There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
I'm referring to the stance taken by a lot of folks that abortion should be permitted at any time (or 'stage', I should say) for any reason. I'm not saying I firmly disagree- I just don't know.
I don't know a lot of folks that actually think that...
Wonder_Hippie was the first to espouse it I knew (back when I was reading up on partial-birth abortion) and I did some research and encountered a lot of people who shared his view.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Huh. "Government wants to keep tabs on us!" is the usual stuff I hear against national ID cards, so it feels strange that it comes from the Republicans.
think about the Patriot Act and the general stuff after 9/11
Medopine on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Huh. "Government wants to keep tabs on us!" is the usual stuff I hear against national ID cards, so it feels strange that it comes from the Republicans.
I don't know if they'll change their stance now that the Democrats are in power but when it was a Republican administration they had no problems with the government stepping over its bounds. It's consistent with every other breach of our civil liberties that the Bush administration is responsible for.
Edit: Honestly in America none of this stuff is as you think it would be. Labels are useless now and each side will believe things that you might associate with the other but for reasons that are consistent with their own side's previous convictions.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Huh. "Government wants to keep tabs on us!" is the usual stuff I hear against national ID cards, so it feels strange that it comes from the Republicans.
That's the Libertarian wing of the party. This was pushed by the Nativist 'Took'r jerbs! Brown people!' wing. Which was the primary issue with the amendment more so than the harmonizing of ID standards across the States.
Sarks I was talking about state's rights in general... work with me for a second here, though, since I don't know what you're referring to. Was there a push by Democrats to make a general ID card, without the state of residency being mentioned? I am confused.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Hmmmm.
What would be the security benefit over a state ID? Would every citizen be issued one? Aren't we already issued birth certificates? What would be its relevance?
Alternatively what should I type into Wikipedia to save you some time?
Do those photo IDs that aren't drivers licenses exist outside of Nova Scotia? We get them at the DMV, I think it's just a way for them to make a bit more money because we don't have pictures on health cards.
coutts on
Pearl FC - 2535 1604 7594 // Black FC - 2494 3438 2717
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
I'm referring to the stance taken by a lot of folks that abortion should be permitted at any time (or 'stage', I should say) for any reason. I'm not saying I firmly disagree- I just don't know.
I don't know a lot of folks that actually think that...
Wonder_Hippie was the first to espouse it I knew (back when I was reading up on partial-birth abortion) and I did some research and encountered a lot of people who shared his view.
The stance, as I generally am aware of it, is that the decision should always be up to the woman and her gynecologist. And this completely ignores the reality of when and why late in pregnancy abortions occur, which is always due to health concerns rather than procrastination or whatever the hell those direct mail letters say.
moniker on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Sarks I was talking about state's rights in general... work with me for a second here, though, since I don't know what you're referring to. Was there a push by Democrats to make a general ID card, without the state of residency being mentioned? I am confused.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Hmmmm.
What would be the security benefit over a state ID? Would every citizen be issued one? Aren't we already issued birth certificates? What would be its relevance?
Alternatively what should I type into Wikipedia to save you some time?
The argument is that State IDs fragment information and make it more difficult to coordinate government agencies. It standardizes what information is available and it puts that information directly in the hands of the federal government so that they can act on it more efficiently.
It is also argued a national ID would be less easily counterfeited. Basically it's supposed to make it more difficult to live outside of the system. People will anyway, though, which would be one of the drawbacks obviously.
Sarks I was talking about state's rights in general... work with me for a second here, though, since I don't know what you're referring to. Was there a push by Democrats to make a general ID card, without the state of residency being mentioned? I am confused.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Hmmmm.
What would be the security benefit over a state ID? Would every citizen be issued one? Aren't we already issued birth certificates? What would be its relevance?
Alternatively what should I type into Wikipedia to save you some time?
REAL ID. It was primarily to make things somewhat more difficult to fake and to sneak in border fence bullshit.
Do those photo IDs that aren't drivers licenses exist outside of Nova Scotia? We get them at the DMV, I think it's just a way for them to make a bit more money because we don't have pictures on health cards.
in Ontario, you can get an Age of Majority card
It exists pretty much entirely for people who don't have driver's licences to buy booze and get into bars.
