Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on February 25, 2010, 10:12:15 AM
-
I don't think that Ann Coulter is a great political commentator or strategist, but she's great at delivering barbs with biting humor. Her speech at CPAC was a great political stand-up comedy routine. Very funny if you're inclined to like her wit.
www.anncoulter.com
-
From the linked video:
CPAC questioner asks Ann about Ron Paul's push to audit the Fed. Ann Coulter replies, "If Ron Paul is behind it and it has nothing to do with foreign policy, I agree."
[Oddly enough, that just about describes my take on RP's positions.]
She has some interesting things to say about libertarinaism vs conservatism. Something to the effect of, "I wish libertarians would stop talking to me about abolishing marijuana laws. We'll get there, after we've abolished the Fed, the Dept Ed, (goes on and lists many other agencies).
-
CPAC questioner asks Ann about Ron Paul's push to audit the Fed. Ann Coulter replies, "If Ron Paul is behind it and it has nothing to do with foreign policy, I agree."
[Oddly enough, that just about describes my take on RP's positions.]
She has some interesting things to say about libertarinaism vs conservatism. Something to the effect of, "I wish libertarians would stop talking to me about abolishing marijuana laws. We'll get there, after we've abolished the Fed, the Dept Ed, (goes on and lists many other agencies).
That about sums up my views on Paul and libertarianism as well. Though with one caveat; I'm not sure what the standard libertarian view on abortion is, but as I consider unborn children to still be human, I think abortion is murder. Plain simple murder, on par with a getting shot for your wallet outside the 7-11.
-
. . . CPAC questioner asks Ann about Ron Paul's push to audit the Fed. Ann Coulter replies, "If Ron Paul is behind it and it has nothing to do with foreign policy, I agree."
Ron Paul was my congressman for a while, and I think he did a fine job there.
Then I heard him say that 9/11 was "blowback" for US foreign policy (along with other inane/naive comments) and I decided that I didn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office.
-
You mean the way the Barbary pirates were a blowback for the American Revolution...? =D
-
Then I heard him say that 9/11 was "blowback" for US foreign policy (along with other inane/naive comments) and I decided that I didn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office.
The Wookie-in-Chief may be just fine as Speaker of the House or Czar in Charge of Star Trek Watching Libertarians, but let's keep him away from the big chair.
-
The Wookie-in-Chief may be just fine as Speaker of the House or Czar in Charge of Star Trek Watching Libertarians, but let's keep him away from the big chair.
Just don't complain to me about not having enough freedom.
-
I think abortion is murder. Plain simple murder
Even so. Do we need Federal murder laws? States seem to set their own sentences and criteria for murder (defend yourself in state A, you are a murderer. Shoot a stereo theif in state T, you are a hero). I agree with your stance on abortion, but I still think roe v. wade is a little too much government for my taste.
-
Wouldn't it be more of a 14th Amendment thing? I'm ok with fed.gov saying "No states can decide black folk/retards/the unborn aren't really people."
-
Just don't complain to me about not having enough freedom.
Nope, sorry, I get to complain regardless of who is in the big chair.
Isn't kvetching in the Israeli Bill of Rights?
"The right to complain about the wait staff, seating location, and your family, shall not be infringed . . . Oy!"
-
I'm not sure what the standard libertarian view on abortion is, but as I consider unborn children to still be human, I think abortion is murder. Plain simple murder, on par with a getting shot for your wallet outside the 7-11.
And I might think Cthulhu (all praise his name) runs the universe, but that doesn't make it so. If you have facts you want to present to back up your assertion, that seems like a topic for another thread. Otherwise, what's the point?
-
Most "pure" libertarians I know don't have a stance on abortion, as you can argue a violation of rights either way with equal success.
If you allow abortion on demand, you are violating the right of the unborn to live.
If you ban all abortion, you are violating the right of the woman to choose what happens with her body.
Since those seem to be the default positions of both sides of the argument, I choose to stay the hell out of it.
-
If you allow abortion on demand, you are violating the right of the unborn to live.
