PDA

View Full Version : Mythology of Choice



Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:02 AM
I always hear "pro choice" "pro choice" or "reproductive choice" as if there are no other choices in the whole wide world of importance or as though without abortion (I'm not for that by the way, but speaking hypothetically) there is no reproductive choice.

Abortion is an elective procedure and is about medical choice, not reproductive choice. Even if abortion were outlawed we would still have reproductive choice unless raped.

1. We have the choice to not have sex,
2. We have the choice to take birth control,
3 We have the choice to pull out,
4. We have the choice to wear condoms,
5. We have the choice to use an IED
6. We have the choice to put in Ensure
7. We have the choice to a tubal ligation
8. We can have anal sex.
9. We can have oral sex
10. We can use spermicidal foam and sponge
12. We can use implants

That's a lot of reproductive "choice" other than abortion.

Abortion is not something you can spontaneously will to happen. It is a medical procedure. If you were alone with your mate on a deserted island you would have all the freedom to have an abortion, but no capability to have an abortion.

You would still have reproductive choice, however. You could have your partner pull out, you can have anal (yes, I said it), you can use the rhythm method, you can use that method and pull out, or you can choose not to have sex.

It is a medical procedure in reality and what we are truly talking about is medical choice, a subset of privacy rights.

If I am speaking of medical choice an privacy rights then I cannot also with legitimacy vote for a candidate who does not support that across the board, ie McAuliffe, Obama, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130807090059-seizure-pic-horizontal-gallery.jpg

Marijuana stops child's severe seizures
Read the story, it is an eye-opener. This little girl and others like her could be helped if the government really truly believed in medical choice and privacy.

Charlotte would have died without medical marijuana and is very lucky to live in Colorado. She didn't have 12 other choices. She's been through them all.

I can come up with hundreds of other "choices" that progressive women give not a single care about, so I don't even feel a twinge of guilt or remorse when I get lectured about voting for Democrats.

Cigar
11-06-2013, 08:06 AM
Stop it ... it's kinda early, let me have some more Coffee first. :laugh:

kilgram
11-06-2013, 08:16 AM
Abortion is one choice more of the list that you gave.

Captain Obvious
11-06-2013, 08:21 AM
Abortion is a convenience, nothing more than a reason to be careless.

How pathetic a society we are that we allow this to happen.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:22 AM
Abortion is one choice more of the list that you gave.

It is only 1 more choice on that list, kilgram

But why is that choice, a medical choice, more important than other medical choices like medical marijuana?

Explain it to me.

Cigar
11-06-2013, 08:23 AM
But Fuck them Lazy Takers after they are Born :laugh:

kilgram
11-06-2013, 08:26 AM
It is only 1 more choice on that list, @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)

But why is that choice, a medical choice, more important than other medical choices like medical marijuana?

Explain it to me.
Eh? you are using an argument that I don't understand. I don't have any problem with adding more choices on the list. When the much the better (is it right?)

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:28 AM
Eh? you are using an argument that I don't understand. I don't have any problem with adding more choices on the list. When the much the better (is it right?)

Yes, more is better. More is better. Some people, some "progressives" only want you to have the choice of abortion. They are fine with killing 4 year olds from seizures just to stand with the president with medical marijuana.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:30 AM
But Fuck them Lazy Takers after they are Born :laugh:


Well that's what you guy says, Cigar. Fuck those kids who need medical marijuana. Abortion is what I care about because it gets me votes!@


Don't pretend you guys like children. Stop it, please. You like voters. If the kids are in the minority and their parents are not part of a "block" they do not matter.

Chris
11-06-2013, 08:31 AM
The OP is correct, those who are pro-choice tend to be pro-choice on one issue only. They tend to be strongly pro-government statists, which is anti-choice.

kilgram
11-06-2013, 08:33 AM
Yes, more is better. More is better. Some people, some "progressives" only want you to have the choice of abortion. They are fine with killing 4 year olds from seizures just to stand with the president with medical marijuana.
You already know my position. For that I didn't understand why you asked me that.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:35 AM
You already know my position. For that I didn't understand that you asked me that.
kilgram

can you legitimately call yourself "pro choice" if the only choice you want people to have is abortion? Shouldn't your street cred also include the right to medical marijuana, the right to put into your body what you want, etc?

jillian
11-06-2013, 08:36 AM
Well that's what you guy says, @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294). Fuck those kids who need medical marijuana. Abortion is what I care about because it gets me votes!@


Don't pretend you guys like children. Stop it, please. You like voters. If the kids are in the minority and their parents are not part of a "block" they do not matter.


riiiiiiiiiight… you should have the "choice" of enslaving people, screwing over workers, discriminating against women, blacks and latinos….

it's ok for the cops to break into your house and arrest you for whatever sex act you might be involved in that some wacko doesn't like….

but as long as the militias are happy….

kilgram
11-06-2013, 08:47 AM
@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)

can you legitimately call yourself "pro choice" if the only choice you want people to have is abortion? Shouldn't your street cred also include the right to medical marijuana, the right to put into your body what you want, etc?
??? What are you saying?

I thought that you knew me better. I feel deceived. I defend the right to choice. You know that I will fight for the marijuana and whatever is needed. By the way, I am Spanish, we already have medical marijuana, I don't need to fight for this. We can use marijuana and cultivate it for personal uses and obviously medical, too. We have doctors that prescribe it.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:47 AM
riiiiiiiiiight… you should have the "choice" of enslaving people, screwing over workers, discriminating against women, blacks and latinos….

I do? Puh-lease Jillian, I'm not your weak ass punk typical conservative bitch who is bitching about entitlements. I can make my argument and don't have to use Democratic talking points before running off and hiding.

It's like you guys run in throw out 20 nonconstructive flames and run away.

I am not for discrimination. I am antidiscrimination. I think people who won't hire gays and blacks are assholes. I'm for open borders.

But that's off topic.




it's ok for the cops to break into your house and arrest you for whatever sex act you might be involved in that some wacko doesn't like….


LOL, quit being dishonest. I never argued for that. Now you're just being sloppy.



but as long as the militias are happy….

LOL.

