2
   

Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

 
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 09:55 am
okie wrote:
Parados and Roxxxanne, just an observation here that maybe even both of you would agree with, why does almost every political debate eventually end up about abortion? Just a phenomenon that I find interesting. I will follow up on your arguments about that. Will need a little time. I do think it serves as a bellwether indicator of societal and cultural views.


This one is there because you claimed Humphrey opposed abortion in your original thesis and have been unable to support since then except through false arguments.
0 Replies
 
View Profile okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:06 am
I knew it. I predicted your post Parados. I knew you would not pass up the chance to blame that on me. I'll get back to you later.
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:06 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Love your signature, parados.

"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson

BTW parados means "for two" in Spanish. Just wondering what the signifigance of the handle is.


In greek it is the opposite of exodus, (used for entrance of the chorus in greek drama. When I first got online a number of years ago, all the names from the Greek Tragedies were taken. It just seemed apropos because it has other meanings.)


Broken into its parts: para - above or beyond, dos - Disk Operating System

In French it is the pile of earth at the back of a trench.
0 Replies
 
View Profile okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:09 am
Just to needle you a bit, Parados:
"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson

You seem pretty confident, Parados. In fact I haven't encountered anybody on this forum yet that isn't pretty convinced of their own superiority of thought.
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:10 am
okie wrote:
I knew it. I predicted your post Parados. I knew you would not pass up the chance to blame that on me. I'll get back to you later.


Reality is blame? The problem with threads on the internet okie is it is easy to check the history.

See the use of "abortion" in your very first post to start this thread.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:13 am
I saw 20 topics in the list in the thread starter. I wonder why Parados zeroed in on abortion which was pretty far down on the list? Seems it is more of a problem for Parados than it is for Okie.
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:13 am
okie wrote:
Just to needle you a bit, Parados:
"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson

You seem pretty confident, Parados. In fact I haven't encountered anybody on this forum yet that isn't pretty convinced of their own superiority of thought.


It works both ways. Tells other people they could be wrong and reminds me of the same. :wink:
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:31 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I saw 20 topics in the list in the thread starter. I wonder why Parados zeroed in on abortion which was pretty far down on the list? Seems it is more of a problem for Parados than it is for Okie.


Perhaps you need to go through the rest of the thread then Fox.

If you don't look before you leap it means you could be impaled by what is below.


I dealt with almost every point I disagreed with okie about, abortion being one of many. Okie is the one that keeps making specious claims about Humphrey's views on abortion that I have countered by pointing out they are specious. Okie started the latest discussion about abortion by making the same claim again. I responded to it and OTHER issues. Okie tended to focus on abortion

Roxxxanne is the one that brought up Roe v Wade. (Happy now okie? You aren't to "blame" after all even though Roxx was only responding to your claim about abortion by providing some history.)
0 Replies
 
View Profile okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 10:42 am
First of all, I am not a crusader on the subject of abortion. This is not my favorite topic. I remember asking a family member who was doctor when I was about 20 years old, before I was married, about it. At the time, I honestly did not know which side I came down on. He simply made the statement that a fetus was an unborn baby, he was infinitely familiar with the process of unborn children. Being anti-abortion because of religious belief was not drummed into me, but his simple comment settled the question for me. And since that time, now with children and grandchildren, there is no doubt in my mind what the proper attitude is about this.

Simply using a little reason here, abortion on demand throughout the U.S. was not legally sanctioned in the U.S. until Roe v Wade. From my reading of it, English Common Law never considered abortion on demand legal and/or acceptable throughout the history of this country, before our modern laws began to kick in. The laws enacted in the last century have been in response to heightened medical technology and a greater awareness of the pregnancy process, and an increased ability to perform abortions on a regular basis. And even early feminists were against abortion.