If you ban all abortion, you are violating the right of the woman to choose what happens with her body.
Except violating the rights of the unborn to live doesn't have anything to do with the woman's body; it's the child's body that is being killed.
-
*sigh*
I'm arguing neither side, and I'd prefer you didn't try debating me on my lack of a stance in my posts.
I am simply pointing out that the argument can be made either way. Whether you accept that or not, based on your opinions and feelings, is entirely beside the point.
Either way, someone is being "infringed upon". Which is why so many "pure" libertarians shy away from the abortion debate: it comes down to a question of "who's rights are more important"...
-
Either way, someone is being "infringed upon". Which is why so many "pure" libertarians shy away from the abortion debate: it comes down to a question of "who's rights are more important"...
See that's where I take issue. You say that it comes down to "who's rights are more important". But that would require that in the debate, 2 different sets of rights are at stake. There aren't. I am a libertarian. I don't agree with smoking weed or any drugs, but I don't see it as the governments job to tell us how to live. I think homosexuality is sinful, but I don't think the government should have a say in marriage either way. I acknowledge the rights of people even when I personally disagree with the issue itself. But again, you say a libertarian asks the questions, "who's rights are more important". That questions assumes the false premise that any rights of the woman are coming into play in the first place.
If I want to murder you for convenience, you would not postulate that there is a legitimate question of who's rights are more important: your right to live, or my right to kill you. That's because there is no right for me to kill you. My rights are not part of the equation. Anyone, libertarians included can easily acknowledge that. And thus, the size, stature, and age of the person who might be killed is irrelevant. You don't have the right to kill someone. One can be a "pure libertarian" and see that plainly. So one can still be a libertarian and also see plainly that infanticide is wrong. Only the rights of one, the baby, are being infringed upon.
If there were some issue involving 2 people where rights of both were being infringed depending on how you side, I can see where your point would be valid. A "pure libertarian" would indeed have difficulty with that issue. What I am saying, that this is not such an issue. The woman has no rights that are being infringed upon in abortion. It's not her body.
-
Wouldn't it be more of a 14th Amendment thing? I'm ok with fed.gov saying "No states can decide black folk/retards/the unborn aren't really people."
That's the equal protection angle, but what about the privileges & immunities angle? If a state refuses to criminalize murder, isn't that a P&I issue? And going further, the Declaration of Independence states specifically that LIFE is an inalienable right.
Which is also why animal rights activists get a lot of sympathy from me, as long as they're not blowing stuff up, because who's ultimately to say whether my life is intrinsically worth more than the life of a chimpanzee or other animal who's subjected to research. But I also think in order to maintain human social cohesion there has to be a hierarchy, and in that hierarchy the rights of a human come before the rights of a non-human, and rights of a human mother come before the rights of an unborn child. After all, rights are a social construction (at least for me, as a non-theist), so there's no universally accepted authority to tell us what's worth more; we have to decide. I'm also comforted on a scientific basis that unborn children have less intellectual capacity (not future capacity, of course, but current capacity) than various adult non-human animals.
In a similar vein, I am also highly ambivalent about Sharia, for instance; I have a sympathetic view of the right of cultures to try out various hierarchies of rights even if I vehemently disagree, while at the same time I'm appalled by some of the consequences of those choices. (treatment of women in many cultures, for instance).
It's not at all clear to me that it's a States' Rights issue, which is just another reason why States' Rights are dead. When a cornerstone of state criminal law (criminality of murder) is potentially enforceable by the feds if the States fail to enforce it (and justifiably enforceable, just by reading the plain language of the Declaration and the 1st clause of the 14th)... how can anyone claim states have ANY separate realm of sovereignty?
This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. I do not see any way to escape the conclusion that States' Rights as it is claimed today is logically incompatible with the 14th Amendment.
