Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Hey there, everybody! If Trump loses is he going to shut up? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 But Donald Trump is not going to lose. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 38 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: He could lose on Roe v Wade. R v W is a woman has a right to an abortion. Repealing it denies that right. Rights are Federal. A woman has a right to an abortion at least to the quickening. Then comes a gray area that continues to darken until birth. R . W. should be for early pregnancy--at least--and then, maybe, it's for the states. Brant, Roe v. Wade cannot be repealed since it was never enacted by Congress. It was legislated from the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to enact laws. The Supreme Court can overturn it in a future ruling or Congress can enact a new law or amendment that defines this issue, somewhat like it did with slavery. I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers had the right to abortion in mind when they framed the Constitution. So the proper channel for defining that right is an act of Congress, probably by amendment, and the signature of the President. Although I am in favor of free choice on theoretical moral grounds pertaining to the nature of government and society, I am also against abortion on theoretical moral grounds pertaining to human nature (for just one reason and not even the most important, I think eliminating the preborn stages of a human being from the definition of human being is a logical abomination). This stuff is always sticky whenever the rights of two individuals collide. The long and short of it, though, is that Roe v. Wade deals more with the nature of the Supreme Court than it does with abortion. We need a constitutional amendment. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, Roe v. Wade cannot be repealed since it was never enacted by Congress. It was legislated from the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to enact laws. The Supreme Court can overturn it in a future ruling or Congress can enact a new law or amendment that defines this issue, somewhat like it did with slavery. I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers had the right to abortion in mind when they framed the Constitution. So the proper channel for defining that right is an act of Congress, probably by amendment, and the signature of the President. Although I am in favor of free choice on theoretical moral grounds pertaining to the nature of government and society, I am also against abortion on theoretical moral grounds pertaining to human nature (for just one reason and not even the most important, I think eliminating the preborn stages of a human being from the definition of human being is a logical abomination). This stuff is always sticky whenever the rights of two individuals collide. The long and short of it, though, is that Roe v. Wade deals more with the nature of the Supreme Court than it does with abortion. We need a constitutional amendment. Michael Now you're swimming in semantics. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Michael--you are contra Ayn Rand on abortion. --Brant for the record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said: Now you're swimming in semantics. Brant, You sound like you are defining the Supreme Court. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said: You sound like you are defining the Supreme Court. And Congress, and the Executive and the media... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Rights appertain essentially to social existence. The unborn's is biological only. The right to life qua Objectivism--the Lockean tradition--is not the right to life the anti-abortionists refer to, which seems to be the only right they are attuned to. The Founding Fathers muddled this too with "endowed by their creator" rhetoric. Rights are a human invention morally justified by human nature. Moral justification opens the door to rights protected by law.; Objectivists and conservatives need to get together on this but the conservatives will never agree with any right to abortion no matter how rational for they aren't into rational but faith. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And Congress, and the Executive and the media... Michael You too? --Brant whatever it takes (pragmatism)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Just now, Brant Gaede said: Michael--you are contra Ayn Rand on abortion. --Brant for the record Brant, I disagree with Rand's characterization of a fetus as merely a blob of protoplasm (that isn't an exact quote, or maybe it is, but at least it is close). Her insinuation when she said that was that it had nothing to do with human being. Ann Heller mentioned that Rand had an abortion once when she was younger. I don't think the way she was constituted internally would have allowed her to define human as anything different after performing it. When I talked to Barbara about this, she confirmed and mentioned she also had an abortion. I tried to probe the logic of the definition of human being, but it was like a door slammed shut in her eyes and she got very testy. So I let it go. Legally, I consider Roe v. Wade to be like the Dred Scott decision, which defined people of African origin as not having standing to sue in American courts since they could not be American citizens. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 47 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Very funny. You want Trump to lose, but don't have the guts to flat out say so. Once he loses you'll get to dance (on his grave), but you just can't wait. --Brant I am voting for him. If he wins he will wreck the government, as the government currently is. Trump is my very own political I.E.D.. Personally I think Trump is a loutish, mannerless boor but he has his uses..... We hatessss the government preciossssss and we wants it to bleed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 We'll all go down together! --Pragmatico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said: I am voting for him. If he wins he will wreck the government, as the government currently is. Trump is my very own political I.E.D.. Personally I think Trump is a loutish, mannerless boor but he has his uses..... We hatessss the government preciossssss and we wants to to bleed. And Hillary Clinton? Is what? