WaPo: Multiple injuries reported in ‘active shooter situation’ near Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs

[The Evil Genius]

 

@LukeRussert

Speaker Ryan says after CO Planned Parenthood shooting, Congress will work on bill addressing problems w America's mental health system.

 

 

Wonder where he was in 2008 when he voted no on the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008???

 

The one that required group health plans to apply the same treatment limits on mental health or substance-related disorder benefits as they do for medical and surgical benefits.

 

Oh wait..this is so he doesn't have to tackle gun control. Got it.

[Burgold]

I see your bull and raise you a Babe, the Blue Ox. That's right, I'm going Americana on you.

To your first question:

Yes, school lunch programs are under attack. Look at how underfunded schools and school programs are especially in states with conservative governors and legislatures. Look at how hard conservatives worked to kill the Chp program. More globally, look how assistance, welfare, and aid programs are targeted.

To your "many" point-

Compare the numbers of conservatives who donate time or money once a month to soup kitchens, shelters, or health clinics to the numbers that oppose universal healthcare, welfare, and aid programs. Factor in also the number who oppose supporting refugees and want to deny asylum to those who joined the Peace Corp, served in a mission overseas, or sent care packages.

The majority of those who claim to be pro life are pro birth. In most. Other areas in supporting life directly or indirectly they fall short.

There are certainly notable and noble exceptions, but by and large they are exceptions. You can't be pro life and anti universal healthcare, immigration, and at the same time pro war and pro death penalty.

Okay, have at me.

[Major Harris]

Compare the numbers of conservatives who donate time or money once a month to soup kitchens, shelters, or health clinics to the numbers that oppose universal healthcare, welfare, and aid programs. Factor in also the number who oppose supporting refugees and want to deny asylum to those who joined the Peace Corp, served in a mission overseas, or sent care packages.

 

 

 

i'll compare the numbers.  maybe you could point me to them?  or are we going off of your facebook feed here?

 

and we also have to differentiate between "opposing" universal health care, and not liking the structure we were given.  and between opposing aid and welfare programs and having serious concerns about abuse and misuse and creating a dependent society. 

 

you are attempting to make it more black and white and using blanket statements.

 

wv is a red state, we've had universal healthcare for children for YEARS.  lots of child welfare programs have been running without revolt for decades.

[Zguy28]

I see your bull and raise you a Babe, the Blue Ox. That's right, I'm going Americana on you.

To your first question:

Yes, school lunch programs are under attack. Look at how underfunded schools and school programs are especially in states with conservative governors and legislatures. Look at how hard conservatives worked to kill the Chp program. More globally, look how assistance, welfare, and aid programs are targeted.

To your "many" point-

Compare the numbers of conservatives who donate time or money once a month to soup kitchens, shelters, or health clinics to the numbers that oppose universal healthcare, welfare, and aid programs. Factor in also the number who oppose supporting refugees and want to deny asylum to those who joined the Peace Corp, served in a mission overseas, or sent care packages.

The majority of those who claim to be pro life are pro birth. In most. Other areas in supporting life directly or indirectly they fall short.

There are certainly notable and noble exceptions, but by and large they are exceptions. You can't be pro life and anti universal healthcare, immigration, and at the same time pro war and pro death penalty.

Okay, have at me.

This is like saying that you can't be pro-choice and not be an anarchist or libertarian.

[Predicto]

I read today another diatribe about how pro-lifers are not pro life... given the stands that so many take on capital punishment, health care, school lunch programs, refugees, etc. I was mainly the usual screed, but the one thing I thought interesting was the punchline which I thought was apt.

 

They are not pro-life. They are pro-birth.

 

I think that's a more honest dichotomy. Pro-Birth vs. Pro-Choice.

 

 

Please don't do this.   I am pro-choice, but we have to understand that the large majority of the people who are pro-life are just as honest and sincere in their pro-life views as pro-choicers are in theirs.