-
If I want to murder you for convenience, you would not postulate that there is a legitimate question of who's rights are more important: your right to live, or my right to kill you. That's because there is no right for me to kill you. My rights are not part of the equation. Anyone, libertarians included can easily acknowledge that. And thus, the size, stature, and age of the person who might be killed is irrelevant. You don't have the right to kill someone. One can be a "pure libertarian" and see that plainly. So one can still be a libertarian and also see plainly that infanticide is wrong. Only the rights of one, the baby, are being infringed upon.
1.What is the source of rights? Is it our status as human beings? Is it something else? Does humanity begin at conception? Not a trick question – the Talmud states it begins 4 weeks after conception. Some religions think morning-after pills are murder. It's legitimate to have a debate on this issue.
2.There are circumstances where it is legal to kill other people – for example, when they are invading your home. It is possible that the burglar has no intent of killing me, hell, he could even have the wrong address and may be thinking he's breaking into his own home, but in most jurisdictions I have the right to confront him violently. In some circumstances an innocent man may be killed, and his killer still acquitted.
And yet the burglar has a right to life. No jurisdiction recognizes the idea that your home is a free-fire zone to shoot anybody you want to shoot freely. The law balances my right to defend myself with the burglar's right to life.
Again, yet another issue on which we can have a debate without calling each other murderers.
-
I try not to get into these arguments because everyone pretty much has his or her heels dug in.
It's not a strong issue for me, but a caller to Rush Limbaugh's show made a good point, one I've repeated here before. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he was an atheist, and so had no religious angle from which to approach the subject, but it seemed to him that the only logical answer to the question of when life begins would be at conception, as any other time would be arbitrary.
-
Why is conception not arbitrary?
And why is arbitrariness wrong?
-
*sigh*
I'm arguing neither side, and I'd prefer you didn't try debating me on my lack of a stance in my posts.
No stance is OK, just don't make it too wide, Senator. Or over a subway air vent, considering your predilection for kilts.
-
>The woman has no rights that are being infringed upon in abortion. It's not her body.<
Given that I've met MANY "pro-life" supporters who feel an abortion is cases of rape or incest is just as wrong, your argument hits a rock.
>No stance is OK, just don't make it too wide, Senator. Or over a subway air vent, considering your predilection for kilts.<
I have a very simple stance on abortion: none. Having a penis, I'm not as effected. However, if some woman I've slept with comes up pregnant, then my choice is to support whatever SHE decides (since she's the one who gets to deal with all the physical fun)...
-
>The woman has no rights that are being infringed upon in abortion. It's not her body.<
Given that I've met MANY "pro-life" supporters who feel an abortion is cases of rape or incest is just as wrong, your argument hits a rock.
>No stance is OK, just don't make it too wide, Senator. Or over a subway air vent, considering your predilection for kilts.<
I have a very simple stance on abortion: none. Having a penis, I'm not as effected. However, if some woman I've slept with comes up pregnant, then my choice is to support whatever SHE decides (since she's the one who gets to deal with all the physical fun)...
Would you say that Jessie Jackson, Faith Daniels, there are more I just can find the list, should not of lived? They were the product of a rape.
The cases of a woman getting pregnant due to rape or incest is incredibly small. A woman has every right to do what she will with her body, but once she willingly has sex and gets pregnant, she forfeits that right to the baby in her womb. It's like getting drunk, you no longer have the right to drive a car. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. If a person want to play without consequences, they need to get themselves sterilized.
-
Would you say that Jessie Jackson, Faith Daniels, there are more I just can find the list, should not of lived? They were the product of a rape.
It's not up to me to decide. Either way.
-
You may want to rethink how often rape or incest results in pregnancy: there's a reason a SANE exam includes a pregnancy test...
Not here to argue one way or another, honestly. It does, however, strike me as almost humorous that most of the folks (and this is both sides) refuse to see any middle ground. It's either "No abortions ever", or "Abortion on demand is the only acceptable way".
And do you REALLY want me weighing in on whether Jesse Jackson should be alive?
I actually side (to an extent) with the pro-life side when discussing abortion as birth control: you chose to tango, you pay the piper. But claiming that a woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy after a rape? Don't care how common such is: it's a condition imposed on her body against her will, and you would force her to continue in that against her will?