It's pretty much just a provincially-issued piece of photo ID that has your date of birth on it.
i don't have one, even though I should probably get one, because I can't drive and it would be handy
but it costs like $60!
f that
Pony on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Do those photo IDs that aren't drivers licenses exist outside of Nova Scotia? We get them at the DMV, I think it's just a way for them to make a bit more money because we don't have pictures on health cards.
They are in America also. They're basically a standardized (across each state, anyway) photo ID. No one wants to carry around their social security card as proof of ID.
---
programjunkie: that wasn't what I meant- I thought Than meant internal red herrings, like responses Constitutional arguments over the second amendment. I guess a lot of people are formatting their posts in a way where they say "I think this has an obvious answer and I'm astonished it's not unanimous" and exactly since it's not unanimous people can misunderstand. In fact, my initial example "belief in God" I had to reword because it could be read as "it's ridiculous that some people don't believe in God" when that's the exact opposite of my meaning.
Dallas is fucking atrocious in this respect. God. Fucking. Awful. But nooooooo we need to make a nice lake side environment.
I just don't get it. The benefits are legion, it adds redundancies into the infrastructure that undergirds growth, and works toward pretty much every single thing that conservative politicians love to promote outside of puppies and apple pie. Plus, it's sexy. How can you hate on that? How is reducing congestion and promoting economic development a boogie man?
Do those photo IDs that aren't drivers licenses exist outside of Nova Scotia? We get them at the DMV, I think it's just a way for them to make a bit more money because we don't have pictures on health cards.
in Ontario, you can get an Age of Majority card
It exists pretty much entirely for people who don't have driver's licences to buy booze and get into bars.
It's pretty much just a provincially-issued piece of photo ID that has your date of birth on it.
i don't have one, even though I should probably get one, because I can't drive and it would be handy
but it costs like $60!
f that
Ours is like 10 bucks, and it exists from what I can understand primarily for people who are over 19 to "lose" and give to younger siblings. You can get them before you can get a drivers license so I really don't see the point.
coutts on
Pearl FC - 2535 1604 7594 // Black FC - 2494 3438 2717
You know, I used to be very hardline against abortion (with the only exception being for medical reasons or rape/molestation) but over time, my view has completely changed on the issue and now I find myself staunchly defending abortion rights.
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Dallas is fucking atrocious in this respect. God. Fucking. Awful. But nooooooo we need to make a nice lake side environment.
I just don't get it. The benefits are legion, it adds redundancies into the infrastructure that undergirds growth, and works toward pretty much every single thing that conservative politicians love to promote outside of puppies and apple pie. Plus, it's sexy. How can you hate on that? How is reducing congestion and promoting economic development a boogie man?
Gummint is all I ever got.
I swear, if I ever get into politics it will be there.
Quid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
You know, I used to be very hardline against abortion (with the only exception being for medical reasons or rape/molestation) but over time, my view has completely changed on the issue and now I find myself staunchly defending abortion rights.
Funny, the road life takes you on!
My favorite part about abortion is how pro-life is like "the answer is no for everyone" and pro-choice is "each person can answer yes or no." I personally say the answer is no, but I don't want my answer to be everyone else's answer.
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
Dallas is fucking atrocious in this respect. God. Fucking. Awful. But nooooooo we need to make a nice lake side environment.
I just don't get it. The benefits are legion, it adds redundancies into the infrastructure that undergirds growth, and works toward pretty much every single thing that conservative politicians love to promote outside of puppies and apple pie. Plus, it's sexy. How can you hate on that? How is reducing congestion and promoting economic development a boogie man?
Gummint is all I ever got.
I swear, if I ever get into politics it will be there.
It's primarily just that the people who would most benefit from it tend to be the ones most vociferously against paying for it. That and the industrial complex between "transportation" (re: highway) departments and construction companies, but you could create a competing setup with rail, trainset, and bus manufacturers. Still, it's hard to help the people against their will.
moniker on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
You mean like if it could survive outside of the womb or what? Because if a baby is born, then wasn't it "healthy and viable" at conception?