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: I am voting for him. If he wins he will wreck the government, as the government currently is. Trump is my very own political I.E.D.. Personally I think Trump is a loutish, mannerless boor but he has his uses..... We hatessss the government preciossssss and we wants to to bleed. Ah. The best of both worlds!? --Brant stepping in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: And Hillary Clinton? Is what? --Brant another phase of the long drawn out killing of the Republic. It will be 4 more years of Obama, Bill's 3 rd term with occasional hot flashes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, I disagree with Rand's characterization of a fetus as merely a blob of protoplasm (that isn't an exact quote, or maybe it is, but at least it is close). Her insinuation when she said that was that it had nothing to do with human being. Ann Heller mentioned that Rand had an abortion once when she was younger. I don't think the way she was constituted internally would have allowed her to define human as anything different after performing it. When I talked to Barbara about this, she confirmed and mentioned she also had an abortion. I tried to probe the logic of the definition of human being, but it was like a door slammed shut in her eyes and she got very testy. So I let it go. Legally, I consider Roe v. Wade to be like the Dred Scott decision, which defined people of African origin as not having standing to sue in American courts since they could not be American citizens. Michael The dividing line seems to be the difference between Jewish and Christian culture. My Mother tried to abort her first pregnancy and failed and loved her beautiful baby--my sister--and never forgave herself for the attempt. Even though as liberal as can be she felt if you do the sex you have the baby. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: another phase of the long drawn out killing of the Republic. It will be 4 more years of Obama, Bill's 3 rd term with occasional hot flashes... Fear nuclear war. All else is relatively trivial. Whoever wins, however, is going to be a one-termer. --Brant she's completely unqualified to be CIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: You too? --Brant whatever it takes (pragmatism)? Brant, No. But if a person claims logical consistency as a standard, I hold that person's logical consistency has to work when applied to reality. Biologically, an individual human being starts at conception. Whether the government rules over it in the womb is a legal question, but if we get the biology wrong at the root, we are legislating for Martians, not humans. I am for acknowledging women have sovereignty over the life of the fetus in their wombs. I don't think the government has anything to do with that. But I will not define that life as less than human or play word games with it. (Governments sometimes take lives like in war and executions. That is part of their sovereignty. That is part of what I mean by sovereignty of a woman over what is in her body.) Personally, I think abortion is a terrible thing that each woman has to decide when it comes up in reality. And that decision should never be automatic and disinterested. The taking of a human life is a serious matter. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Once you have conception you have a human being. Once you have birth you have rights. Between the two we have arguments. --Brant good luck with that consistency thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, No. But if a person claims logical consistency as a standard, I hold that person's logical consistency has to work when applied to reality. Biologically, an individual human being starts at conception. Whether the government rules over it in the womb is a legal question, but if we get the biology wrong at the root, we are legislating for Martians, not humans. I am for acknowledging women have sovereignty over the life of the fetus in their wombs. I don't think the government has anything to do with that. But I will not define that life as less than human or play word games with it. (Governments sometimes take lives like in war and executions. That is part of their sovereignty. That is part of what I mean by sovereignty of a woman over what is in her body.) Personally, I think abortion is a terrible thing that each woman has to decide when it comes up in reality. And that decision should never be automatic and disinterested. The taking of a human life is a serious matter. Michael You just said a woman has a right to an abortion. --Brant no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Have I won? Anybody else wanna fight? --Brant The Greatyest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I always thought Rand not voting for or supporting Reagan over abortion was an extremely weak rationalization of her gut dislike of a conservative. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: You just said a woman has a right to an abortion. Brant, That's one way to look at it. (btw - I've always been for the mother's choice in nurturing or killing the human being inside her.) But it's not a right like what the government defines under its system. It's like a different country. It's like the US trying to legislate for German citizens in Germany. The individual in fetus form falls under the sovereignty of the mother just like a German falls under the sovereignty of the German government. Acknowledging a woman's sovereignty over her body is the definition that I believe will put an end to the discussion if it ever gets on the table in the mainstream (and after a lot of bickering). Rather than redefine what a human is and turn into logical pretzels trying to do that, we should look at the extent of the government's sovereignty. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Ah. The best of both worlds!? --Brant stepping in it There is only one world. According to Leibniz, this is the best of all possible worlds.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, That's one way to look at it. (btw - I've always been for the mother's choice in nurturing or killing the human being inside her.) But it's not a right like what the government defines under its system. It's like a different country. It's like the US trying to legislate for German citizens in Germany. The individual in fetus form falls under the sovereignty of the mother just like a German falls under the sovereignty of the German government. Acknowledging a woman's sovereignty over her body is the definition that I believe will put an end to the discussion if it ever gets on the table in the mainstream (and after a lot of bickering). Rather than redefine what a human is and turn into logical pretzels trying to do that, we should look at the extent of the government's sovereignty. Michael Trump is saying state governments are sovereign on this issue. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now