Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WoodyS
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I wouldn't be too sure about those new appointees George.
|
|
George_W_Bush
Big Wall climber
Crawford, TX
|
|
Well Woody, you might be right. But at least they aren't liberal c*#ks@ckers like that idiot Souter my daddy appointed.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
This is an interesting thread for the perverted attempts at using logic to solve a problem that has not been clearly stated. In addition, it brought in at least one participant who uses the technique of labelling and name-calling when dealing with people whose opinions he believes to be wrong.
As Werner points out, healyje has a "motto" that he is stuck on. That motto is nothing more than a rationalization for a position that he truly believes. It is simply a rationalization of his faith. And oddly healyje's argument about a woman's right to control her body has a solution that does not involve abortion at all, under normal circumstances. Werner has a faith as well. The two faiths diverge on this particular topic.
The foundations of the arguments are fundamentally inconsistent. But rather than dig into the foundations to see if some common foundation can be discovered, the argument carries on, predictably inconclusively and in a quite polar manner.
Largo and maculated provide wonderful anecdotes and opinions. Credible arguments have been made about the legal processes that are used in the US.
Later, if I have time, I will contrast this thread with the dead cat thread. If I do so, it will be done in a way that does not trivialize the seriousness of the issues of this thread, but as an illustration of how a clear statement of a problem is essential if one is to arrive unambiguously at an answer.
And it may be that there is no correct answer. It is well known amongst mathematicians that there are systems of mathematics for which it can be proved that there are assertions which are formally unprovable within that system. One usually thinks of mathematics as a topic with cut and dried problems and answers. If it is not true for something "so simple", would it be a surprise that no solution exists here?
|
|
426
Sport climber
1%. Leeda. TN.
|
|
You Nevada guys (mark miller, Minerals, et al) ever see "Abortion Andy" runnin' around downtown? Stabbin' cabin replete with "dead fetoe" posters, always out in front of the clinic protestin'? Maybe his heyday was 90-94, he used to drum up pretty good PR for himself....curious if he's still around.
No solution, eh? ...kinda like a crisis management issue, eh?
Gary-looks like W may have gotten "the seed". Sure disappears quick when you mention 'da Bulldawg'...boy, W, a "man" like you, I'd think you'd be all about gay rights, since a man-whore (Gannon, et al) was roaming your hallowed halls...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Healyje: How ever ill-advised, the point at which a fetus lives unassisted by a woman's body for the purpose of life it should be treated as a child and afforded those same inalienable rights."
Rajmit: "Thank God, you finally said what I was trying to say for the last 7 hours!"
Roger - No, that IS actually that is exactly what I was saying for those 7 hours.
Trad: "The foundations of the arguments are fundamentally inconsistent. But rather than dig into the foundations to see if some common foundation can be discovered, the argument carries on, predictably inconclusively and in a quite polar manner."
Trad - Our inalienable rights are the "common foundation". And my daughter's right to complete and unchallenged control of her reproductive system is not a matter of discussion, semantics, metaphysics, or "mottos" - it is one of her inalienable rights of freedom and privacy. There can be no discussion without you first acknowledging those rights - anything else is simply a tactic of abridgement and an carefully worded attack on those rights.
The politics of our society or government abridging those rights can certainly be argued as can infringing on our right to privacy with illegal wiretaps. A majority of Americans might be against abortion and for illegal wiretaps - or for burning witches and internment camps for Muslim Americans - but our own history has aptly shown, a majority of frigthened or religiously driven Americans can certainly be manipulated to ignore the fundamental and inalienable rights of others. But we go down that road at our peril and don't be surprised if someday you right to bear arms and other rights are eroded by similar "digging" for a lower, "common" foundation built on religion and fear.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
Trad smiles - noticing the subtle change from "body" to "reproductive system", as healy continues to assert rights with no authority to back them up. The only basis for the right is an interpretation of the Constitution with which many agree and many disagree. How rocky the shore between faith and government! Do we think that our founders sensed the difficult boundary as they were creating this document?
I am just guessing on this, but I am sensing that whatever healy's history might be, that when his daughters assert their rights to take drugs based on the right to control their bodies, he and his wife are going to disagree with them in no uncertain terms. Many of my guesses are 100% wrong.
