California Rep. Jackie Speier defends PP, lays down smack

Wow. That was rude. Thumped.

Wow, such skill at defending your view too. "THINGS SHOULD BE AS I WANT THEM TO BE, AND THE REST OF YOU CAN GET FUCKED". I dont like conservatism, but atleast Barkey can back up his opinion on it.

^

It's that I realize that people disagree with me, and that my opinion and the opposition can both not be invalid.

It's called -gasp- empathy.

"To reiterate: Planned Parenthood prevents far more abortions than they carry out, by providing contraceptive information and devices to those who would otherwise be unable to afford them." - Karalora

To be fair, many people (especially conservatives, but not exclusively) are almost as opposed to birth control itself as they are to abortion.

Face it, I could reason as much as I wanted to - I've done it before - but wild horses can't move the opposition to budge on the issue, so why should I explain it to someone who'll reject the premise out of hand? Reasoned argument convinces the undecided, not the true believers, after all.

edited 20th Feb '11 2:40:33 PM by Cojuanco

^

Folks with your attitude about things are what prevent dialogue and compromise. The folks who will accept no outcome other than a complete caving in to their own values are what get in the way of everybody being somewhat happy, instead of half the population being happy and the other half being miserable. It's like they think they are special or some shit. There is room for compromise and budging of both sides to meet at the middle, it's people with this all-or-nothing view of politics who will smear the shit out of the opposition and do not have the capacity for empathy that are destroying our country, on both the right and the left.

Who says our greatest enemies are foreign and not Domestic?

edited 20th Feb '11 2:47:58 PM by Barkey

There are some issues where compromise is possible - say, labor unions, education, taxes, defence, balancing the budget.

Moral issues, however, are as ripe for compromise as a new banana - that is, not at all. You either believe abortion is wrong or you don't. Same with gay marriage and all the other hot-button issues.

I'm sorry, but there are some things on which it is futile to compromise. This is one of them.

And think about it - has any prominent Teabagger been convinced to the other side by reasoned argument? Do you think Barbara Boxer or Michelle Bachmann, true believers both, are interested in compromise? Face it - when it comes to the culture wars, compromise is not possible, only ceasefires.

I used to believe that you could compromise on these sorts of issues, too, in my naievete - and that got me laughed out of meetings of the C Rs and the C Ds. It just doesn't work.

edited 20th Feb '11 2:54:48 PM by Cojuanco

Realistic compromises, not moral ones.

I.E. no Federal funding on non-necessary abortions, and possible regulations on the availability of non-necessary abortion. It's not everything the Right wants, but it's something. Instead they would rather spend their time making complete asses of themselves and get nothing while trying their absolute best to get everything.

But why the fuck are we even talking about abortion? That's not the main part of what Planned Parenthood even does, if anything, they prevent abortion. This has already been stated.

What the fuck is with the religious right and their war on sex where their objective is to make it so it's as inconvenient and risky as possible to just have sex with a person without wanting children? FUCK OFF ALREADY.

edited 20th Feb '11 2:56:46 PM by Barkey

It's not a war on sex, it's discouraging sex outside marriage. And that too is a moral hotbutton issue. These issues are like the death penalty - you either believe someone has the right to fry someone for their crimes, or you don't - the rest is mere sophistry.

Except when it isn't. Even if you're in favor of the death penalty, it's not mere sophistry as to when and where it's applied. You might be in favor of it in principle, but realize it's too expensive to implement without being unjust (due to false convictions and the appeals that save said individuals). Likewise you believe sex should be limited to close relationships, but don't define that around marriage; you just find the idea of one night stands repugnant.

And that's a great example; I don't like the idea of one night stands, but I wouldn't make sex outside of marriage illegal. That's just stupid.

Whatever happened to personal choice? Not to mention separation of church and state? Seriously, I was under the impression that personal freedom is one of the founding principles of conservatism... or does that only go for choices that you personally approve of?

edited 20th Feb '11 3:06:44 PM by SilentStranger

The supposed "right to choice" is vague at best. And separation of church and state means that you can't establish a particular church or religion as the state religion, not that politicians can't enact laws in accordance with religious principles.

I'm not a liberal conservative (many conservatives are, but I personally am not). I'm what some would call an Aquinacon.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:11:14 PM by Cojuanco

Pretty much. Republicans are a living contradiction that simultaneously decry communism and the government lording over them while waving their fingers at immoral 'vandals' and crying "Think of the Children!"

The only conservatives I respect are libertarians and those that remain consistent with their opinions.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:11:06 PM by CommandoDude

I am not a living contradiction. I actually don't denounce the New Deal, and think the Great Society was actually a pretty good program, only mistimed because of the war. I'm what the Pew surveys refer to as the big-government conservative or communitarian.

