"I also feel the discussion of states rights on abortion vs gun rights is a legitimate avenue of thought. What are you thinking?"
😁 I gave serious thought to pointing out that this happened the day after the Supreme Court struck down a law restricting open carry in New York, but I didn't want to muddy the waters in the comments with gun …
"I also feel the discussion of states rights on abortion vs gun rights is a legitimate avenue of thought. What are you thinking?"
😁 I gave serious thought to pointing out that this happened the day after the Supreme Court struck down a law restricting open carry in New York, but I didn't want to muddy the waters in the comments with gun debate.
There are a few key avenues that I see. First, and arguably most important, is the Equal Rights Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment). Women's equality is not guaranteed by law. But writing it into law risks making some of the other legal protections that women currently have unconstitutional.
As with abortion, there is a range opinion among women about whether the trade-offs are worth it. But as I say at the beginning of this piece, I see abortion rights as an equality issue as much as a healthcare issue. Currently, women can't use the law to make the equality argument.
Then, of course, there's the issue of when life begins. There is no answer to this question. Just as there's no answer to when a person becomes mature enough to drink or join the army or buy a semi-automatic weapon. Age of consent laws are largely arbitrary, but we have them because we need them. The same is true for abortion limits. These arguments should be based on reason and scientific evidence, not religion or personal feelings or fear.
And lastly, as with almost all important issues sadly, there are the absolutists. The people who argue that anybody who sees the issue differently to the is evil or stupid or "brainwashed." This is mainly what I mean when I say "the seriousness it deserves", because these types of positions make serious discussion all but impossible.
As I said, I'm pro-choice, but I can easily see and sympathise with pro-life arguments. I understand why they're concerned. I don't think they're brainwashed. And the ability to at least see the position of the other side is the first step in being able to talk to them. Abortion rights are one of the most complex ethical problems a society needs to solve. Pretending that any answer is simple or morally unambiguous is a failure to take the issue seriously.
The issue is at what point the protection of human life begins. Most reasonable people would agree that a fetus with gills and a tail and no nervous system isn't quite there. Nobody agrees with killing babies after birth. Cotton Mather railed so passionately against woman taking their infants to bed with them that there is little doubt this was a post-parturition abortion. Infanticide in modern vernacular,
Yes I am confident that you don't believe human gametes are dead until they form a zygote. Which just makes me wonder why you used the right wing trope of *life* beginning. You're usually more precise than that.
The issue is when a fetus/baby acquires legal protection. It has been alive the entire time. If I had my druthers I would say at the onset of self-awareness, which I remember in my own life, and I was post-birth and still crawling (yes I actually do remember, thinking wordlessly, "why am I crying?") but that is a dangerous forumlation so I am content with humanity being granted at birth.
This is why I am opposed to political parties - the coupling of unrelated things under a tribal banner. I am pro-abortion though I think that at some point that it would be disingenuous to deny that it's an unemerged human and there should be a reasonable point in the pregnancy attached. I am also pro-gun. While I think that the SC ending abortion rights was a bad decision, I think that striking down NY's use of you must show us need (and we will disagree) as a way of preventing people from defending themselves was a proper one. There is no human right more fundamental that self-defense. Making these issues left/right, or whatever you wish to call the divide is without logic.
I'll not turn this into a 2nd Amendment discussion, but when you start one, you'll certainly hear from me. I only mention it in support of the idea that people's opinion of the Supreme Court depends upon their agreement with its decisions, rather than the fundamentals of a Constitutional Republic. Basing that opinion on it agreeing with a political tribe's shibboleth is daft. Ideas should walk on their own legs.
If I thought self-defense was at the heart of the gun debate I would agree with you, but it seems completely tangential to me. Someone who lives in an unsafe neighborhood should be allowed to own a gun but then I see a picture of some Texas jerkoff with 400 assault rifles or read about someone who wears three guns in the living room and, no, it is not about self defense.
Self defense would be a quiet concern, and even military marksmen will tell you to call the cops and go out back.
I don't believe in ensemble politics either. I am definitely of the left but I detest the SJWs and even found myself nodding along with Cocaine Don Jr. as he twitched and ranted about sensitivity training in the military around "they."
I have my own fanaticisms too ... legible code, precise communication, decent music. But I have never wanted to own a gun. I borrowed one for three days when I was handling a lot of money and it kept me awake.
I can respect your thought. What's at the heart of the matter depends upon who's heart. Firearms have always been in my world, and I view them as tools. All issues come with complexity. I don't want to carry a gun everywhere, been there done that, but I want to be able to when I perceive good reason for it.
I have no argument with you and don't want to start one. I have never been around guns much but I have been around a lot of gun nuts ("gonna get me a gun then don' nobody gonna fuck wit' me") and had too much exposure to Second Amendment fanatics who go from "good morning" to "so should we ban bathtubs too?!?" in four sentences, all theirs. I could never shoot a deer but there are people who shoot sleeping bears.
You sound like a reasonable guy with whom I have a mild disagreement but you know that there are millions of Americans to whom firearms are an obsessive fetish (and, yes, I do know what fetish means), and given that about 30% of adult Americans would fail a psychiatric exam, I think the 2A is grotesque in its folly.
Let's not hijack Steve's blog. I'm at cheopys@gmail.com if you'd like to chat, and Steve I would appreciate a hed zup from you as well.
I've had a gun pointed on me by a guy who wanted my cash and I just laughed and told him I was in college and didn't have a cent and he laughed too and left me alone.
"I also feel the discussion of states rights on abortion vs gun rights is a legitimate avenue of thought. What are you thinking?"