@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

I expect more from you based on what we do. Bring it, or just go to another thread. This is a black mark on what you can do.

Green Arrow
11-06-2013, 08:48 AM
Pro-choicers are like pro-lifers. Dishonest as hell. Pro-choicers are not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. They still oppose lots of choices, like where you want to school your children and what substances you want to put in your body. Pro-lifers are really just anti-abortion, they are not pro-life. They still support war, assassination, the death penalty, etc.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 08:48 AM
??? What are you saying?

I thought that you knew me better. I feel deceived. I defend the right to choice. You know that I will fight for the marijuana and whatever is needed. By the way, I am Spanish, we already have medical marijuana, I don't need to fight for this. We can use marijuana and cultivate it for personal uses.

Right on kilgram, right on.

kilgram
11-06-2013, 08:55 AM
Right on @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867), right on.
So yes, I am pro-choice. We agree in many points, and this we agree, medical marijuana also it is needed, but also it is abortion, and any other method that now I can think about that does not violate any human rights or freedom of people.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 09:00 AM
So yes, I am pro-choice. We agree in many points, and this we agree, medical marijuana also it is needed, but also it is abortion, and any other method that now I can think about that does not violate any human rights or freedom of people.

And you know me and have known me for a long time now--over a year. Have I ever stated that I want government intervention in abortion?

I don't have to like something to think the government has no business in it.

Chris
11-06-2013, 09:11 AM
riiiiiiiiiight… you should have the "choice" of enslaving people, screwing over workers, discriminating against women, blacks and latinos….

it's ok for the cops to break into your house and arrest you for whatever sex act you might be involved in that some wacko doesn't like….

but as long as the militias are happy….


No, all those things intrude upon choice. They're all examples of the state violating rights of those it ought to serve, the state you support in a partisan manner.

Chris
11-06-2013, 09:13 AM
??? What are you saying?

I thought that you knew me better. I feel deceived. I defend the right to choice. You know that I will fight for the marijuana and whatever is needed. By the way, I am Spanish, we already have medical marijuana, I don't need to fight for this. We can use marijuana and cultivate it for personal uses and obviously medical, too. We have doctors that prescribe it.

As a socialist will you fight for my right to private property?

kilgram
11-06-2013, 09:19 AM
And you know me and have known me for a long time now--over a year. Have I ever stated that I want government intervention in abortion?

I don't have to like something to think the government has no business in it.
You know my position. We live in an authoritarian system where the government is the one that give and remove the rights.

When we change the system, we will be able to fight for other things, but while the government legislates, it is the government who must say if there is abortion or not.

When we take down the government, we will be able to considerate other possibilities.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 09:37 AM
And you know me and have known me for a long time now--over a year. Have I ever stated that I want government intervention in abortion?

I don't have to like something to think the government has no business in it.
Did you not previously say that states should regulate abortion? That is advocating government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 10:28 AM
A little commentary on the options presented-



1. We have the choice to not have sex,

The most superior option, the safest and most effective route. I have not seen a superior alternative.



2. We have the choice to take birth control,

Sometimes fallible, and if the only method used can lead to promiscuity and STD spread. And the endocrine system response is somewhat iffy depending on the female. Use with caution.



3 We have the choice to pull out,

There is a title for people who use this method, the are called parents.



4. We have the choice to wear condoms,

Yes. But it does take the fun out of it. Although it does provide excellent STD protection, it does encourage promiscuity.



5. We have the choice to use an IED

Use with caution, I have heard of some women being rendered infertile even when it is removed, or having great difficulties conceiving after its removal. Also, it is costly and requires a third party to install the hardware.



6. We have the choice to put in Ensure

Well, its Essure, but whatever. Plugs the fallopian tubes. If no eggs can be released, no fertilization can occur. Little known fact is that eggs released also have valuable endocrine functions. Use with caution. Consult an endocrinologist regarding potential need for hormone therapy. That monthly cycle is actually good for you - however inconvenient.



7. We have the choice to a tubal ligation

Same concerns as #6. Just make sure you wait a month too...


8. We can have anal sex.

Three things:

1. Ewww....poopy sex = yuck.
2. You can still get pregnant via semen dripping out of anus and coming into contact with vaginal opening - they are determined swimmers.
3. Potential health problems with colon and highly increased chance of catching STD's using this method if you're going bareback due to lack of natural lubrication. Microtears occur in both the penis and colon wall making for a perfect scenario for infection to occur.


9. We can have oral sex

Not advised, due to STD spread. And increase chances of throat cancer.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261453.php

Not to mention it is selfish at its core and demeaning to the giving party involved.


10. We can use spermicidal foam and sponge

Eh...depends on the vagina, some girls develop heinous rashes from them. And they aren't fool proof.



12. We can use implants

Effective, but I don't know anything about long term side effects.

Overall best method?

Wait until married, than do so responsibly. Having sex and not being prepared for children is a foolish mistake on both parties.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 10:34 AM
Did you not previously say that states should regulate abortion? That is advocating government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.
Ravi

no. I never did.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 10:35 AM
@Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)

no. I never did.My bad. I must have mixed you up with someone else.

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 10:36 AM
My bad. I must have mixed you up with someone else.

Nah. I think you were just lying and got caught red handed. Your history works against you bub.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 10:36 AM
Nah. I think you were just lying and got caught red handed. Your history works against you bub.

Jeesh, talk about not accepting an apology. LMAO

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 10:37 AM
My bad. I must have mixed you up with someone else.

Yes. You ought to control your desire to place people into artificially made constructs.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 10:38 AM
Jeesh, talk about not accepting an apology. LMAO

It happens too often. It's hard to take your apologies seriously.

Chris
11-06-2013, 10:39 AM
My bad. I must have mixed you up with someone else.

Perhaps you confused Alyosha with yourself? You support the Roe v Wade decision to regulate abortion, don't you? Or am I confusing you with jillian?

Ravi
11-06-2013, 10:40 AM
Yes. You ought to control your desire to place people into artificially made constructs.