I have no problem with the government lording it over me, so long as it knows what the hell it's doing and strives for a moral society.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:13:57 PM by Cojuanco

^^^If that was the case, nondenominational school prayer would be legal. It isn't for the record.

edit: New post came up

edited 20th Feb '11 3:13:42 PM by Acebrock

So "church-state separation" is...anything but?

edited 20th Feb '11 3:17:09 PM by MRDA1981

^^^ A right communitarian, then?

^ Church/state separation basically means there is no state church. This was proposed by the earliest classical liberal thinkers (many of whom were Protestants of some stripe) at a time when established faiths (Roman Catholicism in most of Europe) limited religious freedom.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:18:08 PM by TheGloomer

Naturally its impossible to keep ANY religious influence from affecting politicians, but there has to be limits. For example, NO ONE has the right to say what two consenting adults want to do with eachother, or how they can do it. Easy access to condoms and such should also be left alone. If you find it immoral, then dont fucking do it!

edited 20th Feb '11 3:17:26 PM by SilentStranger

Yes, pretty much. I used to be the hypocritical conservative, until I saw with my own eyes how the poor and immigrant would do under such a system as I used to advocate.

Well, fine, but doesn't mean I should have to be taxed to subsidize something that doesn't need subsidies in the first place. Suburbanization has made it so that if one has a car or public transportation, one can get to a chain pharmacy in the vast majority of communities.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:19:33 PM by Cojuanco

It's not a war on sex, it's discouraging sex outside marriage. And that too is a moral hotbutton issue. These issues are like the death penalty - you either believe someone has the right to fry someone for their crimes, or you don't - the rest is mere sophistry.

This is another one of those types of issues like I mentioned, it's ok to not like it, but you can't enact legislation against it, it's just plain wrong to do so.

It's ok to frown on sex outside of marriage, that's fine, but don't try to legally force people not to unless they accept the risk of having tons of illegitimate children because they don't have proper access to protection. Abstinence-only practices have been statistically proven to not work.

You want to have your cake and eat it too dude, no sex outside of wedlock, and no abortion. Those sorts of restrictions meant to "discourage sex outside of marriage" cause most of these abortions you despise so much! You're type are your own god damn worst enemy, and you're willing to bring the rest of your countrymen down with you!

^^^ Religious influence doesn't bother me any more. It used to, but then I took a more sensible account of the situation and determined that what I find troublesome is the idea of signing the Bible into statute.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:21:15 PM by TheGloomer

You say it's plain wrong to do so.

How is it in any way moral for you to force your countrymen to follow your specific ideals when you know they are against it? You have the power to abstain from those practices, you aren't losing anything. No rights, no nothing. What you're suggesting is essentially some sort of fucked up moral despotism over America.

But no, you'd rather take the rights of others away so none of those things are out in the open, where they can make you feel uncomfortable. Rights and freedom are about more than just catering to the comfort of your specific ideology, it's about doing what's best for everyone as best as possible.

I don't think churches should have tax exempt status, you don't think the government should subsidize birth control. That's what freedom to the majority is about, give and take. You just want to take, and give nothing in return. I accept that there are things that I don't approve of going on in my country, and I move on. You can't win everything, and that's apparently the spoiled attitude you have.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:27:23 PM by Barkey

There's also the problem of deciding government funding based entirely on whether a given receiver of said funding is popular or not. If that were the rule, we'd have pulled out of Iraq and Afganistan the minute public favor for those wars dipped below 50%. Which would have been disastrous. Rather, funding is and should be based on what is best for the well-being of the country and its citizens. Planned Parenthood provides important medical and educational services, of which abortions are a small part.

Letting public opinion decide what the government spends money on is flawed for two reasons. 1) It is tyranny of the majority, if just 51% can be shown to favor or disfavor a given target, and politicians love to sway public opinion whenever they can. 2) Public opinion changes over time. The needs of the people do not, generally, when it comes to economic, health, security, and educational needs.

Then put it in an agency that is neutral on the abortion question. One side is happy that they get the educational services, the other side is happy that no money goes to abortion.

Of course, the problem is that either side is too invested in their position to accept this.

Would you have accepted compromise as the slavery issue? Because to a LOT of activists on the issue, that's what backing down would be compared to.

And it's no different from what the dedicated pro-abortion folks on the other side (the ones with 100% NARAL scores) do - they want everything, as well. So why should we give up something to the voracious beast, metaphorically speaking? It's feeding your friend to the bear in hopes that they'll spare you.

How can we be sure that if we drop our political guns, they won't pull an I Surrender Suckers? Frankly, we don't trust the other side, and the other side doesn't trust us. The battle is for the middle, and if we back down, the other side won't.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:34:01 PM by Cojuanco