Healyje, you have 100% right to your beliefs. Your beliefs are not wrong. Yet, unfortunately others disagree with you. And they are not wrong either. What do we do, when our nation explicitly recognizes as a fundamental right, freedom of religion, and the free exercise of multiple religions clash?
Your answer so far amounts to "Take my belief. It is the one true belief." Well, I tell ya pardner, you're not back in Jolly Old England, nor Israel, nor Iran, nor apparently South Dakota. So you are really going to have to come up with something better than repetition as an argument, or not.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
There is nothing subtle or shifted in my use of terminology - they are entirely interchangeable. My daughter's inalienable rights, nor ownership of her body and reproductiove system are not "beliefs" - they are rights. Nor are they subject to your beliefs or the beliefs of a majority of Americans. Your interpretation of her rights as simply a matter of "belief" clearly define your intent to erode and destroy those rights. That you or any other American think because of your religious beliefs that you, individually or collectively, have any say on decisions my daughter makes about her body / reproductive system - you are wrong. Not only are you flat out wrong to think your [majority] "beliefs" give you the right to abridge my daughter's freedoms - you are wrong in exactly the ways that directly imperil our nation and Constitution. Your desire to "dig" is simply intent on eroding the foundation you and I stand on. Again, the majority was all for burning witches and interning Japanese Americans.
And if we're going to "dig" for a "common foundation" let's also do it for the most dubiously interpreted right of all - the "right to bear arms" - that's not inalienable and is far more ambiguous than the rights of speech, freedom, privacy.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
healy - I do not even think I have ever stated my beliefs here, certainly not with respect to abortion. You are asserting as an inalienable right, a right that was invented in 196x, as though that right were timeless. And still you leave it unclear as to what the source of the right is, in your opinion. Is it a supreme court decision, the US constitution, your religion, or refusal to be bound by religion?
I am not seeking to take it away. I am only asking you to think about specific questions and maybe answer them. In other words, to stop restating your motto like a broken record. To dig into some foundation underlying your motto, unless the motto is just your faith, in which case, you may just simply not be able to get any deeper. Claiming it as a legal right just does not work well. Because laws change in our form of government with the will of the people.
Perhaps it would be wise to ponder this. Diversity - strength or weakness of USA? Or is it both?
I'm signing out. Have a good one.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Roger, you keep slipping back to completely failing to fundamentally understanding what a right is. You could round up all the women that have abortions and gas them - but it does not change their right to freedom or privacy in anyway. You can actively prevent blacks from voting as Republicans still do today and that does not in any way change their right to do so. It's the fundamental difference between having a right and being able to exercise it without interference. Try to hold on to the distinction.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"A right that was invented in 196x, as though that right were timeless"
Actually it was not "invented" as a right in 196x - it was explicitly protected and it was a sad day for this nation that it was necessary to do so and remains sad that the protection of this right should need to be defended at all. Again, if you don't like abortion - don't have one - that is your right.
Ponder this - imposition of one's religious beliefs on others against their will - a good thing, or a bad thing? Again, rights aren't negotiable.
Also signing off...
|
|
Medric Magann
Ice climber
Billings, Montana
|
|
I can't think of any one thing that is more personal than this. The individual's decision is all that matters and no one is qualified to butt in. Personally, it's wrong to me, but then I'm a guy and no guy really has anything to say about it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
As father of a daughter I think not...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
Never argue with someone stuck in a perspective.
No one knows anything positively for sure about any of this--not in any objective sense--regardless of how "scientific" your information seems. This is largely a matter of ethics, not just chemistry, though both are surly involved.
Also, if you ever probe into the hearts of women who have had abortions, you'll find the process was rarely if ever an easy one, and many are haunted by what might have been.
Like I said earlier, this is a tough and ploarized issue, and the person with glib, rigid opinions is almost certaily not engaging the issue at depth.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Like I said earlier, this is a tough and ploarized issue, and the person with glib, rigid opinions is almost certaily not engaging the issue at depth."