I found what I was remembering. You said:


His stance on abortion is consistent, allowing states and doctors make those decisions.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17157-Daily-Beast-Rand-Paul-most-liberal-man-in-Congress-right-now?highlight=state+abortion

So you must believe that a libertarian thinks the state can regulate abortion.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 10:42 AM
I found what I was remembering. You said:


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17157-Daily-Beast-Rand-Paul-most-liberal-man-in-Congress-right-now?highlight=state+abortion

So you must believe that a libertarian thinks the state can regulate abortion.

Where did I say that I felt that way? I can explain why others feel that they believe x,y,z without also believing them. Can't you?

I have always said 100% of the time that I personally do not feel government should even know abortions take place. Show me where I said that governments should be involved in abortion and I'll show you a unicorn that shits gold bricks. Ravi

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 10:44 AM
Jeesh, talk about not accepting an apology. LMAO

Well when you have a reputation for lying, why should one believe you? On anything?

Why would apology be exempt?

That 'cry wolf!' parable exists for a reason Ravi.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 10:46 AM
Where did I say that I felt that way? I can explain why others feel that they believe x,y,z without also believing them. Can't you?

I have always said 100% of the time that I personally do not feel government should even know abortions take place. Show me where I said that governments should be involved in abortion and I'll show you a unicorn that shits gold bricks. @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)

You said it was a consistent view for a libertarian or liberal. You didn't disagree with it. You said it was consistent.

It is nothing of the sort.

Then you went on to say that you libertarians are logically consistent.

Hysterical.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 10:49 AM
You said it was a consistent view for a libertarian or liberal. You didn't disagree with it. You said it was consistent.

It is nothing of the sort.

Then you went on to say that you libertarians are logically consistent.

Hysterical.

:facepalm:

Except it's really not funny.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 10:50 AM
Ravi

You said something stupid here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18367-Now-Now-Juan?p=414687&viewfull=1#post414687

And then you ran away. Do that more often.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 10:56 AM
@Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)

You said something stupid here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18367-Now-Now-Juan?p=414687&viewfull=1#post414687

And then you ran away. Do that more often.
I didn't engage with your racialist circle jerk. I understand how deeply in the grip of confirmation bias you really are. Willow kind of surprised me, though.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 10:59 AM
I didn't engage with your racialist circle jerk. I understand how deeply in the grip of confirmation bias you really are. Willow kind of surprised me, though.

You don't appear to understand what racialist means. In any case, try and do that more often. When you make a foolish comment don't try to defend it. It only makes matters worse.

Chris
11-06-2013, 10:59 AM
You said it was a consistent view for a libertarian or liberal. You didn't disagree with it. You said it was consistent.

It is nothing of the sort.

Then you went on to say that you libertarians are logically consistent.

Hysterical.

Is English not your native tongue? Sure doesn't seem like it when you twist and stretch "His stance on abortion is consistent," a comment on his being consistent over time on his view, to a generalization about libertarians and even agreement with it. This sort of twisting and stretching of other's words is intellectually dishonest.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 11:49 AM
You said it was a consistent view for a libertarian or liberal. You didn't disagree with it. You said it was consistent.

It is nothing of the sort.

Then you went on to say that you libertarians are logically consistent.

Hysterical.
Ravi

I am a "l" libertarian and a voluntarist. I am a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. I am a libertiarn and an anarcho-capitalist and a communitarian. Basically I am 100% freedom for everything.

There are Libertarians and libertarians. There are libertarian leaning people.

I chose the most logically consistent view which is: no government, no cry.

That is my preference because I am a voluntarist part of the libertarian faction. However, I live in a state. There is no place of "nonstate". Ergo I am forced by you guys to participate. If I choose not to I will be arrested for tax evasion or whatever other law you deem I break, therefore I am limited by the monopoly force of law in what I can espouse.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 11:50 AM
Is English not your native tongue? Sure doesn't seem like it when you twist and stretch "His stance on abortion is consistent," a comment on his being consistent over time on his view, to a generalization about libertarians and even agreement with it. This sort of twisting and stretching of other's words is intellectually dishonest.

Ravi is just butthurt because I harass her about her own hypocrisy, double standards, and lack of links to sources.

junie
11-06-2013, 12:22 PM
'pro-choice' is merely a political term for those who support the SCOTUS ruling which protects reproductive privacy from state intrusion.

no has ever voted 'for' abortion...speaking of myths...





Abortion is not something you can spontaneously will to happen. It is a medical procedure.

If you were alone with your mate on a deserted island you would have all the freedom to have an abortion, but no capability to have an abortion.



:rollseyes: not exactly...




" Abortion was recorded in 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt, recorded in what is called the Ebers Papyrus (note 2 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)) and in ancient China about 500 B.C.E. as well (note 3 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).

In China, folklore dates the use of mercury to induce abortions to about 5,000 years ago (note 4 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Of course, mercury is extremely toxic.


Hippocrates also offered abortion to his patients despite being opposed to pessaries and potions which he considered too dangerous. He is recorded as having instructed a prostitute to induce abortion by jumping up and down. This is certainly safer than some other methods, but rather ineffective. It is also believed that he used dilation and curettage to induce abortions as well (note 5 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Abortion opponents often use the Hippocratic Oath of physicians as an argument against abortion per se, but the opposition had only to do with patient safety.



Herbal methods were likely more common and many of the traditional herbs and mixtures are in use even today. Pennyroyal dates at least to the 1200’s when manuscripts show herbalists preparing it (note 6), but the oil is extremely dangerous and modern herbalists avoid it. Deaths from its use were recorded in the US in the 1990's.



A medieval herbal reference called De Viribus Herbarum referred to herbs to induce abortions even earlier in the 11th century. Pennyroyal was among the herbs mentioned but so were catnip, rue. Sage, savory, cypress, and hellebore (note 6 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Some of the drugs are listed as emmagogues rather that explicitly as abortifacents, but since the most common cause of a late menstrual period is pregnancy, there is little doubt why they were prescribed and used. Hildegard of Bingen (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hildegardbingen/a/hildegard.htm) mentions the use of tansy to bring on menstruation.
Some herbs have been mentioned for centuries. One is a plant called the worm fern whose root is used to cause an abortion. It is telling that it was also known as "prostitute’s root" historically. Also used in the same area of Europe were thyme, parsley, lavender, and savin juniper. Even concoctions of camel saliva and deer hair were used (note 7 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).