You know, I used to be very hardline against abortion (with the only exception being for medical reasons or rape/molestation) but over time, my view has completely changed on the issue and now I find myself staunchly defending abortion rights.
Funny, the road life takes you on!
My favorite part about abortion is how pro-life is like "the answer is no for everyone" and pro-choice is "each person can answer yes or no." I personally say the answer is no, but I don't want my answer to be everyone else's answer.
It's kinda like pro ignorance and pro free thought really.
coutts on
Pearl FC - 2535 1604 7594 // Black FC - 2494 3438 2717
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
You know, I used to be very hardline against abortion (with the only exception being for medical reasons or rape/molestation) but over time, my view has completely changed on the issue and now I find myself staunchly defending abortion rights.
Funny, the road life takes you on!
My favorite part about abortion is how pro-life is like "the answer is no for everyone" and pro-choice is "each person can answer yes or no." I personally say the answer is no, but I don't want my answer to be everyone else's answer.
It's kinda like pro ignorance and pro free thought really.
Eh, it's more like pro-imposing-on-others vs pro-let-it-be.
I still hold that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are disingenuous labels and that a person should honestly say they are for or against abortion, and then clarify in what circumstances they are for or against it
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
The only issue is that 'viability' is labeled as way too early in the pregnancy. It's generally before you can manage to get all of the test results back to find out if there is anything tragically wrong with it unless you're lucky, and tends to require massive surgery and artificial equipment to actually survive while being far more at risk of developing a shitload of problems.
moniker on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Dallas is fucking atrocious in this respect. God. Fucking. Awful. But nooooooo we need to make a nice lake side environment.
I just don't get it. The benefits are legion, it adds redundancies into the infrastructure that undergirds growth, and works toward pretty much every single thing that conservative politicians love to promote outside of puppies and apple pie. Plus, it's sexy. How can you hate on that? How is reducing congestion and promoting economic development a boogie man?
Gummint is all I ever got.
I swear, if I ever get into politics it will be there.
It's primarily just that the people who would most benefit from it tend to be the ones most vociferously against paying for it. That and the industrial complex between "transportation" (re: highway) departments and construction companies, but you could create a competing setup with rail, trainset, and bus manufacturers. Still, it's hard to help the people against their will.
My city has a pretty decent bus system (if you're going from the University to downtown anyway) and is trying to build a streetcar system. Dunno how economically viable those are with current technology.
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
You mean like if it could survive outside of the womb or what? Because if a baby is born, then wasn't it "healthy and viable" at conception?
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
You mean like if it could survive outside of the womb or what? Because if a baby is born, then wasn't it "healthy and viable" at conception?
Yeah. Viable is defined as capable of life outside the womb. And I throw out healthy, because I believe not only is there a right, but a duty to abort fetuses that will have significantly impaired quality or quantity of life (Tay Sachs being an example).
The only issue is that 'viability' is labeled as way too early in the pregnancy. It's generally before you can manage to get all of the test results back to find out if there is anything tragically wrong with it unless you're lucky, and tends to require massive surgery and artificial equipment to actually survive while being far more at risk of developing a shitload of problems.
A good point, but I'd argue perhaps the correct solution would be to redefine viability to something more reasonable. I don't think what extraordinary measures can achieve is a reasonable point for defining viability.
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
programjunkie on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
You mean like if it could survive outside of the womb or what? Because if a baby is born, then wasn't it "healthy and viable" at conception?
Yeah. Viable is defined as capable of life outside the womb. And I throw out healthy, because I believe not only is there a right, but a duty to abort fetuses that will have significantly impaired quality or quantity of life (Tay Sachs being an example).
Why so it is. I'd never realized that it meant something different specifically in that context.
I still hold that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are disingenuous labels and that a person should honestly say they are for or against abortion, and then clarify in what circumstances they are for or against it
because everybody likes "choice" and "life"
:?:
And nobody believes that abortion is a happy fun time amusement park experience. I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion. This makes me far from unique.
