Anti abortion should = pro birth control. One GOPer gets it.

[Bronzeage]

Welcome back.

The point I wanted to make with my previous post is that your objection to paying for birth control could be applied to any government service, from healthcare to national defense. Why did you choose birth control above others, do you object to all financing of social good through taxation?

It can be applied, as you say, but I pick and choose. I wouldn't object to reasonable (or perhaps even a little more than that) taxation in regards to national defense. That's something as a nation we ought to pull together and support. Keeping certain people out the maternity ward because they have pieces of shit for mothers and fathers who couldn't raise a kid to save their child tax credit dollars is just another item on a very, very long list of smothering new age take from others opportunities. Under what, the guise of improving standard of living? I think we are on the receiving end of benefits to a highly irresponsible level. A thank you? How about a thank you but no thank you. Here's an idea: if I'm burning in a building, let me die. Save the gas money and tax someone else a little less and pass on a thank you from me. It's not even so much the issues as much as it's the extreme volume of them. Everyone with a mouth can somehow find a way to articulate a justification of paying for something on someone else's dime. I'd rather drive on dirt roads than pay another penny for an increased standard of living. Yes, before someone says, I can move, no, it's the principle of the matter and blatant disregard for the money-lust impositions they place on others, so I think I have every right to be in favor of a little less lavish standard of living.

If your idea of less lavish standard of living is burning to death because fire fighting is a luxury, I'll pass.

 

[Rhea]

Welcome back.

The point I wanted to make with my previous post is that your objection to paying for birth control could be applied to any government service, from healthcare to national defense. Why did you choose birth control above others, do you object to all financing of social good through taxation?

It can be applied, as you say, but I pick and choose. I wouldn't object to reasonable (or perhaps even a little more than that) taxation in regards to national defense. That's something as a nation we ought to pull together and support. Keeping certain people out the maternity ward because they have pieces of shit for mothers and fathers who couldn't raise a kid to save their child tax credit dollars is just another item on a very, very long list of smothering new age take from others opportunities. Under what, the guise of improving standard of living? I think we are on the receiving end of benefits to a highly irresponsible level. A thank you? How about a thank you but no thank you. Here's an idea: if I'm burning in a building, let me die. Save the gas money and tax someone else a little less and pass on a thank you from me. It's not even so much the issues as much as it's the extreme volume of them. Everyone with a mouth can somehow find a way to articulate a justification of paying for something on someone else's dime. I'd rather drive on dirt roads than pay another penny for an increased standard of living. Yes, before someone says, I can move, no, it's the principle of the matter and blatant disregard for the money-lust impositions they place on others, so I think I have every right to be in favor of a little less lavish standard of living.

Well, as someone who lives on a dirt road with no cable, no gas, no water and no sewer, I would just point out that the amount we spend in military ("national defense") is so far beyond what is actually needed that you could pay for ALL of the birth control PLUS the Fire-Rescue departments and not have even a noticible reduction in "defense" go on.

I agree with picking and choosing, but if you're picking the ONE THING where spending is more than half of the tax money and millions of dollars, tens of millions, get "lost," then I think you're picking the wrong one.

And again, this is from someone who not only lives on a dirt road, but actually goes to town meetings to argue that we should NOT complain about potholes - just think of them as a speed-reducing feature - and save the money. Fix the roads with new gravel material from time to time so they don't become impassable mud quagmires, but chill out on the costs needed for perfection. I've also argued for less spending at the Fire Dept because we don't really need to put out the fires, just save the people. Oh, and make birth control free to bring down insurance for all of us. And for the love of reason, reduce the military spending by at least 1/3, like, tomorrow.

 

[fast]

I'm sorry. I've just been moody lately.