 

Abortion is an incredibly difficult moral problem.  It's not a scientific question, or a simple public policy/greater good question.  The dispute hinges on fundamental philosophical assumptions about the nature of personhood, autonomy, equality, when human life begins, and other unanswerable questions.   We need to remember that BOTH SIDES are correct on the issue, when it is examined from their point of view.   ZGuy honestly believes that every abortion is akin to murdering a human being.   I don't agree, but I understand why he believes it, and I can't tell him for sure that he is wrong even though I disagree with him.  

 

I don't know how the abortion dispute will ever be fully resolved in this country, but I know that it doesn't help matters to make fun of pro-life people in general or call them hypocrites, because they aren't.   

 

 

 

edit - Of course politicians can be horribly hypocritical and manipulative about this issue, like any other.   I am speaking of honest pro-lifers, like Zguy and millions of others.   Go ahead and blast politicians who use this issue as a wedge, but always remember that the pro-life voters that they are appealing to are sincere in their pro-life views.   

[Major Harris]

i think predicto's post speaks more to how i feel than any of my posts.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Please don't do this.   I am pro-choice, but we have to understand that the large majority of the people who are pro-life are just as honest and sincere in their pro-life views as pro-choicers are in theirs.

 

Abortion is an incredibly difficult moral problem.  It's not a scientific question, or a simple public policy/greater good question.  The dispute rests on to fundamental philosophical assumptions about the nature of personhood, autonomy, equality, when human life begins, and other unanswerable questions.   We need to remember that BOTH SIDES are correct on the issue, when it is examined from their point of view.   ZGuy honestly believes that every abortion is akin to murdering a human being.   I don't agree, but I understand why he believes it, and I can't tell him for sure that he is wrong even though I disagree with him.  

 

I don't know how the abortion dispute will ever be fully resolved in this country, but I know that it doesn't help matters to make fun of pro-life people in general or call them hypocrites, because they aren't.   

 

 

 

edit - Of course politicians can be horribly hypocritical and manipulative about this issue, like any other.   I am speaking of honest pro-lifers, like Zguy and millions of others.   Go ahead and blast politicians who use this issue as a wedge, but always remember that the pro-life voters that they are appealing to are sincere in their pro-life views.   

Very well put!!!

 

At the end of the day I don't really now what to call my position.  I say pro-life because I don't like abortion and wouldn't want my wife to have one.  But I'm also pro-choice because I don't think it is my place to tell someone else what they must do when put in a difficult situation.  I definitely see both sides of  the argument.  I guess I lean pro-choice because I know it is such a difficult topic, I let each person decide what they feel is right.  But I'm a big "to each their own" fan.  But then I get grouped in with so many of the stereotypes about pro-choice people.  I have lots of respect for the life of a fetus.  That doesn't mean I should force that view on others though.  At the end of the day, this position usually just means I end up telling both sides they are wrong.

[Popeman38]

I see your bull and raise you a Babe, the Blue Ox. That's right, I'm going Americana on you.

To your first question:

Yes, school lunch programs are under attack. Look at how underfunded schools and school programs are especially in states with conservative governors and legislatures. Look at how hard conservatives worked to kill the Chp program. More globally, look how assistance, welfare, and aid programs are targeted.

To your "many" point-

Compare the numbers of conservatives who donate time or money once a month to soup kitchens, shelters, or health clinics to the numbers that oppose universal healthcare, welfare, and aid programs. Factor in also the number who oppose supporting refugees and want to deny asylum to those who joined the Peace Corp, served in a mission overseas, or sent care packages.

The majority of those who claim to be pro life are pro birth. In most. Other areas in supporting life directly or indirectly they fall short.

There are certainly notable and noble exceptions, but by and large they are exceptions. You can't be pro life and anti universal healthcare, immigration, and at the same time pro war and pro death penalty.

Okay, have at me.

That's complete and utter bunk. You ask for something that isn't possible (bolded). Then further ask for more impossible. You know damn well that conservatives donate money and time to the needy. This typical partisan bull**** needs to be called. It isn't only liberals and progressives that donate time and money to the needy. Am I allowed to cite Arthur Brooks?