😁 I gave serious thought to pointing out that this happened the day after the Supreme Court struck down a law restricting open carry in New York, but I didn't want to muddy the waters in the comments with gun debate.
There are a few key avenues that I see. First, and arguably most important, is the Equal Rights Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment). Women's equality is not guaranteed by law. But writing it into law risks making some of the other legal protections that women currently have unconstitutional.
As with abortion, there is a range opinion among women about whether the trade-offs are worth it. But as I say at the beginning of this piece, I see abortion rights as an equality issue as much as a healthcare issue. Currently, women can't use the law to make the equality argument.
Then, of course, there's the issue of when life begins. There is no answer to this question. Just as there's no answer to when a person becomes mature enough to drink or join the army or buy a semi-automatic weapon. Age of consent laws are largely arbitrary, but we have them because we need them. The same is true for abortion limits. These arguments should be based on reason and scientific evidence, not religion or personal feelings or fear.
And lastly, as with almost all important issues sadly, there are the absolutists. The people who argue that anybody who sees the issue differently to the is evil or stupid or "brainwashed." This is mainly what I mean when I say "the seriousness it deserves", because these types of positions make serious discussion all but impossible.
As I said, I'm pro-choice, but I can easily see and sympathise with pro-life arguments. I understand why they're concerned. I don't think they're brainwashed. And the ability to at least see the position of the other side is the first step in being able to talk to them. Abortion rights are one of the most complex ethical problems a society needs to solve. Pretending that any answer is simple or morally unambiguous is a failure to take the issue seriously.
"Then, of course, there's the issue of when life begins."
This is a critically inaccurate framing. Life began billions of years ago in the primordial oceans. Life does not arise from dead material (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation).
The issue is at what point the protection of human life begins. Most reasonable people would agree that a fetus with gills and a tail and no nervous system isn't quite there. Nobody agrees with killing babies after birth. Cotton Mather railed so passionately against woman taking their infants to bed with them that there is little doubt this was a post-parturition abortion. Infanticide in modern vernacular,
"Beginning of life" is a forced-birth framing.
"This is a critically inaccurate framing. Life began billions of years ago in the primordial oceans. Life does not arise from dead material "
😅 I feel quite confident you know what I meant Chris.
Yes I am confident that you don't believe human gametes are dead until they form a zygote. Which just makes me wonder why you used the right wing trope of *life* beginning. You're usually more precise than that.
The issue is when a fetus/baby acquires legal protection. It has been alive the entire time. If I had my druthers I would say at the onset of self-awareness, which I remember in my own life, and I was post-birth and still crawling (yes I actually do remember, thinking wordlessly, "why am I crying?") but that is a dangerous forumlation so I am content with humanity being granted at birth.
"𝘐 𝘨𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘬 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘨𝘶𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦."
This is why I am opposed to political parties - the coupling of unrelated things under a tribal banner. I am pro-abortion though I think that at some point that it would be disingenuous to deny that it's an unemerged human and there should be a reasonable point in the pregnancy attached. I am also pro-gun. While I think that the SC ending abortion rights was a bad decision, I think that striking down NY's use of you must show us need (and we will disagree) as a way of preventing people from defending themselves was a proper one. There is no human right more fundamental that self-defense. Making these issues left/right, or whatever you wish to call the divide is without logic.
I'll not turn this into a 2nd Amendment discussion, but when you start one, you'll certainly hear from me. I only mention it in support of the idea that people's opinion of the Supreme Court depends upon their agreement with its decisions, rather than the fundamentals of a Constitutional Republic. Basing that opinion on it agreeing with a political tribe's shibboleth is daft. Ideas should walk on their own legs.
If I thought self-defense was at the heart of the gun debate I would agree with you, but it seems completely tangential to me. Someone who lives in an unsafe neighborhood should be allowed to own a gun but then I see a picture of some Texas jerkoff with 400 assault rifles or read about someone who wears three guns in the living room and, no, it is not about self defense.
Self defense would be a quiet concern, and even military marksmen will tell you to call the cops and go out back.
I don't believe in ensemble politics either. I am definitely of the left but I detest the SJWs and even found myself nodding along with Cocaine Don Jr. as he twitched and ranted about sensitivity training in the military around "they."
I have my own fanaticisms too ... legible code, precise communication, decent music. But I have never wanted to own a gun. I borrowed one for three days when I was handling a lot of money and it kept me awake.
I can respect your thought. What's at the heart of the matter depends upon who's heart. Firearms have always been in my world, and I view them as tools. All issues come with complexity. I don't want to carry a gun everywhere, been there done that, but I want to be able to when I perceive good reason for it.
I have no argument with you and don't want to start one. I have never been around guns much but I have been around a lot of gun nuts ("gonna get me a gun then don' nobody gonna fuck wit' me") and had too much exposure to Second Amendment fanatics who go from "good morning" to "so should we ban bathtubs too?!?" in four sentences, all theirs. I could never shoot a deer but there are people who shoot sleeping bears.
You sound like a reasonable guy with whom I have a mild disagreement but you know that there are millions of Americans to whom firearms are an obsessive fetish (and, yes, I do know what fetish means), and given that about 30% of adult Americans would fail a psychiatric exam, I think the 2A is grotesque in its folly.
Let's not hijack Steve's blog. I'm at cheopys@gmail.com if you'd like to chat, and Steve I would appreciate a hed zup from you as well.
I've had a gun pointed on me by a guy who wanted my cash and I just laughed and told him I was in college and didn't have a cent and he laughed too and left me alone.