By the way, I always say I'm pro-choice, because I do think abortion is wrong and that life trumps choice, but then again, I don't object to very early abortions and do object to very late abortions. Do you think that exception to very early abortions implies that I'm pro-choice, and does saying I'm pro-choice mean I'm mistaken when I say I'm pro-life because I don't object to very early abortion, and does my saying that life trumps choice suggest that isn't what I really mean since I make exceptions, and my opinion that abortion is wrong, what do you make of that? Am I not consistent or just willing to not object to what's wrong? It's so confusing. I am in favor of life, but it just might be morally indecent to not allow early term abortion. I would argue against preventing an abortion if one was raped. As to sex, go for it (gasp) but repeated early term abortions seems extremely distasteful.

Do you have a typical example of a long term birth control?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Exactly. Both sides straw man the other. Nobody calls themself Pro-Death or Anti-Choice, but that is how each side views the other.

The "both sides are exactly as bad" argument only makes you look reasonable and less biased if they actually are as bad.

As it is, in this case, it only makes you look more biased and less reasonable.

You seem to be replying to something other than what you quoted. Both sides strawmanning the other does not equal "both sides are equally as bad".

And trying to see and understand multiple perspectives is not a bad thing. Earlier in this thread I tried to show people some of how the "other side" of them sees things, and of course, I was shouted down as if that was my position. It won't hurt you guys to try to put your mind in the point of view of other people.

I recently read John Haidt's book Righteous Mind, and I highly recommend it. He explains very well where conservatives come from and why we think so differently than they do.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Personhood requires an individual organism and thus cannot logically apply to both the mother and the fetus inside her, which are note physically individuated. Thus, literal physical separation from the mother is neccessary to create two individuals, and only then are there two persons. No developmental changes within the womb create actual physical separation, thus none can be sufficient for personhood to which the concept of individual rights applies.

So are cojoined twins not individual persons with individual rights? Even if they are connected by only an arm or something? Does killing them counts as only one murder? That the unborn person is contained within and connected to the mother seems a rather arbitrary way to decide she is not an individual person. Just as arbitrary as any other.

I would link it to consciousness and self awareness. It gets tricky from there, but that is where i would start. I don't know where along the line I would place the line, but it would be well after a mass of cells started forming, and before the baby is about to be born. Both sound just as crazy to me.

 

[Underseer]

It can be applied, as you say, but I pick and choose. I wouldn't object to reasonable (or perhaps even a little more than that) taxation in regards to national defense. That's something as a nation we ought to pull together and support. Keeping certain people out the maternity ward because they have pieces of shit for mothers and fathers who couldn't raise a kid to save their child tax credit dollars is just another item on a very, very long list of smothering new age take from others opportunities. Under what, the guise of improving standard of living? I think we are on the receiving end of benefits to a highly irresponsible level. A thank you? How about a thank you but no thank you. Here's an idea: if I'm burning in a building, let me die. Save the gas money and tax someone else a little less and pass on a thank you from me. It's not even so much the issues as much as it's the extreme volume of them. Everyone with a mouth can somehow find a way to articulate a justification of paying for something on someone else's dime. I'd rather drive on dirt roads than pay another penny for an increased standard of living. Yes, before someone says, I can move, no, it's the principle of the matter and blatant disregard for the money-lust impositions they place on others, so I think I have every right to be in favor of a little less lavish standard of living.

If your idea of less lavish standard of living is burning to death because fire fighting is a luxury, I'll pass.

Why do you hate America? What's so great about communism? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Rhea]

I'm sorry. I've just been moody lately.

By the way, I always say I'm pro-choice, because I do think abortion is wrong and that life trumps choice, but then again, I don't object to very early abortions and do object to very late abortions. Do you think that exception to very early abortions implies that I'm pro-choice, and does saying I'm pro-choice mean I'm mistaken when I say I'm pro-life because I don't object to very early abortion, and does my saying that life trumps choice suggest that isn't what I really mean since I make exceptions, and my opinion that abortion is wrong, what do you make of that? Am I not consistent or just willing to not object to what's wrong? It's so confusing. I am in favor of life, but it just might be morally indecent to not allow early term abortion. I would argue against preventing an abortion if one was raped. As to sex, go for it (gasp) but repeated early term abortions seems extremely distasteful.