 

- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood

 

You close by making an absolute statement of an opinion (bolded, italicized). You can be pro-life and anti-universal healthcare. There are quite a few people who don't think the government should be responsible for providing healthcare. You can disagree, but you can't state they are mutually exclusive. You can also be pro-life and anti-illegal immigration (assuming this is what you meant since I don't think you would blanket state that pro-lifers are anti-legal immigration). Hell, you can be pro-life and not support only pro-life politicians. I am personally pro-life but Roe v Wade is settled law and has zero impact on my vote. It is simply a base-rallying topic that no one will ever actually do anything about.

[Burgold]

Please don't do this.   

I hear you and I probably went too far, but I do think that the pro-birth v. pro-life is an interesting idea. I do believe pro-birth to be far more accurate overall.

[Corcaigh]

I do think that the pro-birth v. pro-life is an interesting idea. 

 

Nope. It's asinine.

[Larry]

Nope. It's asinine.

If you think that being pro-birth is asinine, then I suspect you're doing it wrong.

[Predicto]

I hear you and I probably went too far, but I do think that the pro-birth v. pro-life is an interesting idea. I do believe pro-birth to be far more accurate overall.

 

 

Well, I guess it could be argued in the same manner that "my" pro-choice side should be labelled "pro-abortion" or even "anti-life" rather than "pro-choice."   At least from the point of view of the pro-lifers, that's how they see it.  

 

"My side" would love to use the terms pro-choice and anti-choice because it reflects how we view the fundamental issue here - the autonomy of a women over her body.  

 

"Their side" would love to use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion (or pro-life and anti-life) because they view the fundamental issue here as the rights of the fetus, which they view as an independent human being separate from the mother.

 

Both sides understand that if you get to define the terms of the debate, you gain a tactical advantage in the arena of public opinion.  

 

I think it is fair to let both sides use their own labels for their views.  Neither "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is deceptive, and we all know what we are talking about when we use them.  

[Burgold]

Except I don't think pro-birth should be considered a pejorative. Pro-choice is apt because there are quite a few people who personally do not believe in abortion, but don't want to rule on other's decisions.

 

At any rate, the term struck me as interesting this morning, but wasting time on labels is not really constructive so I concede the argument to those offended at the idea.

[Major Harris]

That's a .5 like, ftr burg.

[DogofWar1]

The following was written in pieces over a number of hours, so if it seems late, well that's why.  Lots of thoughts.

 

Abortion is an incredibly difficult moral problem.  It's not a scientific question, or a simple public policy/greater good question.  The dispute hinges on fundamental philosophical assumptions about the nature of personhood, autonomy, equality, when human life begins, and other unanswerable questions.   We need to remember that BOTH SIDES are correct on the issue, when it is examined from their point of view.   ZGuy honestly believes that every abortion is akin to murdering a human being.   I don't agree, but I understand why he believes it, and I can't tell him for sure that he is wrong even though I disagree with him.  

 

I don't know how the abortion dispute will ever be fully resolved in this country, but I know that it doesn't help matters to make fun of pro-life people in general or call them hypocrites, because they aren't.

 

This is a good philosophical starting point.

 

It's similar to where I start from, the concept that we don't know the answers to big moral questions on start of life.  We might feel one way or another, but we don't know for sure.

 

Deference to individual choices is the fairest thing here.  Personally, I feel as though life starts at viability, so around 25 weeks, but I'm open to alternate possibilities, including the notion that it doesn't start until birth.  Moreover, this is an issue of bodily autonomy, me pushing my views on someone else is robbing them of that autonomy.  To rob someone of their bodily autonomy is not particularly American, so even if I might feel like someone getting an abortion at, say, 29 weeks, is ending a life, that's my subjective viewpoint, one they might not share, and if my view is wrong in some cosmic objective scale, well then I've robbed them of something vital.

 

Akin to with criminal law, it's a sort of "beyond a reasonable doubt" situation.  We know that there is a living female making a decision about her body.  We don't know where life begins, and thus cannot say with certainty that any other life is even involved.  Do we really want to set the precedent that we can rob someone of bodily autonomy on mere subjective beliefs?  It's seemingly a backwards step to take bodily autonomy from a living person; a morally complex backwards step, but a backwards step nonetheless.

