Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:28 am
Really Walker! You need to look at the economics of food and poverty and then understand obesity is one result of poor diet.
Obesity is caused by the overeating of calories.
Calories are calories. Folks get fat from putting food in their mouths. Poor people are overweight. Mac and cheese will get a body through the day just as well as gourmet food. Poverty is not the cause of starving children, starving children are not the cause of abortion.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:28 am
Really Walker! You need to look at the economics of food and poverty and then understand obesity is one result of poor diet.
Obesity is caused by the overeating of calories.
Calories are calories. Folks get fat from putting food in their mouths. Poor people are overweight. Mac and cheese will get a body through the day just as well as gourmet food. Poverty is not the cause of starving children, starving children are not the cause of abortion.
But poverty is the most frequent cause of obesity. Poor people often lack good shops in their neighbourhood where they can buy quality produce especially fruit and veg. Poor people often lack simple cookery skills , or lack the energy to cook cook. Poor people buy high energy food/low cost food often called "fast food". If you were so poor you could choose only one source of nourishment which would you choose a chocolate bar or an apple?
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:11 am
A threat to the life of the mother is an oft cited justification for abortion.
Red herring. That's less than 1% of the total, and isn't morally problematic. When it's truly this life or that life, there's no possibility of a killing not happening; there's just a terrible choice to be made.
Rape is also another oft cited justification for abortion.
Red herring number 2 -- only about 6% of the total involve any allegation of sexual aggression. Of those allegations, there has got to be some percentage that is disingenuous, unless one believes women are incapable of deception and misrepresentation. So we're now again looking at a relatively minute percentage of a vast total.
Thus, addressing these two justifications for abortion that are made by abortion activists is a valid approach to the abortion topic,
It is, but it's dishonest of them to attempt it. They want to use these vanishingly small problem cases to confuse you, and then claim that you can have no moral clarity about the 93% of abortion cases that are purely elective.
So I keep the two separate. There are cases in which some controversy is worth talking about: but in 93% of the cases, there is no controversy at all. They know they are willfully killing a helpless child...indeed, that's the very purpose of elective abortion. So let's focus on the 93%, which is truly representative of the vile practice, and leave the other 6% or less for afterwards.
Deal with the rule, and afterwards with any potential "exceptions," I say. Don't get it reversed. The outlier cases do not excuse the main.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:59 pm
But poverty is the most frequent cause of obesity. Poor people often lack good shops in their neighbourhood where they can buy quality produce especially fruit and veg. Poor people often lack simple cookery skills , or lack the energy to cook cook. Poor people buy high energy food/low cost food often called "fast food". If you were so poor you could choose only one source of nourishment which would you choose a chocolate bar or an apple?
Why does "poverty" rule out a woman giving her child up for adoption? Why is murdering him/her a better option than that?
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:59 pm
But poverty is the most frequent cause of obesity. Poor people often lack good shops in their neighbourhood where they can buy quality produce especially fruit and veg. Poor people often lack simple cookery skills , or lack the energy to cook cook. Poor people buy high energy food/low cost food often called "fast food". If you were so poor you could choose only one source of nourishment which would you choose a chocolate bar or an apple?
Junkies go for the chocolate bar every time, which accounts for the successful supply and demand business model in the food desert.
Once while sitting in a car in an empty parking lot in Monterey, a bum slipped up on my blind side and there he was at the window, breathing on me and asking for a handout, sly and quiet as a cat. I gave him an apple. He looked at it like it was the first apple he had ever seen, then turned and walked away without a word. I watched him. He walked over to another bum sitting in the grass about 40 meters away, in the shade of a tree. He handed over the apple and remained standing. The one sitting on the ground stared at the apple for a long while, holding it up in the air between the two to study it, leaning back with his other hand planted on the ground for support. Then he kept the apple. Didn’t eat it, at least not right away.
"When a society gets its fill of a problem, the problem disappears. If the problem doesn’t disappear, society has not gotten its fill of the problem."
Then 'society' (any you care to mention) is very tolerant, very forgiving, or just plain deficient cuz the problems keep on stackin' up and not a soul is lookin' to address any of 'em.
As awful as celebrated abortion is (and it is celebrated...it may be a neccessary procedure but it ought be accompanied with regret & sorrow, not joy), it's just a tiny part of a more generalized degrading. We're in a kind of retreat from self-direction & -responsibility, runnin' fast back to the shelter of the herd (or pack).
Birthin' pains happen when sumthin' new emerges...I guess it hurts when that new born sumthin' tries to crawl back into the womb.
Yeah, that's it: it's not 'degrading', it's anti-birth.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:59 pm
"When a society gets its fill of a problem, the problem disappears. If the problem doesn’t disappear, society has not gotten its fill of the problem."
Then 'society' (any you care to mention) is very tolerant, very forgiving, or just plain deficient cuz the problems keep on stackin' up and not a soul is lookin' to address any of 'em.
