matter one whit.  Correct me if I'm wrong but even a one cell organism that is metabolizing is alive and therefore a life form.  But I specifically mentioned Human Life.  You then go off on a tirade about everything but that.  Speaking in terms of body parts, which many other living things have in common with humans and avoid the subject that I mentioned.  I just said that there needs to be a discussion on the subject with the goal of defining some socially acceptable definition so that we as a society can move forward.  You do not seem interested in that end as you obfuscate the means to that end.  You obviously only want the definition that you approve of.

Oh, and tell me which is worse ... "SELECTIVE MORALITY" or selective enforcement of the law.

Back to you.

Kurster wrote:
Someday this country is going to have to have a conversation and define what human life is and when it begins and becomes meaningful. And then add that definition to the Constitution as an Amendment. Until then, chaos will ensue.


Medical Doctors have one 'definition.' Republicans and Religion, have another.  Usually, in this environment, in the Nation of laws Separating Church and State, its been left up to the personal rights of the individual, as long as they don't impose on the rights of others.

One is based on simple biology, the other on BELIEF. When you say the word "Life, " please elaborate on that meaning for you.  Are you talking before an embryo has developed kidneys, lungs, limbs and a brain, that's life? Or are you imposing some sanctified concept of the "Soul" immediately injected into that cluster of cells at eight weeks?

Who decides what a 'Soul' is? Who decides when it enters this mass of genes? Is it the Hebrew Bible that insists First Breath is when the child is a Life? or is it the BELIEF of others that rule? Are we going to bring back Spectral Evidence of Abortion alongside Digital Hardrives?

Are you a biologist? Have you EVER had a woman say to you, "Babe, I'm late?" Now, that phrase will take on a power far greater than the law. 

My kidneys have human DNA, but I'm not going to say they are 'living' and I should name them. (kinda partial to Bob and Carol) the same applies to the very Organic PROCESS of one Human body forming and creating another human body.
Hint* lotsa things go wrong. Horrible, terrible, painful things. Even a miscarriage is painful to a couple that longed for a child. But when it happens, and there is still the possibility of leftover tissue in the uterus, a D&C is recommended to make sure that all material that could become toxic is removed. Gee, Gals do that every freakin month, but the remnants of a pregnancy can easily become deadly.

As long as this country loves its Guns, War and Capital Punishment, it cannot call itself 'pro-life.' 
It's just indulging in SELECTIVE MORALITY.

 kurtster wrote:

Once you are as committed to supporting life as you are to supporting birth I'd be willing to have that discussion (although I'll still never agree to grant you dominion over another person). 

The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the court’s right-wing justices lead to the conclusion that they have simply appointed themselves super-legislators free to impose a view of the United States as a White, Christian and male-dominated society despite the values, beliefs and choices of a majority of 330 million modern Americans.
— Jennifer Rubin, WP

 Steely_D wrote:

I've mentioned this before, but our daughter was born at 30 weeks. At the Catholic-church-run hospital, we naturally talked about other babies even though it was against the rules. We mentioned an article we'd read, where a much earlier baby was delivered and doing fine. "She's not fine," the nurse assured us. She said that viability is a terrible metric and that the Catholic church won't deliver these edge cases. They're in God's hands. That particular hospital had just had a discussion about moving the cutoff to something like 22 weeks; it was currently around 26 weeks, although boys were a definite but girls that limit was more flexible (girls have fewer problems, apparently). So anyway, it's the Catholic church that answers the question and it has to do with how likely are they to enjoy a full quality of life? They can and do draw that line and every day there's a decision made that answers the question. 

 black321 wrote: 
Very interesting.  Did not know that.

Several things to remember though, women were considered chattel back then. Mail order brides were commonplace.  Life was hard and life was short.  Families had lots of children because few survived either childbirth or lived to adulthood.

I'm done on this subject.  Y'all have a nice day. 

 HarleyRider wrote:

There's a lot in there to disimpact, but let's stick with something straightforward: do we agree that the government (all branches) should represent the people? Good.

So then you're obviously against the electoral college. It puts Presidents into office (Bush and Trump, notably) against the will of a majority of people. We look forward to you advocating for its elimination.

And you want the majority of Americans to decide about whether abortion should be allowed - notice that's not that it should be mandated, just allowed. Just not illegal.
Well, they've expressed their opinions pretty unequivocally: check this. Most Americans want abortions to be not illegal.

So does Congress represent the will of the people? No. (Hint: it represents the will of the people who donate money to the politicians. This should not be news.) Can we, therefore, expect Congress to pass laws that benefit the American people? Spoiler: no. Otherwise, we'd see a nation with education, infrastructure, health care, and stability. And we don't.

But we DO see a Congress that bothers enough to want to forbid Americans from doing something that they want to do. See my reference above: Americans want the ability to have access to abortion if they choose. Power to the people, right? But Congress won't do it because they're beholden to their donors - which includes "religious" groups who say they're pro-life until the child is born and then they don't care what happens to it.

Anyway. You don't understand the anger. That might be because you're not a woman who got pregnant and can't see a way to having a child. Because it was rape, or horrible judgement, or a malformed fetus, or a product of incest, or whatever. YOU won't be saddled with the responsibilities of giving up your life to raise another human. And you're probably not poor, working 6 days a week to keep your head above water but now you've got to take time off work and travel miles and hours to another state to find someplace that will help you out and then travel back home and then your recently traumatized body and brain back to work so you don't lose your place to live. 

Forbidding people the freedom, the ability to get a needed abortion disproportionally hurts the poor and desperate, because the rich will always have access somehow. 

TL;DR: you had it right. You don't understand.

 Steely_D wrote: 
I deliberately avoided that for obvious reasons.

FWIW ... we pretty much agree overall on this subject.

and I am saying this more and more ... I'm glad that I am as old as I am ... sad, yes but I'm too old to fight over this stuff anymore.  I would like to talk about things but yelling and screaming ?  Nope.  Conversation in this country is dead.