The right of women to seek abortions was not restricted in many places until fairly recently, with most restrictions being related to the time of "quickening" or fetal movement. Even Plato proclaimed the right of women to seek early terminations of pregnancies in "Theaetetus", but specifically he spoke of the right of midwives to offer the procedure. In early times, most pregnancies were not managed by doctors so it was logical that abortion be provided by midwives and herbalists.



Other measures to induce abortions have included iron sulfates and chlorides, hyssop, dittany, opium, madder in beer, watercress seeds and even crushed ants. Probably the herbs most commonly mentioned were tansy and pennyroyal. We know that tansy was used from at least the Middle Ages. One of the most brutal methods was practiced in the Orient in ancient times by violently kneading or beating the abdomen to cause abortion, a procedure with great peril to the woman who used it. Even in the 20th century, women were still trying Hippocrates’ jumping up and down method, likely with as little success as their ancient sisters (note 8 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).



Wise women have found and used herbs and other preparations to manage their fertility for generations. Some concoctions were contraceptive in nature and others were abortifacients or designated emmagogues. The latter are now believed to have worked to prevent implantation, a sort of ancient morning after pill. What we know for sure is that in the past as well as now women have found ways to manage unwanted pregnancies. "


http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm

Chris
11-06-2013, 12:23 PM
Ravi is just butthurt because I harass her about her own hypocrisy, double standards, and lack of links to sources.

Eh, that's just ravi, every response snarky and snooty.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 12:28 PM
'pro-choice' is merely a political term for those who support the SCOTUS ruling which protects reproductive privacy from state intrusion.

Right. It is not a real term by any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds good.




no has ever voted 'for' abortion...speaking of myths...


Really? Prove that "no one" has ever voted "for" abortion. No one is a lot of people, Junie. I'll expect you back in a few weeks.






:rollseyes: not exactly...



Yes, exactly. You can't "will" an abortion. You can have a miscarriage. Only a progressive would say they are the same.





" Abortion was recorded in 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt, recorded in what is called the Ebers Papyrus (note 2 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)) and in ancient China about 500 B.C.E. as well (note 3 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).

In China, folklore dates the use of mercury to induce abortions to about 5,000 years ago (note 4 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Of course, mercury is extremely toxic.


Hippocrates also offered abortion to his patients despite being opposed to pessaries and potions which he considered too dangerous. He is recorded as having instructed a prostitute to induce abortion by jumping up and down. This is certainly safer than some other methods, but rather ineffective. It is also believed that he used dilation and curettage to induce abortions as well (note 5 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Abortion opponents often use the Hippocratic Oath of physicians as an argument against abortion per se, but the opposition had only to do with patient safety.



Herbal methods were likely more common and many of the traditional herbs and mixtures are in use even today. Pennyroyal dates at least to the 1200’s when manuscripts show herbalists preparing it (note 6), but the oil is extremely dangerous and modern herbalists avoid it. Deaths from its use were recorded in the US in the 1990's.



A medieval herbal reference called De Viribus Herbarum referred to herbs to induce abortions even earlier in the 11th century. Pennyroyal was among the herbs mentioned but so were catnip, rue. Sage, savory, cypress, and hellebore (note 6 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Some of the drugs are listed as emmagogues rather that explicitly as abortifacents, but since the most common cause of a late menstrual period is pregnancy, there is little doubt why they were prescribed and used. Hildegard of Bingen (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hildegardbingen/a/hildegard.htm) mentions the use of tansy to bring on menstruation.
Some herbs have been mentioned for centuries. One is a plant called the worm fern whose root is used to cause an abortion. It is telling that it was also known as "prostitute’s root" historically. Also used in the same area of Europe were thyme, parsley, lavender, and savin juniper. Even concoctions of camel saliva and deer hair were used (note 7 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).



The right of women to seek abortions was not restricted in many places until fairly recently, with most restrictions being related to the time of "quickening" or fetal movement. Even Plato proclaimed the right of women to seek early terminations of pregnancies in "Theaetetus", but specifically he spoke of the right of midwives to offer the procedure. In early times, most pregnancies were not managed by doctors so it was logical that abortion be provided by midwives and herbalists.



Other measures to induce abortions have included iron sulfates and chlorides, hyssop, dittany, opium, madder in beer, watercress seeds and even crushed ants. Probably the herbs most commonly mentioned were tansy and pennyroyal. We know that tansy was used from at least the Middle Ages. One of the most brutal methods was practiced in the Orient in ancient times by violently kneading or beating the abdomen to cause abortion, a procedure with great peril to the woman who used it. Even in the 20th century, women were still trying Hippocrates’ jumping up and down method, likely with as little success as their ancient sisters (note 8 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).



Wise women have found and used herbs and other preparations to manage their fertility for generations. Some concoctions were contraceptive in nature and others were abortifacients or designated emmagogues. The latter are now believed to have worked to prevent implantation, a sort of ancient morning after pill. What we know for sure is that in the past as well as now women have found ways to manage unwanted pregnancies. "


http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm


Proving my point that it is a medical procedure. Thanks junie :)

Chris
11-06-2013, 12:28 PM
'pro-choice' is merely a political term for those who support the SCOTUS ruling which protects reproductive privacy from state intrusion.

no has ever voted 'for' abortion or 'for' choice...speaking of myths...





:rollseyes: not exactly...




" Abortion was recorded in 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt, recorded in what is called the Ebers Papyrus (note 2 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)) and in ancient China about 500 B.C.E. as well (note 3 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).

In China, folklore dates the use of mercury to induce abortions to about 5,000 years ago (note 4 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Of course, mercury is extremely toxic.


Hippocrates also offered abortion to his patients despite being opposed to pessaries and potions which he considered too dangerous. He is recorded as having instructed a prostitute to induce abortion by jumping up and down. This is certainly safer than some other methods, but rather ineffective. It is also believed that he used dilation and curettage to induce abortions as well (note 5 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Abortion opponents often use the Hippocratic Oath of physicians as an argument against abortion per se, but the opposition had only to do with patient safety.