-
Why is conception not arbitrary?
And why is arbitrariness wrong?
Conception is when the fetus begins. At what point after that can you say that life has begun? What's the criteria?
I suppose arbitrariness isn't necessarily wrong, but there's easy to argue against an arbitrary point. Then again, abortion is probably the most contentious issue in our society, far, far more than gun control.
-
Conception is when the fetus begins. At what point after that can you say that life has begun? What's the criteria?
Why not at the appearance of a brain? A brain is, after all, the host of the human personality, as far as we can know.
Again, I don't know the true answer. This is what state legislatures are for.
-
Would you say that Jessie Jackson, Faith Daniels, there are more I just can find the list, should not of lived? They were the product of a rape.
Are you saying Jessie Jackson (who was the product of statutory rape, not rape rape, as far as I know) and Faith Daniels are more deserving of life than anyone else? That is an incoherent argument, because nobody knows who an embryo or fetus will turn out to be.
I do not see that much of a difference between telling a woman she cannot abort at an early stage (based on the concept that "life begins at conception"), and telling a woman she must have sex and get pregnant.
If the concern is that an unborn child might has a right to life, what difference does it make whether that unborn child is a fetus, an embryo, or an egg and a sperm? If you're fine with taking away a woman's choice to have an abortion, I don't see why you're not fine with taking away everyone's right not to procreate. Think about all the great and wonderful people who are not being born because most people in society exercise too much restraint and/or use birth control? Aren't there lives more important than the right of people to choose whether or not to have sex?
-
Why not at the appearance of a brain? A brain is, after all, the host of the human personality, as far as we can know.
"As far as we can know." Not a very bright line.
I do not see that much of a difference between telling a woman she cannot abort at an early stage (based on the concept that "life begins at conception"), and telling a woman she must have sex and get pregnant.
You expect us to take that seriously? No person of sound mind could possibly fail to understand that distinction.
-
Conception is when the fetus begins. At what point after that can you say that life has begun? What's the criteria?
The current criterion we have, which will work for a while -- until scientists can get a child to survive in vitro from the embryo stage to viability -- is birth. It is arbitrary. It is also better than conception for a bunch of reasons, most of all because it does not infringe on the rights of the mother based on philosophical notions of what an unborn child is or might become.
Why not at the appearance of a brain? A brain is, after all, the host of the human personality, as far as we can know.
Why at the appearance of a brain? Are humans the only creatures that have brains? If having a brain automatically imbues a creature with fundamental human rights, then we'd best shut down all animal experimentation and all become vegans.
-
The current criterion we have, which will work for a while -- until scientists can get a child to survive in vitro from the embryo stage to viability -- is birth. It is arbitrary. It is also better than conception for a bunch of reasons, most of all because it does not infringe on the rights of the mother based on philosophical notions of what an unborn child is or might become.
Why at the appearance of a brain? Are humans the only creatures that have brains? If having a brain automatically imbues a creature with fundamental human rights, then we'd best shut down all animal experimentation and all become vegans.
Why pick birth? The child can't live on its own. Might as well let the parents "expose" the child like they did in Rome.
At least they're not actively killing the baby.
I bet you think that's barbaric, though.
Edit: Also, soooo, how about Ann Coulter?
-
The current criterion we have, which will work for a while -- until scientists can get a child to survive in vitro from the embryo stage to viability -- is birth. It is arbitrary. It is also better than conception for a bunch of reasons, most of all because it does not infringe on the rights of the mother based on philosophical notions of what an unborn child is or might become.
Well, that's laughable for a bunch of reasons, but one will do. There's no reason why parents' responsibility to care for a child shouldn't extend before birth, as well as after. If such infringes on her rights before birth, there's no reason why it shouldn't infringe afterward.
Wait, I'm sorry. I don't mean to mock your pre-scientific worldview, where you can't see inside the womb.