Sometimes the label "pro-choice" and "pro-life" doesn't fit. But don't make the mistake of thinking "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion" because it definitely does not mean anything like that. I personally would say you fit entirely within pro-choice. That position includes so many people who believe that abortion would always be wrong for them but understand they can't dictate that onto others because there are too many ways they can understand another person's choice, even if they wouldn't make it themselves. They say, "I am pro-life for myself and pro-choice for others." That _is_ the pro-choice position.

Do you have a typical example of a long term birth control?

IUD (Intra Uterine Device). It's an implant that has a very high rate of effectiveness and can just sit there untended for years. Your man does not need to know you are on it, in case there is abuse going on, there are no prescriptions to buy or packages to manage. It works when you are drunk, when you are on antibiotics, when you are raped (even by your spouse) and when you aren't thinking.

It's expensive, though. So the people who would most benefit from this type of birth control can't get it. But compared to pregnancy or multiple abortions or childbirth, it's the cheapest thing going.

Other options include implantable hormone birth control - lasts about 4 months, I think?
Less reliable because of forgetting to take it regularly and that it can be affected by antibiotics is birth control pills, yet they are still more reliable than condoms, and being in the control of the woman makes it a better choice for her.

 

[fast]

I mistakenly said that "I always say that I'm pro-choice" when I meant to say that "I always say that I'm pro-life." Anyhow, you're still probably right in that I am pro-choice (or at least fit better in their camp action-wise) since I'd make exceptions for early term abortions. Thing is, it's not because I believe women have a right over their bodies. I do think they have a right over their bodies--it's just that my reasoning isn't a function of that belief.

 

[credoconsolans]

One simple test to start with: What is their position on abortion in case of rape? A true pro-lifer will not accept abortion in this case.

That is an excellent point. It really does say something. It also says something when Pro-Choice people want double homocide charges for pregnant women.

Actually Jolly, these hypocritical laws were pushed into existence by the anti-Choice (so called Pro-life) groups and pandering politicians allowed them.

 

[Togo]

Other options include implantable hormone birth control - lasts about 4 months, I think?

More like 4 years. A friend of mine keeps on talking about getting one.

 

[Rhea]

Other options include implantable hormone birth control - lasts about 4 months, I think?

More like 4 years. A friend of mine keeps on talking about getting one.

I think the 4 year one is the hormonal IUD ("Mirena") the 4 month one is skin-implanted hormones ("Norplant")

...correcting myself - upon googling - the norplant is also a multi-year treatment.

 

[KeepTalking]

More like 4 years. A friend of mine keeps on talking about getting one.

I think the 4 year one is the hormonal IUD ("Mirena") the 4 month one is skin-implanted hormones ("Norplant")

...correcting myself - upon googling - the norplant is also a multi-year treatment.

The 3-4 month birth control you are likely thinking of is the depo-provera shot. My wife was on that for several years before deciding to undertake the more permanent solution of having her tubes tied.

 

[Rhea]

I think the 4 year one is the hormonal IUD ("Mirena") the 4 month one is skin-implanted hormones ("Norplant")

...correcting myself - upon googling - the norplant is also a multi-year treatment.

The 3-4 month birth control you are likely thinking of is the depo-provera shot. My wife was on that for several years before deciding to undertake the more permanent solution of having her tubes tied.

Thank you - I was sure there was a shorter term long term BC available. Couldn't remember it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was sure there was a shorter term long term BC available.

My sister gets great results shaving herself with a mens' razor set to 'manly beard stubble.'
Rug burns being suboptimal for romance or performance issues...

 

[Rhea]

I was sure there was a shorter term long term BC available.

My sister gets great results shaving herself with a mens' razor set to 'manly beard stubble.'
Rug burns being suboptimal for romance or performance issues...