Herbal methods were likely more common and many of the traditional herbs and mixtures are in use even today. Pennyroyal dates at least to the 1200’s when manuscripts show herbalists preparing it (note 6), but the oil is extremely dangerous and modern herbalists avoid it. Deaths from its use were recorded in the US in the 1990's.



A medieval herbal reference called De Viribus Herbarum referred to herbs to induce abortions even earlier in the 11th century. Pennyroyal was among the herbs mentioned but so were catnip, rue. Sage, savory, cypress, and hellebore (note 6 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)). Some of the drugs are listed as emmagogues rather that explicitly as abortifacents, but since the most common cause of a late menstrual period is pregnancy, there is little doubt why they were prescribed and used. Hildegard of Bingen (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hildegardbingen/a/hildegard.htm) mentions the use of tansy to bring on menstruation.
Some herbs have been mentioned for centuries. One is a plant called the worm fern whose root is used to cause an abortion. It is telling that it was also known as "prostitute’s root" historically. Also used in the same area of Europe were thyme, parsley, lavender, and savin juniper. Even concoctions of camel saliva and deer hair were used (note 7 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).



The right of women to seek abortions was not restricted in many places until fairly recently, with most restrictions being related to the time of "quickening" or fetal movement. Even Plato proclaimed the right of women to seek early terminations of pregnancies in "Theaetetus", but specifically he spoke of the right of midwives to offer the procedure. In early times, most pregnancies were not managed by doctors so it was logical that abortion be provided by midwives and herbalists.



Other measures to induce abortions have included iron sulfates and chlorides, hyssop, dittany, opium, madder in beer, watercress seeds and even crushed ants. Probably the herbs most commonly mentioned were tansy and pennyroyal. We know that tansy was used from at least the Middle Ages. One of the most brutal methods was practiced in the Orient in ancient times by violently kneading or beating the abdomen to cause abortion, a procedure with great peril to the woman who used it. Even in the 20th century, women were still trying Hippocrates’ jumping up and down method, likely with as little success as their ancient sisters (note 8 (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion_2.htm)).



Wise women have found and used herbs and other preparations to manage their fertility for generations. Some concoctions were contraceptive in nature and others were abortifacients or designated emmagogues. The latter are now believed to have worked to prevent implantation, a sort of ancient morning after pill. What we know for sure is that in the past as well as now women have found ways to manage unwanted pregnancies. "


http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm





And this is just junie, irrelevant and fancy pasty posts.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 12:33 PM
And this is just junie, irrelevant and fancy pasty posts.

Well, I have to thank her for proving my point that you cannot will an abortion to happen and I'm sure anti-abortion types can prove that women don't need back alley's now they can just go on "about dot com".

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 12:39 PM
Well, I have to thank her for proving my point that you cannot will an abortion to happen and I'm sure anti-abortion types can prove that women don't need back alley's now they can just go on "about dot com".

Well it depends on what people classify a 'need'. The pro-choice camp 'needs' it because it is one hell of an inconvenience to their daily schedule. Where as a pro-life bubba might say that the child is already dead in the womb, so a D&C is needed to prevent septic shock.

I understand both points of view. Just one of them is full of shit and the other being legit.

I made a rhyme.

junie
11-06-2013, 12:45 PM
Right. It is not a real term by any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds good.



Really? Prove that "no one" has ever voted "for" abortion. No one is a lot of people, Junie. I'll expect you back in a few weeks.



Yes, exactly. You can't "will" an abortion. You can have a miscarriage. Only a progressive would say they are the same.




Proving my point that it is a medical procedure. Thanks @junie (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=699) :)



yes it is a private medical decision..lol that you thought it had to be 'proven' :laugh:

terminating a pregnancy is a private choice which self righteous moralists keep trying to manipulate voters with dishonest rhetoric...

dishonest just like your dishonest claim above that some progressives are just fine with killing kids? "They are fine with killing 4 year olds from seizures"

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 12:49 PM
yes it is a private medical decision..lol that you thought it had to be 'proven' :laugh:

terminating a pregnancy is a private choice which self righteous moralists keep trying to manipulate voters with dishonest rhetoric...

dishonest just like your dishonest claim above that some progressives are just fine with killing kids? "They are fine with killing 4 year olds from seizures"

The laws existing are doing just that, killing people by barring them from alternative treatments that may otherwise save them.

This isn't anything new.

Example: Spinal fusion for some back operations is the 'gold standard' for the US. Where in some situations of a slipped disc they can simply put in a prosthetic without the need of losing mobility. US doesn't like the prosthetic, despite it being a superior option. It is illegal to do multiple prosthetic discs in the spine due to regulations, yet they are fine with an inferior treatment which has proven data saying they will be back in the operating room for another surgery - and top it off with loss of spinal mobility.

Seriously, you put too much faith in the government making wise decisions.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 12:55 PM
@Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)

I am a "l" libertarian and a voluntarist. I am a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. I am a libertiarn and an anarcho-capitalist and a communitarian. Basically I am 100% freedom for everything.

There are Libertarians and libertarians. There are libertarian leaning people.

I chose the most logically consistent view which is: no government, no cry.

That is my preference because I am a voluntarist part of the libertarian faction. However, I live in a state. There is no place of "nonstate". Ergo I am forced by you guys to participate. If I choose not to I will be arrested for tax evasion or whatever other law you deem I break, therefore I am limited by the monopoly force of law in what I can espouse.

Okay, I'll accept that explanation. It never makes sense to me when people are okay with a state doing something they wouldn't approve of the fed doing.

btw, you aren't forced to participate. Didn't you voluntarily become an American?

Ravi
11-06-2013, 12:56 PM
Ravi is just butthurt because I harass her about her own hypocrisy, double standards, and lack of links to sources.
heh, the next time I'm butthurt will be the first time.

Codename Section
11-06-2013, 12:56 PM
yes it is a private medical decision..lol that you thought it had to be 'proven' :laugh:

terminating a pregnancy is a private choice which self righteous moralists keep trying to manipulate voters with dishonest rhetoric...

dishonest just like your dishonest claim above that some progressives are just fine with killing kids? "They are fine with killing 4 year olds from seizures"

You really should try to argue with someone else. She's just going to come back and make you look even more stupid.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 12:56 PM
Eh, that's just ravi, every response snarky and snooty.
Poor chrissie.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 12:58 PM
Okay, I'll accept that explanation. It never makes sense to me when people are okay with a state doing something they wouldn't approve of the fed doing.

btw, you aren't forced to participate. Didn't you voluntarily become an American?