Oh, wait again. I keep trying to tell myself not to get into "debates" with the good Germans. =(
-
Actually, we can see into the womb.
Which is exactly why I think that early-stage foetuses are not human beings.
-
@fistful, makattak
There's always adoption. Once born a child is no longer bound inextricably to one person who must care for it.
And no, I don't think the Romans were particularly barbaric, any more than I think chimpanzees are barbaric for not building motor vehicles. Just because society rejects a certain activity now doesn't mean we have to retroactively label anyone who ever engaged in that activity to be barbarians.
I don't mean to mock your pre-scientific worldview, where you can't see inside the womb.
Is it what you see, or what you want to see, that guides your enlightened, post-scientific worldview?
Oh cool, I'm a Nazi. I guess that should go in my bio. Thanks for noting that omission.
-
Edit: Also, soooo, how about Ann Coulter?
Yeah, how about that Ann Coulter? You guys should know by now that abortion is one of the topics where people have strong opinions, most minds are made up, and the thread always devolves into indignant responses and name calling. Can we get back to the original topic, or at least thread drift in another direction, so we don't have to lock the thread? Thanks.
-
Ben you are right, this is not an abortion thread. I am very prolife, so I am backing out of the thread.
-
This is one of those times where the inevitable APS thread drift is not a good thing. How about we get it back on track, folks.
-
The US hockey team darn near beat Canada for the Gold tonight. They were down 2 to 1 and scored a goal with 24.4 seconds left on the clock and even it up at 2 ea. and put it into sudden death OT.
US played a real good game for the Silver.
-
The US hockey team darn near beat Canada for the Gold tonight. They were down 2 to 1 and scored a goal with 24.4 seconds left on the clock and even it up at 2 ea. and put it into sudden death OT.
US played a real good game for the Silver.
Does Ann Coulter play for the US hockey team, or is this thread drifting even further? ;)
-
Hockey is of the utmost importance to all topics and aspects of life.
-
Does Ann Coulter play for the US hockey team, or is this thread drifting even further? ;)
at least i'm not the only one. :angel: it's nice to have company for a change. [popcorn]
-
Has Ann ever opined on bacon? mmmm, I love bacon.
-
Has Ann ever opined on bacon? mmmm, I love bacon.
She's in favor of it, though I don't think she eats much.
-
She's in favor of it, though I don't think she eats much.
I think I would make that assumption as well. :)
-
>No stance is OK, just don't make it too wide, Senator. Or over a subway air vent, considering your predilection for kilts.<
I have a very simple stance on abortion: none. Having a penis, I'm not as effected. However, if some woman I've slept with comes up pregnant, then my choice is to support whatever SHE decides (since she's the one who gets to deal with all the physical fun)...
OK, I retract my indifference toward your written stance and hereby call it ridicule-worthy.
Sense, it does not make. Or, it makes sense in as much as only slave-owners could properly have an opinion on slavery in America before the Civil War. After all, they were the ones who had to clothe, feed,and clean up after the slaves...
I would suggest that such issues are best thought on with the other head.
-
OK, I retract my indifference toward your written stance and hereby call it ridicule-worthy.
Sense, it does not make. Or, it makes sense in as much as only slave-owners could properly have an opinion on slavery in America before the Civil War. After all, they were the ones who had to clothe, feed,and clean up after the slaves...
I would suggest that such issues are best thought on with the other head.
You do realize this road is going to lead to a locked thread?
-
Actually Dick, that's one of the points that can be made with this issue (and has been made, many times). Let me quote the last mod comment:
You guys should know by now that abortion is one of the topics where people have strong opinions, most minds are made up, and the thread always devolves into indignant responses and name calling
Happens almost every time.
-
You probably ought to lock it down, Dick. It's way off course, not likely to come back, and there is the smell of smoke.
-
You probably ought to lock it down, Dick. It's way off course, not likely to come back, and there is the smell of smoke.
Smoking is bad!
-
Sure is, and I speak from experience.
This thread is officially off-topic, incendiary, loopy and locked. ;)