'Live and let live' foreign idea to left

link

(Link requires registration)

While of course I love the wild man, he forgets his side isn't so happy on choice when it comes to abortion, adult porno, non-traditional marriage, smoking weed, etc., and some of the worst tax and spenders are the Senate Republicans.

I was just about to say what Storm said, and he beat me to it.

So all I can do is rep.

But yeah, it's the right that wants to outlaw weed, abortion, porno, etc. Everyone wants everyone else to be just like them, it's human nature.

Storm, Storm. You're just too quick. Ya gotta let the knee-jerk left get all worked up about these things.

You're correct, of course. While I'm not a Libertarian, they're the only reasonable group out there that truly keeps these things in balance.

The right to employ whomever you want to - a foreign idea to the right?

McCartney can hire who he wants, on whatever condition he wants.

Doesn't make him any less of a dick for firing someone based on eating a fucking hamburger.

Yes indeed. The real problem here is neither liberals nor conservatives, but the partisan mindset that leaves us with those two monickers in the first place, while turning every difference of taste into a moral, legal and religious issue that has to be fought out to the death.

Hell freezes as Packard and I concur.

[action=Chuck]owes Storm and Packard rep after the recharge [/action]

Not much to say here. Storm and Mangrove have exposed the BS quite effectively.

Both sides have their hang ups, bigotries and prejudices. It's ludicrous to say "one side doesn't while the other does".

But...

That's exactly what each side does!
"You Do, I Don't."

Yeah. I know. That childishness gets tiresome.

If it wasn't so sad I'd say something about a staunch war supporter using 'live and let live' to damn the other side.

Yet you advocate genocide yourselfr.

It always bemuses me that people who say they're against behaviors they find deplorable often use the same behavior themselves.

They always deserve a golf clap.

Nugent was a draft dodger.

It's only genocide when it's people we're talking about.

Who are these unpeople?

Like a woman's right to choose, Ted?

If abortion is really murder then the "right" doesn't exist...

Not everybody says it's murder. Intent is important. If it's just the actions that's important then whey diffrentiate between accideental death and pre-meditated murder? If it's only the action that's important, there is no difference and murder is murder and the jail senternce, the punishment, should be the same for each.

There's no way that abortion is not premeditated. Pregnancy itself can be "accidental" to the extent you really didn't want a baby though you did want the sex but there's pretty much no way you can convince me there's not intent in abortion.

True. Not everybody says it's murder. But for those who do, it's only logical to say it's a crime and should not be made as easy to get as it has been.

But the thing most are ignoring is that with crime comes a trial. That also means innocent until proven guilty. Then there's no guaruntee of conviction, but if convicted that means prison time and either the woman or the doctor or both goes to jail. That means money as well. And with money it's alwyas "take it from anybody else but me". After all, if it's murder then it makes no sense to not send a new criminal to prison. How do you explain that? Make it murder but not have a trial and not send a criminal to jail? The attitude seems to be guilty no matter what the circumstances.

Problems, problems, problems.

Posted by Bock:

Posted by JUSTLEE:

Generally speaking, the only intent required for murder, other than premeditated murder, to be found is the intent to perform acts which one believes will cause the death of a human being (i.e., the intent to kill) -- one does not need, for example, to have the intent to commit murder or to cause the death of a human being in the specific way it occurred.

(Manslaughter, which is obviously still a crime, doesn't even require the intent to kill, but only reckless indifference to whether death will occur. That's why someone can be found to be guilty of vehicular manslaughter even though he had no intention of killing someone when he drove drunkenly into a pedestrian, causing his death.)

We all agree that if, say, "A" hunts down "B" with a loaded handgun and empties it into B at point-blank range, saying, "Die, you sonofagun!" there appears to be an obvious intent to kill. But this isn't the only situation in which intent to kill can be found. For an interesting discussion, see the following. Note that, in both scenarios, there exists sufficient intent to support a finding of murder -- the intent to kill.

(Excerpt)

Source: http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3010/3010lect05a.htm

By the same token, the intent to kill a fetus is deemed by so-called "pro-lifers" to be the same as the intent to kill a human being and therefore murder. The intent argument JUSTLEE postulates does not work to prevent abortion from being deemed murder in the eyes of "pro-lifers" because murder, except for premeditated murder, does not require what is known as specific intent (referenced in the article). (It's even worse if, as Bock later states, it's alleged that abortion is "premeditated.")

The only reasonable solution as regards the abortion/murder distinction is to say that "pro-lifers" are wrong, since although intent to kill may exist in both murder and abortions, murder requires the killing of a human being, and an abortion kills only a fetus. Not only is this logical, but it's based on reality: A fetus, scientifically speaking, is not fully a human being.

Not every convicted criminal goes to prison. So you're wrong on that count.

As well, not every doctor would continue performing abortions if they were illegal.

I've never said we should start shooting abortionists vigilante-style as they're going to work.

As for E, the doctor's intent may not be to commit murder but, IMO, that's self-delusional. In any case, their intent is to perform the abortion and, just for the sake of argument, if abortion is legislated to be manslaughter, many would quit performing them anyway. The rest would get their day in court.

edit - with the trial would come their opportunity to show that they were justified in their actions. I'm not opposed to certain very limited exceptions.

Bock, I would say that it's up to each individual to determine for herself whether an abortion is justified. Since it's the woman's body that's at issue, it's the woman's right to choose. Why wouldn't this be consistent with conservatism as Nugent sees it? After all, his whole premise is that, in politically disputatious matters, the left represses choices while the right promotes it.

But it's not just the woman's body that's at issue. Sure, she should consent to a medically necessary abortion (life at risk) just as she does every other procedure but there's also an innocent who can't speak directly for himself. That's why I feel there needs to be a legal as well as medical review unless there's a true medical emergency involved. If that's the case, there should be an after-the-fact review of the case.

It's not a conservative / liberal, right / left issue. As far as your freedom of choice argument goes, the choice has already been made by the time an abortion is being considered.

It's a fetus, not a full human being. That's a scientific fact. It makes little sense to say that anything but a human being can have an effective veto on the choice of another human being. Since there are no grounds for a fetus to veto anything, and since no human being other than the woman involved has any claim to the woman's body, abortion is inherently that woman's personal choice.

I disagree. The choice to have sex is not the choice to have a baby. They're two different things. It's like saying that renting a car is the same as buying it.

But if you rent the car, you've certainly got to take responsibility for any "accidents" that occur.