I said:


There is no place of "nonstate". Ergo I am forced by you guys to participate. If I choose not to I will be arrested for tax evasion or whatever other law you deem I break, therefore I am limited by the monopoly force of law in what I can espouse.

The entire world is "taken". I assure you that if a patch of land opens up where there is no state I will be on it.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 12:59 PM
You really should try to argue with someone else. She's just going to come back and make you look even more stupid.
She hasn't made her look stupid. Posting, "they are fine with killing 4 years from seizures" is nothing more than a dishonest emotional appeal. Ungrammatical to boot.

KC
11-06-2013, 01:00 PM
Poor chrissie.

Case in point.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 01:00 PM
Okay, I'll accept that explanation. It never makes sense to me when people are okay with a state doing something they wouldn't approve of the fed doing.

btw, you aren't forced to participate. Didn't you voluntarily become an American?

Because states are a lot closer to the people than a remote federal government. I often hear libertarians say let local communities and states decide. You would too if you paid any attention.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:00 PM
I said:



The entire world is "taken". I assure you that if a patch of land opens up where there is no state I will be on it.
Check out Somalia. I hear they have cool pirates.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 01:01 PM
Check out Somalia. I hear they have cool pirates.

She has already lived in Detroit. I'm sure she has had enough by now.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:01 PM
Because states are a lot closer to the people than a remote federal government. I often hear libertarians say let local communities and states decide. You would too if you paid any attention.
I often hear them say that, too. But it is still hypocritical. No state should curtail someone's rights, nor should society as a whole, nor should voters. Our rights are guaranteed by the US constitution.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:02 PM
Case in point.Really, KC? Every single one of my posts are snarky or snooty?

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:02 PM
Poor chrissie.

Poor raving, your snarkiness and snootiness don't hurt me. They butthurt you. Stop hoisting your own petard.

jillian
11-06-2013, 01:03 PM
Really, KC? Every single one of my posts are snarky or snooty?

apparently, if we respond to rightwing insults, we are snarky, snooty and, oh yeah, trolls, to some people.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:04 PM
yes it is a private medical decision..lol that you thought it had to be 'proven' :laugh:

You're either stupid or pretending that I was responding to anything other than this statement you made:


no has ever voted 'for' abortion...speaking of myths...

Prove no one has voted for abortion and quit deflecting.




terminating a pregnancy is a private choice which self righteous moralists keep trying to manipulate voters with dishonest rhetoric...

Terminating a pregnancy is a medical procedure. I said this in the beginning. Catch up.




dishonest just like your dishonest claim above that some progressives are just fine with killing kids? "They are fine with killing 4 year olds from seizures"

I'm just using progressive logic. If you're against abortion, you're for killing women in back alleys. If you don't vote for a candidate they call "pro choice" you want to see women die like it's the 1908 Industrial Age.

Ergo, if you don't vote for a candidate who wants to repeal drug laws you want kids to die. See how that type of bullshit rhetoric works?

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 01:04 PM
apparently, if we respond to rightwing insults, we are snarky, snooty and, oh yeah, trolls, to some people.

Well, it goes both ways. That is why insulting people is lame. It derails the thread's original purpose.

KC
11-06-2013, 01:04 PM
apparently, if we respond to rightwing insults, we are snarky, snooty and, oh yeah, trolls, to some people.

And also, if you are respectful to begin with you wouldn't invite such comments.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:04 PM
Really, KC? Every single one of my posts are snarky or snooty?

Yes.

jillian
11-06-2013, 01:05 PM
Well, it goes both ways. That is why insulting people is lame. It derails the thread's original purpose.

so stop doing it. i support you in that endeavor.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:06 PM
I often hear them say that, too. But it is still hypocritical. No state should curtail someone's rights, nor should society as a whole, nor should voters. Our rights are guaranteed by the US constitution.

You have rights even if the constitution does not exist. You have natural rights. Government only gives you property. It does not give you rights.

You have a right to seek a medical procedure or service by right of Nature. You have no government right. Government rights only support privacy as it is interpreted by that age.

Your "right" to terminate a pregnancy would exist without government.

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 01:07 PM
so stop doing it. i support you in that endeavor.

I suppose I should say "Lead by example." I usually don't go unhinged and degrade people. Very few times in all my forum history have I done that. Because it doesn't work.

junie
11-06-2013, 01:10 PM
Did you not previously say that states should regulate abortion? That is advocating government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.


@Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)

no. I never did.


My bad. I must have mixed you up with someone else.


I found what I was remembering. You said:


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17157-Daily-Beast-Rand-Paul-most-liberal-man-in-Congress-right-now?highlight=state+abortion

So you must believe that a libertarian thinks the state can regulate abortion.




several people in this thread have 'snarked' at ravi over this simple question/exchange. ^

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:14 PM
several people in this thread have 'snarked' at ravi over this simple question/exchange. ^

Yes, because Ravi asks questions in a gotcha game with every poster besides the two in her circle. She doesn't ask because she's curious. She doesn't lay bear her own heart. She rarely puts her own position out.

She's like a terrier in the apartment next door. Annoying prattle, no substance.

Why I prefer @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) even though she is harder on me than Ravi is because she will have this thing called "dialogue". I even adore exotix when no one else does because, again, he throws that shit out and sets it off.

I respect @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) and @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) because they make a point and will listen to yours (thanks btw)

And I like @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) because he just drops pro-Obama stuff but doesn't make anything personal.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:15 PM
apparently, if we respond to rightwing insults, we are snarky, snooty and, oh yeah, trolls, to some people.

Yeah. I noticed that.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:16 PM
And also, if you are respectful to begin with you wouldn't invite such comments.

You weren't being respectful though, were you? You ignored Chris's snarky and untrue insult and jumped on his bandwagon of bashing me.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:17 PM
You have rights even if the constitution does not exist. You have natural rights. Government only gives you property. It does not give you rights.