I know personally I've been looking at a vasectomy in recent years because I feel it is my responsibility not to pass my shitty genetics on to a child.
I ever get the urge to raise a child in this world, I'll just adopt. But my health problems are terrible and inborn and until that can somehow be medically altered to not be the case, I feel it's downright wrong for me to knowingly and willfully expose a potential child to those issues.
Pony on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
1: capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>
Dallas is fucking atrocious in this respect. God. Fucking. Awful. But nooooooo we need to make a nice lake side environment.
I just don't get it. The benefits are legion, it adds redundancies into the infrastructure that undergirds growth, and works toward pretty much every single thing that conservative politicians love to promote outside of puppies and apple pie. Plus, it's sexy. How can you hate on that? How is reducing congestion and promoting economic development a boogie man?
Gummint is all I ever got.
I swear, if I ever get into politics it will be there.
It's primarily just that the people who would most benefit from it tend to be the ones most vociferously against paying for it. That and the industrial complex between "transportation" (re: highway) departments and construction companies, but you could create a competing setup with rail, trainset, and bus manufacturers. Still, it's hard to help the people against their will.
My city has a pretty decent bus system (if you're going from the University to downtown anyway) and is trying to build a streetcar system. Dunno how economically viable those are with current technology.
They're more expensive upfront, but it pays dividends in reduced maintenance cost over time. Not to mention being more prone to induce development along the right of way, increase ridership, and run more smoothly/quietly.
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
You mean the ones that don't actually exist?
There has never been an abortion late in the pregnancy that was not the direct result of medical concerns. Chiefly those involving imminent death or already being dead at the time. It is extremely rare for abortions to be used as birth control (again, it isn't a thrill ride) and those instances only ever occur in the earliest days or weeks of implantation. A time when miscarriage is actually pretty likely independent of external action.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
Posts
Wonder_Hippie was the first to espouse it I knew (back when I was reading up on partial-birth abortion) and I did some research and encountered a lot of people who shared his view.
think about the Patriot Act and the general stuff after 9/11
I don't know if they'll change their stance now that the Democrats are in power but when it was a Republican administration they had no problems with the government stepping over its bounds. It's consistent with every other breach of our civil liberties that the Bush administration is responsible for.
Edit: Honestly in America none of this stuff is as you think it would be. Labels are useless now and each side will believe things that you might associate with the other but for reasons that are consistent with their own side's previous convictions.
That's the Libertarian wing of the party. This was pushed by the Nativist 'Took'r jerbs! Brown people!' wing. Which was the primary issue with the amendment more so than the harmonizing of ID standards across the States.
Hmmmm.
What would be the security benefit over a state ID? Would every citizen be issued one? Aren't we already issued birth certificates? What would be its relevance?
Alternatively what should I type into Wikipedia to save you some time?
It's just... it's so mind-blowingly ignorant of the facts and how these programs operate in every other so-called "first world" country on Earth.
The kind of rebuttals I see from the people against government-insured health-care is like...
I can't even call them lies. They are anti-facts.
In the US at least? Actual, meaningful anti-crime measures with provable results.
As to the OP:
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
The stance, as I generally am aware of it, is that the decision should always be up to the woman and her gynecologist. And this completely ignores the reality of when and why late in pregnancy abortions occur, which is always due to health concerns rather than procrastination or whatever the hell those direct mail letters say.
The argument is that State IDs fragment information and make it more difficult to coordinate government agencies. It standardizes what information is available and it puts that information directly in the hands of the federal government so that they can act on it more efficiently.
It is also argued a national ID would be less easily counterfeited. Basically it's supposed to make it more difficult to live outside of the system. People will anyway, though, which would be one of the drawbacks obviously.
REAL ID. It was primarily to make things somewhat more difficult to fake and to sneak in border fence bullshit.
in Ontario, you can get an Age of Majority card
It exists pretty much entirely for people who don't have driver's licences to buy booze and get into bars.
It's pretty much just a provincially-issued piece of photo ID that has your date of birth on it.
i don't have one, even though I should probably get one, because I can't drive and it would be handy
but it costs like $60!
f that
I'd think that "oh shit baby now?" is the cause of a non-insignificant number of abortions.
