Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Oh Alabama
Comments
-
Didn’t mention where we got any ideas at all.HHusky said:
It was actually the premise you started with.MikeDamone said:
Didn’t say that.HHusky said:
But you think minimum drinking and smoking ages, or drug use prohibitions, for example, are things we got from left wingers.MikeDamone said:
Not sure. I lean heavily toward liberty and the sovereignty of the individual agency over his body. But at the same time I don’t blurt out catch phrases when it suits me and don’t apply the same logic to others.HHusky said:
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
Premise is my body my choice applies narrowly to leftist. -
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
Abortion is...........
Alabama's gift to the nearly dead MSM for a certain ratings boost. Thanks Saban. -
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
You and I agree a lot Race even though we don't like to admit it in public.RaceBannon said:In 18 years when Bama is still kicking our ass in football you'll know why
@CirrhosisDawg is a big fan of state's rights. Pretty sure he is on board with Alabama
It would be funny if after 50 years of scare tactics something happened after all
My advice is for both sides to calm down. Keep it safe and legal in the first trimester. Ease off the after birth abortion agenda.
Every action has a reaction.
My early line has the Surpemes upholding Roe thanks to Kavenaugh. Too bad the democrats want to impeach him
We are what you call "soft" pro-choicers. But no one wants to be reasonable these days.
Also, I cant help buy get my sensibilities offended when the good people of Bammer think and care about the sanctity of life. Their Cadillac had its wheel in the ditch for long time. -
None I suppose. If they are indeed risky and not using them is indeed risky, society has itself a quandary I guess.MikeDamone said:
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it -
Alabama making people responsible for their actions again!
-
Common sense abortion laws. No one is coming for your abortion.Sledog said:Alabama making people responsible for their actions again!
-
The philosophizers take issue with viability because technology moves that line backward all the time, and so the thought is that whether someone is a person or not shouldn't be a function of technology.RaceBannon said:We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
I myself don't get too hung up on that and think the first trimester is a good enough line to draw. We draw lines in life all the tim. This is as a good a context to draw one as any.