You have a right to seek a medical procedure or service by right of Nature. You have no government right. Government rights only support privacy as it is interpreted by that age.

Your "right" to terminate a pregnancy would exist without government.
None of that means that the constitution doesn't guarantee our rights.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:17 PM
Ravi everyone's sorry.

...back on topic

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:19 PM
None of that means that the constitution doesn't guarantee our rights.

The Constitution is a sheet of paper. It doesn't guarantee your rights. The Bill of Rights places prohibitions on government that the government steps across in collusive 3 body efforts. If the constitution guaranteed those rights the government couldn't do that.

exotix
11-06-2013, 01:19 PM
I'm not see'ng the big deal here ... teavangelist males have taken it upon themselves to tell women what they can do with thier wombs ... because God only seems to talk to nutcases.

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:20 PM
apparently, if we respond to rightwing insults, we are snarky, snooty and, oh yeah, trolls, to some people.



No, you're posts are just snarky and snooty. Doesn't matter if your responding to perceived insults or not. I find it interesting that you say "we" when the comment was for ravi's posts. But if you want to associate yourself with that, I'm OK with it.

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 01:21 PM
None of that means that the constitution doesn't guarantee our rights.

It is a lousy guarantee then. It lists them somewhat. But I wouldn't say it is a guarantee with the Utah Datacenter being operational, stop and frisks, and the other numerous civil rights violations that occur daily nationwide.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:21 PM
It is a lousy guarantee then. It lists them somewhat. But I wouldn't say it is a guarantee with the Utah Datacenter being operational, stop and frisks, and the other numerous civil rights violations that occur daily nationwide.

Thank you.

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:22 PM
I'm not see'ng the big deal here ... teavangelist males have taken it upon themselves to tell women what they can do with thier wombs ... because God only seems to talk to nutcases.



Well, there you go then, another example of anti-choice.

jillian
11-06-2013, 01:22 PM
Yes, because Ravi asks questions in a gotcha game with every poster besides the two in her circle. She doesn't ask because she's curious. She doesn't lay bear her own heart. She rarely puts her own position out.

She's like a terrier in the apartment next door. Annoying prattle, no substance.

Why I prefer @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) even though she is harder on me than Ravi is because she will have this thing called "dialogue". I even adore @exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516) when no one else does because, again, he throws that shit out and sets it off.

I respect @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) and @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) because they make a point and will listen to yours (thanks btw)

And I like @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) because he just drops pro-Obama stuff but doesn't make anything personal.

and i think you'd do well to START dialoguing with her and not allow the fact that she's constantly trolled by certain people, and responds to them accordingly, influence you.

i don't like being talked to condescendingly either. and people who do, get what they deserve in response. you aren't different in that regard. and if you went out for a drink with her, you and ravi would have a blast, too.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:24 PM
It is a lousy guarantee then. It lists them somewhat. But I wouldn't say it is a guarantee with the Utah Datacenter being operational, stop and frisks, and the other numerous civil rights violations that occur daily nationwide.
You get the government you vote for. The Patriot Act was a huge mistake and every single president going forward will make it worse.

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:24 PM
and i think you'd do well to START dialoguing with her and not allow the fact that she's constantly trolled by certain people, and responds to them accordingly, influence you.

i don't like being talked to condescendingly either. and people who do, get what they deserve in response. you aren't different in that regard. and if you went out for a drink with her, you and ravi would have a blast, too.


Your problem is you can't stand being disagreed with and you take that as insulting and condescending to justify your snarkiness. Learn to deal with disagreement without being so disagreeable.

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:25 PM
You weren't being respectful though, were you? You ignored Chris's snarky and untrue insult and jumped on his bandwagon of bashing me.

Poor ravi.

KC
11-06-2013, 01:25 PM
You weren't being respectful though, were you? You ignored Chris's snarky and untrue insult and jumped on his bandwagon of bashing me.

I fail to see how Chris' pointing out your snarky posting style is "bashing" you. It gets tiring, reading it in every single thread.

Remember, respect is something one must earn, and the best way you can earn my respect is by being respectful to others, even if its "nutters" or whatever you prefer to call disrespectfully call anyone who disagrees with you.

exotix
11-06-2013, 01:26 PM
Well, there you go then, another example of anti-choice.
Good luck convincing me that conservatives peering into your bedroom to make sure you're procreating like good christians and not like rabid fornicating Liberal wild-beasts is good small-govt. conservatism.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:26 PM
I fail to see how Chris' pointing out your snarky posting style is "bashing" you. It gets tiring, reading it in every single thread.

Remember, respect is something one must earn, and the best way you can earn my respect is by being respectful to others, even if its "nutters" or whatever you prefer to call disrespectfully call anyone who disagrees with you.

:rolleyes:

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:27 PM
None of that means that the constitution doesn't guarantee our rights.

That's backwards. The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It prohibits government from violating them. The rights pre-exist government, it was by rights government was created.

Chris
11-06-2013, 01:28 PM
Good luck convincing me that conservatives peering into your bedroom to make sure you're procreating like good christians and not like rabid fornicating Liberal wild-beasts is good small-govt. conservatism.



I don't see social cons as conservative. There every bit as much statists as liberals are. They don't promote conserving rights or small government.

Cigar
11-06-2013, 01:28 PM
That's backwards. The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It prohibits government from violating them. The rights pre-exist government, it was by rights government was created.

Many so-called "Rights" came well after Government, and many more are still to come. :wink:

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:28 PM
I'm not see'ng the big deal here ... teavangelist males have taken it upon themselves to tell women what they can do with thier wombs ... because God only seems to talk to nutcases.

We're talking high philosophy here about logical consistency. Wait. It's you. Carry on.

Alyosha
11-06-2013, 01:29 PM
Many so-called "Rights" came well after Government, and many more are still to come. :wink:

You had all rights without government. Government only constrains rights.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:31 PM
That's backwards. The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It prohibits government from violating them. The rights pre-exist government, it was by rights government was created.Once again, it amounts to the same thing. If the constitution wasn't needed, it wouldn't have been written.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:32 PM
Many so-called "Rights" came well after Government, and many more are still to come. :wink:

Yep. Like you and I being "allowed" to vote.

jillian
11-06-2013, 01:32 PM
That's backwards. The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It prohibits government from violating them. The rights pre-exist government, it was by rights government was created.

so individuals can deny people their rights? and government shouldn't defend those rights?

you want to try that again?

we're not talking about your law in the air... there is no law in the air.