They are in America also. They're basically a standardized (across each state, anyway) photo ID. No one wants to carry around their social security card as proof of ID.
---
programjunkie: that wasn't what I meant- I thought Than meant internal red herrings, like responses Constitutional arguments over the second amendment. I guess a lot of people are formatting their posts in a way where they say "I think this has an obvious answer and I'm astonished it's not unanimous" and exactly since it's not unanimous people can misunderstand. In fact, my initial example "belief in God" I had to reword because it could be read as "it's ridiculous that some people don't believe in God" when that's the exact opposite of my meaning.
I just don't get it. The benefits are legion, it adds redundancies into the infrastructure that undergirds growth, and works toward pretty much every single thing that conservative politicians love to promote outside of puppies and apple pie. Plus, it's sexy. How can you hate on that? How is reducing congestion and promoting economic development a boogie man?
Ours is like 10 bucks, and it exists from what I can understand primarily for people who are over 19 to "lose" and give to younger siblings. You can get them before you can get a drivers license so I really don't see the point.
It is so much better than protectionism.
But people still bemoan it.
Funny, the road life takes you on!
Not after 6 months of carrying it.
I swear, if I ever get into politics it will be there.
My favorite part about abortion is how pro-life is like "the answer is no for everyone" and pro-choice is "each person can answer yes or no." I personally say the answer is no, but I don't want my answer to be everyone else's answer.
Well, my cutoff is the point of viability, i.e. you could have the baby born but you kill it instead. I don't give a shit why someone decides to abort their six week pregnancy or whatever.
It's primarily just that the people who would most benefit from it tend to be the ones most vociferously against paying for it. That and the industrial complex between "transportation" (re: highway) departments and construction companies, but you could create a competing setup with rail, trainset, and bus manufacturers. Still, it's hard to help the people against their will.
You mean like if it could survive outside of the womb or what? Because if a baby is born, then wasn't it "healthy and viable" at conception?
It's kinda like pro ignorance and pro free thought really.
Eh, it's more like pro-imposing-on-others vs pro-let-it-be.
because everybody likes "choice" and "life"
The only issue is that 'viability' is labeled as way too early in the pregnancy. It's generally before you can manage to get all of the test results back to find out if there is anything tragically wrong with it unless you're lucky, and tends to require massive surgery and artificial equipment to actually survive while being far more at risk of developing a shitload of problems.
My city has a pretty decent bus system (if you're going from the University to downtown anyway) and is trying to build a streetcar system. Dunno how economically viable those are with current technology.
o_O
Yeah. Viable is defined as capable of life outside the womb. And I throw out healthy, because I believe not only is there a right, but a duty to abort fetuses that will have significantly impaired quality or quantity of life (Tay Sachs being an example).
A good point, but I'd argue perhaps the correct solution would be to redefine viability to something more reasonable. I don't think what extraordinary measures can achieve is a reasonable point for defining viability.
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
Why so it is. I'd never realized that it meant something different specifically in that context.
:?:
And nobody believes that abortion is a happy fun time amusement park experience. I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion. This makes me far from unique.
Because medical advances just keep pushing the viable survivability with medical assistance further and further back.
I ever get the urge to raise a child in this world, I'll just adopt. But my health problems are terrible and inborn and until that can somehow be medically altered to not be the case, I feel it's downright wrong for me to knowingly and willfully expose a potential child to those issues.
The more you know
They're more expensive upfront, but it pays dividends in reduced maintenance cost over time. Not to mention being more prone to induce development along the right of way, increase ridership, and run more smoothly/quietly.
You mean the ones that don't actually exist?
There has never been an abortion late in the pregnancy that was not the direct result of medical concerns. Chiefly those involving imminent death or already being dead at the time. It is extremely rare for abortions to be used as birth control (again, it isn't a thrill ride) and those instances only ever occur in the earliest days or weeks of implantation. A time when miscarriage is actually pretty likely independent of external action.
Here are my views:
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.