 

That's where I end up as "legislatively" Pro-Choice, and will defend the right to choose.

 

To explain the "legislatively" part of the above, that's how I vote, that is, I support candidates who oppose increasing burdens on choice and and oppose candidates who support increasing burdens on choice.  ("Support" meaning up to the measure that I care about the issue of abortion, as I care about it, but I take a lesser evil point of view on voting so there are potential grey areas)

 

As a person individually, I could characterize my beliefs as "pro-life" since I am personally opposed to abortion post viability, but that is entirely separate from my legislative viewpoint, where abandoning my subjective view to ensure that my objective voting does not violate others' bodily autonomy is key.

 

Of course, there's the fact that I, as a male, will never have to make that decision.  My bodily autonomy isn't on the line in any pregnancy.  If my gf got pregnant and wanted me to be in on the decision, that's fine, but ultimately it is still her choice.

 

 

The non-legislative, pure definition uses of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not mutually exclusive, it's a spectrum; you're pro-choice for everything before one's own view of "life," and pro-life for everything after that.  Indeed, from a non-legislative perspective, what someone is is mostly about what they want to self-identify as.  There are points where calling oneself pro-choice or pro-life become a little silly at the fringes, but there's enough wiggle room in the 9 months that you can fit in the middle of the two extremes and technically be either.

 

Legislatively, though, pro-life is troublesome.

 

It presupposes a certain view of life's start, and seeks to move legislative activity and restrictions to fit that view.  It constricts the decision making process away from being totally the choice of the woman to being a joint decision between the woman and the State/state/other people granted power of involvement on the woman's body.

 

That is, I think, fundamentally disrespectful of alternative views and beliefs.  Legislatively pro-life individuals are asking that people under the state respect their views on the topic of choice, but are not giving similar respect to the alternative views.  Pro-Choice, legislatively and non-legislatively, is generally what it says on the tin, granting the ability to choose; you aren't forced to effectuate a set of beliefs through your actions.  But once restrictions are imposed, you are ultimately effectuating a set of beliefs through your action; to not effectuate those beliefs is to break the law.

 

 

Anyways, I'm out of steam, it's getting tough to maintain this train of thought without some sort of refreshing of things.  It's a tough issue, but I would hate for it to end with us telling objectively real people what they can do with their bodies on the basis of subjective views about something going on in their bodies.

[twa]

When human life begins is rather clear by the science, indisputably so on the individual life level at 14 days......we can deflect to person or viability as a alternate line that is much less clear if ya wish....but it is indisputably a individual human life any time a abortionist performs..

 

Bodily autonomy certainly should be supported.......as should the individual human life the abortionist targets.

 

Kids are being born at 21 weeks, the limits are our ability and desires.

 

I'm not opposed to killing, but even I prefer there to be a real need to do so.....especially if you are enlisting outside contractors.

 

 

We clearly can do better whether pro-life or pro-choice.

[Predicto]

When human life begins is rather clear by the science

 

 

Nope.   You are presupposing the answer.   You have defined "human life" in the manner in which you want to define it, in order to achieve the result that you desire.   There is life in some form, that is undeniable.  That a "human being" exists at 14 days is not scientifically provable.  It is a philosophical question.  

[twa]

Science has given the answer....nor did I use the" being" in your supposed quote.

 

Deny all ya want 

[DogofWar1]

And as if right on cue, twa demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.

 

At 14 days it's nothing but a bundle of cells, twinning can occur through 21 days anyway, but there's nothing indicating human "life."  When the heart begins beating, there's no functioning brain.  We can grow hearts in labs, literal beating muscular structures, is that the line?  And what if we were to invent robotic intelligence, equal to if not superior than our own.  Are they "alive" based on having a heart or not?  What about brain functions in fetuses?  Lower brain function, higher brain function?  What about viability, of which the 50% line is about 24-25 weeks?