While polarizing, the issue is not tough - the issue is incredibly simple. What right or business of your's or anyone else's is it if my daughter decides to have an abortion? Answer that simple question. What conceivable interest of yours or anyone else's would be grounds to prevent her from exercising full control over her body? There is none beyond the projection of religious belief onto others against their will. None of my answers here are "glib" and certainly none are "rigid" in any way unless you consider the rights claimed and set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights "rigid".
John, I'll grant you expertise in climbing, but in this discussion you sound like just another voice calling for a "discussion" that at it's heart is simply a dialogue of appeasement with those who's stated intentions are nothing less than to abridge and then revoke my daughter's rights. I can fully engage the issue at depth, but I will never abdicate those freedoms to those that would abridge them by imposing the tyranny of their religious beliefs on others. Again, the simple question is: what business or interest of yours is involved in a woman deciding to have an abortion? If you believe it is your business and you do have an interest then do not be surprised when your other rights are likewise subject to the imposition of others' "interest" and beliefs.
How would this any different than "discussing" the closure of Yosemite to climbing with groups who's vocally stated charter is that relentless and uncompromisable goal of a complete ban? Would you talk with groups working towards that goal by endlessly filing petitions to close and/or restrict access to each and every cliff in the Valley individually? That worked to propose obstacles to every conceivable aspect of climbing? Would you compromise on just closing Half Dome to save El Cap? Would you compromise on no more than two days on a route? Exactly which compromises would you entertain and discuss "at depth" with those groups to overcome the climbing community's "polarization" over the ban? Well, you know damn well you wouldn't talk with them directly at all, discuss compromises "at depth" or "dig" with them for a "common" foundation. No, you'd talk with the government about your steadfast opposition to their charter and the tyranny of their stated goals. Sometimes that's just the way the world dishes it out - you either stand your ground or you fold. We each get to choose and for my daughter's sake I choose to stand and hold.
And again, if we decide that we can infringe on this right by interpretation than that same logic dictates there is no reason on earth why the government and anti-gun groups couldn't simply re-interpret the most vaguely stated of all rights to restrict the right to bear arms to state and federal security forces or otherwise endlessly restrict it via state laws focused solely on crippling the exercise of that right. There is absolutely no difference.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
Wel....ST is 99% guys, but still - it is a bit surprising that none of the ST women have really said much.
I feel for the women of SD though, who are going to be out the option of abortion. I know that when I was 17, and my younger sister came to me, with her friend needing a ride of only 60 miles and help paying for the procedure, what a nearly insurmountable hurdle that girl had to overcome. Raising, I think it was, $350, on a bunch of girl's babysitting money. The guy had pulled an "it's not mine, get lost" number on her. She was terrified to tell her parents, and had nowhere to turn but to her friends. Minors, every one of us. Planning a trip of this magnitude, to a city that we'd never been in, and terrifying enough to navigate in it's own right.
Women/Girls ARE going to get abortions. Laws never did anything to stop that practice. They just made it possible for a girl without connections to have the procedure.
|
|
spyork
Trad climber
Fremont, CA
|
|
Healyje, I totally agree with you. I have two sons, but I understand where you are coming from.
For me, if my wife was pregnant with a 3rd, and decided that she couldn't carry to term, I would live with it. I would give my input, but the decision in the end is hers, its not 50/50 in any way.
DMT - But the reality is men *are* dictating to women what they can do with their bodies. So maybe the debate has some merit.
Steve
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Therefore, the rascal class of men, they want to..., they do not want to accept that there is life after death.
"Everything is finished." Therefore in Western countries there is killing even grown-up child within the womb. They are killing, abortion. They think there is no life. Unless it comes out of the womb, there is no life.
It's all nonsense theory. All nonsense theory, simply committing sinful life one after another and becoming entangled. The result will be that he will have to enter again into the womb of mother and he will be killed. He will be killed not once. He will be killed again when he enters the womb of the mother; again he will be killed.
For many, many years he will not be allowed to see the light of the sun.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Werner, by any definition of science I know of both sperm and eggs are "alive" at a cellular level. I have no problem defining the sperm, egg, or fetus as alive.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
So Matt
I clicked your link above and got aborted ........ :-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!