GrassrootsConservative
11-06-2013, 01:36 PM
Yep. Like you and I being "allowed" to vote.

Without government there would never have been a problem. Someone had to decide that blacks and women couldn't vote. You think that person was for small government or big government? :tongue:

We're not talking quantum mechanics here, Ravi, this stuff is SIMPLE.

Ravi
11-06-2013, 01:41 PM
Without government there would never have been a problem. Someone had to decide that blacks and women couldn't vote. You think that person was for small government or big government? :tongue:

We're not talking quantum mechanics here, Ravi, this stuff is SIMPLE.
Are you an anarchist and against the constitution? Serious question.

GrassrootsConservative
11-06-2013, 01:43 PM
Are you an anarchist and against the constitution? Serious question.

No, I am a Conservative and for the Constitution.

Anarchy is a silly idea, but I'd support it over any degree of Liberalism because at least I'd be free.

Codename Section
11-06-2013, 01:44 PM
Without government there would never have been a problem. Someone had to decide that blacks and women couldn't vote. You think that person was for small government or big government? :tongue:

We're not talking quantum mechanics here, Ravi, this stuff is SIMPLE.


This^

GrassrootsConservative
11-06-2013, 01:54 PM
And why didn't you answer the question I asked you, Ravi?

Do you think the person who took away the right to vote from blacks and women was big government or small government?

Ravi
11-06-2013, 02:05 PM
And why didn't you answer the question I asked you, Ravi?

Do you think the person who took away the right to vote from blacks and women was big government or small government?Big, obviously. The founding fathers were somewhat cracked in the head.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 02:05 PM
so individuals can deny people their rights? and government shouldn't defend those rights?

you want to try that again?

we're not talking about your law in the air... there is no law in the air.

Which is why no one's rights were violated at Auschwitz...right?

KC
11-06-2013, 02:09 PM
Which is why no one's rights were violated at Auschwitz...right?

If rights are arbitrarily invented by government yes. But they aren't, rights are fundamental and natural and therefore continue to exist whether or not the state respects those rights.

GrassrootsConservative
11-06-2013, 02:16 PM
Big, obviously. The founding fathers were somewhat cracked in the head.

Ah, so you recognize that big, controlling government supporters are cracked in the head.

Any questions?

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 03:06 PM
You get the government you vote for. The Patriot Act was a huge mistake and every single president going forward will make it worse.

That is the problem with government, I didn't get to vote for it. It has never represented me. It has however been a titanic pain in my ass though.

I just got a bullshit parking ticket. So I have to go and raise hell about that now.

The citing officer won't tell me the law I broke, and refused to admit whether or not there was a contract binding me to pay it. She won't pickup the phone now. How am I supposed to contest something when they won't even answer their damn phone?

Marvelous government we have here. Charmed I'm sure.

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 03:08 PM
You had all rights without government. Government only constrains rights.

And sends you a bill for doing so. Amazing.

Chris
11-06-2013, 03:45 PM
Many so-called "Rights" came well after Government, and many more are still to come. :wink:

I like that you put those "rights" in scare quotes.

Chris
11-06-2013, 03:47 PM
Once again, it amounts to the same thing. If the constitution wasn't needed, it wouldn't have been written.


Naturalistic fallacy. Look it up. It's typical of those who argue legal positivism, to believe the law is self-justifying.

Chris
11-06-2013, 03:48 PM
Yep. Like you and I being "allowed" to vote.

Privilege, not a right.

Mister D
11-06-2013, 03:48 PM
Naturalistic fallacy. Look it up. It's typical of those who argue legal positivism, to believe the law is self-justifying.

Honestly, I'm not sure they actually believe that. They just don't understand what the advocates of natural rights are actually saying.

Chris
11-06-2013, 03:50 PM
so individuals can deny people their rights? and government shouldn't defend those rights?

you want to try that again?

we're not talking about your law in the air... there is no law in the air.



Once again, your comment has nothing to do with what I posted.

You want to try again?

What law in the air? Make sense, will ya.

Chris
11-06-2013, 03:52 PM
If rights are arbitrarily invented by government yes. But they aren't, rights are fundamental and natural and therefore continue to exist whether or not the state respects those rights.



Jillian, like Bentham, rejects natural law for artificial law--laws made in the air, lol.

Chris
11-06-2013, 04:01 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure they actually believe that. They just don't understand what the advocates of natural rights are actually saying.

True, they do not, but they also fail to distinguish natural and posited law let alone natural and civil rights. That's why they slip into arguing Constitutional rights, for them there is nothing but what the state dictates, for them there is no dignity nor sanctity of life.

Their's are, as Burke argued, abstract rights.

Green Arrow
11-06-2013, 05:59 PM
That is the problem with government, I didn't get to vote for it. It has never represented me. It has however been a titanic pain in my ass though.

I just got a bullshit parking ticket. So I have to go and raise hell about that now.

The citing officer won't tell me the law I broke, and refused to admit whether or not there was a contract binding me to pay it. She won't pickup the phone now. How am I supposed to contest something when they won't even answer their damn phone?

Marvelous government we have here. Charmed I'm sure.

My brother had his registration revoked and his license suspended by the DMV because they thought he didn't have insurance. When he showed them his insurance, they admitted they fucked up, but STILL are making him pay $1,000 to fix THEIR fuck up.

Cthulhu
11-06-2013, 06:16 PM
My brother had his registration revoked and his license suspended by the DMV because they thought he didn't have insurance. When he showed them his insurance, they admitted they fucked up, but STILL are making him pay $1,000 to fix THEIR fuck up.

They suspended my license even though I have not exceeded the dates required. Judge gave me 30 days to pay, they suspended my license anyways.

Not sure how this wierdness is going to play out. Speaking of wierdness. I have to go and pay a bill today.