I have trouble believing that even "manly beard stubble" is sufficient to be a reliable birth control. When men get that look, you could, as my husband puts it, "shove a dirty sock in his face and he wouldn't care or notice."

 

[Keith&Co.]

My sister gets great results shaving herself with a mens' razor set to 'manly beard stubble.'
Rug burns being suboptimal for romance or performance issues...

I have trouble believing that even "manly beard stubble" is sufficient to be a reliable birth control. When men get that look, you could, as my husband puts it, "shove a dirty sock in his face and he wouldn't care or notice."

It seems work really well on men of a certain age, , similar to, and exactly as effective as showing underarm hair to American men of a different generation. A complete 'that's just wrong' turn-off.

 

[Rhea]

It seems work really well on men of a certain age, , similar to, and exactly as effective as showing underarm hair to American men of a different generation. A complete 'that's just wrong' turn-off.

Well, I guess the up side it that it is fully reversible.

 

[PyramidHead]

Your view is hardly intuitive, since when we normally talk about personhood we are talking about something about the person, not something about his position relative to the birth canal.

I don't know about "intuitive" but intuition is usually wrong. However, my view is extremely logical and maps strongly onto the standard concept of a person, both psychological and legal notions of personal liberty and rights. When we talk about a "person" we are referring to the physical distinctness that makes them one person rather than another person. An organism completely within the body of another person is not physically distinct, thus it is impossible the think or talk about them as a "person" that is not also another person. My reference to the birth canal is just a way of highlighting whether the organism is inside (non-distinct from) or outside (distinct from) the mother's body.

There may be other considerations that arise when a baby is no longer dependent on its mother's body, but those are changes in the external environment, not in whether he is a person or not. It is no less strange to suggest the birth canal confers personhood than any particular moment that occurs in the womb.

Personhood requires an individual organism and thus cannot logically apply to both the mother and the fetus inside her, which are note physically individuated. Thus, literal physical separation from the mother is neccessary to create two individuals, and only then are there two persons. No developmental changes within the womb create actual physical separation, thus none can be sufficient for personhood to which the concept of individual rights applies.
Note, it isn't about hypothetical potential independence after some potential process of removing it that has not yet occurred. It is about the fetus being actually no longer inside the mother, and until that moment it is not an individual person, only a potential one.

Rather, personhood is something that is slowly gained after birth, and the newborn is progressively more of a person as it acquires those traits (whatever they may be). This fits our usual understanding, since the acquisition of personhood is simultaneous with changes in the person himself, not in his spatial location. What I am suggesting is that nobody is born a person.

By far the most objective and defining feature of personhood is biological physical individuality. Without it, no amount of development can make them a person. If somehow a fetus developed to the point of a 5 year old inside the womb, it would not be a person and further from being one than a premature newborn.
Nothing can be a person prior to birth. Of course there is important development post birth. However, it is unclear that a newborn completely lacks any neccessary features of personhood. Regardless, personhood directly determines whether an organism has any rights and can be viewed differently than a wart. For many pragmatic reasons it would be a very bad idea to no grant such status to babies once born, not the least of which is no point of development is or will ever be as scientifically and empirically as clear and objective as the the point at which an organism is inside then outside the body of another organism.

We both agree that being outside the mother is necessary for personhood, but I maintain it is not sufficient. Personhood, and the moral rights usually ascribed to it, happens gradually over a period of time after birth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Personhood, and the moral rights usually ascribed to it, happens gradually over a period of time after birth.

No, it's pretty immediate.
If it weren't, the little shits wouldn't survive pissing in daddy's mouth during diaper changes.

 

[PyramidHead]

Personhood, and the moral rights usually ascribed to it, happens gradually over a period of time after birth.

No, it's pretty immediate.
If it weren't, the little shits wouldn't survive pissing in daddy's mouth during diaper changes.

All joking aside, neither would my dog survive tearing up the couch if I didn't love him. Doesn't make him as much of a person as you and me, though.