I agree, we have no direct statements that can be proven concerning Humphrey's attitude. We do have one statement that can be interpreted to support my position, but you disagree. We also have the knowledge of cultural and societal views from which Humphrey came, which is circumstantial evidence, which you contend is fallacious, but I contend is quite valid as evidence. And as I've pointed out before, I gave Humphrey an M, not a C, so I only gave him a 50% conservative, 50% liberal on this issue. I simply did not give him a 100% Liberal rating because when I considered his generational culture and his known statements, I figured a 50% was a fully defendable asssessment of his probable politics on this. As I've previously pointed out, even an Al Gore was pro-life earlier in his career, and he is on the cutting edge of liberalism. I think that is a pretty good indicator of how things have changed. You simply choose to ignore all of this evidence.

The whole reason I chose Humphrey was to illustrate my contention that our culture has drifted to the left. Well, lets throw out Humphrey as a needless detour, and simply agree on the observation that legalized abortion has been a fairly recent phenomena, post Humphrey's generation, coinciding with the baby boomer generation that has more permissive cultural, moral, and political views from the previous generation, that I contend are to the left.

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar28.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp#When%20did%20the%20first%20state%20legalize%20abortion?
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 01:24 pm
Did you not bother to read the history Roxx posted?

Abortion was fully legal until laws made it illegal.

Something can NOT be illegal unless a law says it is illegal. Until such time that a law makes something illegal it is legal. How can you make such a basic mistake? It might be immoral or not acceptable to society but it is NOT illegal.

Your one statement by Humphrey is another example of your use of a fallacy to support your claim. (I have pointed this out repeatedly and you repeat the same fallacy over and over.) You assign a meaning to "dawn of life" that is not apparant as the meaning you apply to it. There is no historical reference from that time period that considers "dawn of life" as a fetus. I posted several references that clearly point to "dawn of life" meaning childhood. Without any references from the time period in which "dawn of life" means an unborn child you have no standing for your argument at all.

The beauty and downfall of fallacies is people that make them believe they are right. The only way to contradict them is to point out the fallacy and why it is a fallacy. You can continue to believe it all you want okie but it doesn't make it a valid argument no matter how many times you repeat it.
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 01:33 pm
Quote:
Early Legal Opinion

Historically, religious beliefs coloured legal opinion on abortion. From 1307 to 1803, abortion before the fetus moved perceptibly or "quickened" was not punished under English common law, and not regarded by society at large as a moral problem.9 Because most abortions took place before quickening, punishment was rare.10 Even if performed after quickening, the offense was usually considered a misdemeanour.2 This was the case until the nineteenth century; the entry of the state into the regulation of abortion has been relatively recent.11

Two prominent legal cases from fourteenth century England illustrate prevailing practices at that time. In both the "Twinslayer's Case" of 1327 and the "Abortionist's Case" of 1348, the judges refused to make causing the death of a fetus a legal offence. The judges were, in this pre-Reformation period, all Roman Catholic.

In 1670, the question of whether or not abortion was murder came before the English judge, Sir Matthew Hale. Hale decided that if a woman died as a result of an abortion then the abortionist was guilty of murder. No mention was made of the fetus.12

This tolerant common-law approach ended in 1803 when a criminal abortion law was codified by Lord Ellenborough. The abortion of a "quick" fetus became a capital offence, while abortions performed prior to quickening incurred lesser penalties. An article in the 1832 London Legal Examiner justified the new laws on the grounds of protecting women from the dangerous abortion techniques which were popular at the time:


http://www.cbctrust.com/history_law_religion.php#4
0 Replies
 
View Profile okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 03:08 pm
I think history shows a trend toward liberalization and availability of abortion in the last few decades. Even your link tends to show that for many countries worldwide. So the trend is to the left.

As for Humphrey, I have legitimate reasons for what I think would be his probable philosophy on it. I admit I don't know for sure, which is consistent with what I said about this from the beginning. My belief is based on circumstantial evidence and his one statement that might mean he is anti-abortion, but I admit I don't know that for sure. Thats why I rated him only 50% on this issue. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to ask him now?

Parados, I think we are just going to have to disagree.

Another observation, websites are tricky because you have to be able to see through the fog of the "spin" that may be incorporated into whatever agenda they are advocating. This is particularly true with the subject of abortion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama..... not religious? - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.51 seconds on 11/23/2009 at 06:02:24 Top End