 

If the end of possible segmentation is the line, why not earlier, at fertilization/conception?  I mean, at the moment of conception, the argument goes, that uninterrupted, it shall become at least one person.  All the end of segmentation potential does is cap the number of people.  But if we're not taking bodily functions into account, why not as early as the moment when a potential person/set of persons is formed as opposed to when segmentation potential ends?

 

This line from Harry Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade is useful here:

 

 

 

 "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

[twa]

Science and humanity has supposedly advanced since Blackmun &co punted on the issue.

 

A bundle of cells was responsible for your post....the value assigned can certainly vary.

[bcl05]

So a genetically distinct bundle of cells is human, according to TWA. Cancer is genetically distinct from its host. Perhaps we should let it be? Is surgical removal of a tumor an abortion? So is a molar pregnancy. So is an ectopic pregnancy.

These are absurd examples (of course) to point out the obvious fact that nothing is as simple as TWA makes it out to be.

Dog is right on.

[twa]

I'll let you deniers argue with science .....I certainly don't mind

 

Absurd

[DogofWar1]

Science and humanity has supposedly advanced since Blackmun &co punted on the issue.

 

Certainly.  We can grow hearts now.  We can edit DNA.

 

We have changed philosophically too.  The theory that we're all just in a real matrix, bits in a universe machine, can we disprove that?  If we can't what then is life?

 

All we've really done since Roe v. Wade is understand the process from fertilization to birth better.  But that improved understanding hasn't created the consensus, I imagine people in your same religion probably disagree with you on the exact moment.

 

Wikipedia lists many potential markers, which one is "right?"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood

 

 

I'll let you deniers argue with science .....I certainly don't mind

Absurd

 

We aren't arguing with science, because what you're saying isn't scientific.

 

You are taking one potential marker, the end of potential segmentation (something found through scientific pursuit), and ascribing to it the line of being when life begins, which is not science, and then parading your imposed line around as science.

 

Seriously, what makes the end of segmentation the marker, but conception not, if we're not taking viability into account?

[twa]

Conception is certainly the beginning of life, I tried to allow some leeway as to clearly a individual human life.....you on the other hand try to confuse fact with co-joined twins?

 

 

Ya'll have fun

[DogofWar1]

Wait, so which is it?  You said end of segmentation, but now you say conception because you were trying to "allow some leeway?"

 

So if someone ends the pregnancy between fertilization and the end of segmentation, is it murder, or not?  Your earlier posts suggest no, the above suggests yes.  Indeed, the difference seems to be that before the end of segmentation it could be multiple murders.  At fertilization is it not human cells?

 

 

Let's get some links involved in this to demonstrate the inherent uncertainty about the starting point of life:

 

- This random Pro-life website tied to Princton says fertilization, that is, prior to the end of segmentation: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

- Swoop over to RationalWiki and it lists 5 "major" potential points.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

 

The point about brain function is interesting, because we define death as being the point of brain-death.  We can keep the body "functioning" beyond "death," but once the brain is gone so is "life."  If the end of brain functioning is the point of death, wouldn't it's formation be the point of life?

http://www.livescience.com/42301-brain-death-body-alive.html

A body's functions can continue in some forms for quite some time after brain death, indeed the article mentions that it can occur indefinitely.  Are not those functions as or more complex than pre-neurologically functioning fetuses?

 

- In vitro fertilization offers another interesting set of philosophical questions.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation  You usually get numerous post-fertilization embryos in the process, some of which are discarded, others of which are implanted.  Now, what makes In vitro so interesting is that post-implementation, the segmentation rate is very low, so by and large, the embryo in the vast majority of cases could be considered a individual human.  So when other embryos are discarded for whatever reason, is that murder?  I mean, those embryos fit your definitions.  But they also only exist for the purpose of statistically ensuring that one is sufficient to the purpose of becoming an actual baby.

 

- Another little article http://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

 

 

Long story short, no one, not even the great twa citing his (non-existent) scientific reasoning, can say with 100% certainty the moment that human personhood/life, begins.

 

 

But by all means, keep saying we can, and that we should legislate based on your views on it.  You're proving my point about "legislative pro-life" individuals trying to impose their belief system onto others.