As awful as celebrated abortion is (and it is celebrated...it may be a neccessary procedure but it ought be accompanied with regret & sorrow, not joy), it's just a tiny part of a more generalized degrading. We're in a kind of retreat from self-direction & -responsibility, runnin' fast back to the shelter of the herd (or pack).
Birthin' pains happen when sumthin' new emerges...I guess it hurts when that new born sumthin' tries to crawl back into the womb.
Yeah, that's it: it's not 'degrading', it's anti-birth.
"Libertarians are generally among the pro choice peeps for obvious reasons,"
Well, it depends on the strain: the consequentialist branch largely is. The natural rights folks, mebbe not so much.
#
"and unlike most people, your own position seems to have moved somewhat in the last 18 months from reluctant pro choice to what it is now, where you have a sort of Von Mises self ownership thing propping up a hard to define spiritualism situation."
I've been a natural rights libertarian forever, just never had much cause to declare it or discuss it in-forum. Closest I usually got to that was with 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' and far & few between assertions of self-ownership. This thread had me revealin' more of all that in a more formal/less confrontational way, is all.
As for deism: that is rather recent...a buddy issued a challenge, I took it and ran...he's a christian so I imagine my settin' up digs along side Crom was disappointing to him...if so, he's been gracious and has refrained from poo-pooing my choice. As for 'hard to define', yeah, I guess so. That's part of the draw, I suppose: no earthly authority to consult, to kow-tow to, to respect. Just me & Crom on a see-saw. Also, if an anarchistic, minarchistic, free enterprise-lovin', natural rights defendin', libertarian type is gonna have a god, well, Crom is made to order.
#
"You have put yourself in quite an uncomfortable tangle there, it must be fairly difficult now and then to agree with yourself (which is fine by me, it is the natural and proper state of affairs)."
Nah, it ain't that bad.
#
"In this stuff though, we have a public/private language problem. People on either side of a toxic debate understand a set of public concepts such as human and person in incompatible ways, and thus for some the phrase "aborting a fetus is not murdering a child" is entirely incomprehensible"
Again: I disagree. I think all serious participants here get what others are sayin'. It ain't comprehension but just down in the bones stubbornness. I mean, when a body is sure its 'right' it's immovable, yeah? I think I'm right...hell, I know I'm right...I get what the opposition sez and why they say it and because what they say and why they say it are unconvincing or don't hold water, I conclude they're wrong (and vice versa).
#
"Something is wrong with the way in which personhood works as a part of our shared public language, we are able to use it privately in ways that it doesn't work publicly."
Personhood falls into the category of 'indescribable'. We all 'know it when we see it', but none of us can describe it in a way that fully envelopes 'person' or 'self' or 'der einzige'
It's good to know that y'all stand vigil outside IVF clinics and hold mock funerals, weeping inconsolably for all those viable embryos that get flushed away every day.
Wouldn't want to be accused of double standards now.
So many males on here, and seriously expecting us to believe that they give a flying fuck about random hypothetical embryos. Heck, they probably don't even like children.
And here we have our resident finest example of blatant hypocrisy, Henry Quirk, who hates taxes (but only when they are being used for anything that might benefit humans in general--like welfare, accessible health care etc. etc...), telling female strangers that they 'ought' to be grieving for their 7 week old blood clots which might have blossomed into a glorious gem like himself, if only given the chance to
Belinda, for example, is certain liberal democracy/social democracy, if not a superior path, is the preferable path, one leading to a measure of civilization for everyone. Me: I see free enterprise and the night watchman as the path to individual excellence and thriving. We, she & me, listen to one another, understand one another, and still come away certain the other is dead wrong.
No, Belinda is a straight-up SOCIALIST Henry.
One a personal note, I can't understand why any white woman living in the West (England) in 2019 would embrace socialism. The only valid reason I can think of is that they might be , you know, a "bit" nutty? But that's it, I can't come up with any other ration explanation.
What a pair of bloody morons. Humans have never, in the history of humans, been 'individualists' (whatever that even means). The only way they could survive was by helping each other. 'Communism' is the name of a political movement. Russian and Chinese people clearly preferred brutal totalitarian dictatorship because that is what they got.
True communism has never been part of the human equation--those bloody nuisances we call 'leader types' always get in the way.
The Communist political movement was simply another link in the chain of social evolution. If we had any sense we would do away with the idea of 'leaders' altogether and do what the Swiss do--have nominal rotating 'leaders' and all the important decisions via referendums. Of course, that only works well if the population is a sophisticated and well-educated one.
Henry doesn't have a clue what he wants; constantly ranting about his 'libery' and 'island status' but wanting control over women's reproduction, to the extent that he is even telling them what they 'ought to' feel. So he's fine with no freedom as long as it doesn't affect his perceived pocket and personal prejudices.
