|
12th April 2012, 5:17 PM
It's one she knows isn't going to pass. She's doing it to make a point. This is a counter law regarding the recently passed decree that a fertilized egg cell is a human being. If you define a human being as one that contains human DNA, sure, but then if you bleed at any point, you've just let loose thousands of human beings on the ground and didn't even try to save them. You monster.
Anyway, her law goes a step further to say that "every sperm is sacred", a human being, and must be provided a chance for life instead of wasted upon the ground. Technically, any bible fearing christian should agree as such a law is already right there in the same testament forbidding super fun homo time. Basically, this is supposed to raise awareness. If others deny this law, they're forced to explain themselves on record as to why. So, what sort of explanation has been offered against this law? <table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice'>Bro-Choice</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:412326' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table> Well, there ya go. They're using pro-choice defenses like they're going out of style. Huh... Personally, my view on the whole issue is on a steadily moving slider right now. I long ago abandoned the principle of "potential for consciousness" as reductio ad absurdum. (Reducto ad absurdum will make you travel size.) Now all that matters to me is the presence of consciousness. An egg cell is no more aware of anything than any ol' single cell in the body. Heck, even an entire bone can't be said to be aware (note, no stealing my bones, they are MINE, they belong to ME). Even a single nerve cell, or a clustering in the form of the nerve in my wisdom tooth, isn't aware of anything all by itself. The brain only shows any signs of a functionality that might be "awareness" in the 3rd trimester. THAT'S the point where the issue of abortion becomes truly thorny, and it is only at THAT point that any arguments against it make any sense at all. I'm still mixed about that one, and am thus comfortable with the law as it stands now. (Personally I'm waiting for technology to develop to the point where "pregnancy" is a thing of the past, rendering this entire discussion moot. Artificial egg yay!) Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, this isn't a law she WANTS to pass. She thinks it's as stupid as you do. But, she knows it won't pass and is thus "safe" to propose to force a discussion on the issue the other (male) governmenty types have dodged until now. This isn't even a new strategy. It's been done numerous times over the history of the country, and not just this country either. This is basically the legislative version of "A Modest Proposal", only the relation to babies is someone altered.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
12th April 2012, 7:16 PM
It's good to see someone pushing back against the onslaught of anti-choice laws that keep passing, then... it's only sad that there are far too few such things, and that abortion opponents keep gaining ground. It's really bad, what they are doing hurts women's health to a significant degree.
16th April 2012, 6:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 16th April 2012, 7:03 PM by alien space marine.)
A Black Falcon Wrote:It's good to see someone pushing back against the onslaught of anti-choice laws that keep passing, then... it's only sad that there are far too few such things, and that abortion opponents keep gaining ground. It's really bad, what they are doing hurts women's health to a significant degree. If Liberals would just have more kids they would not be losing the war demographically on this issue, The other-side simply has bigger families with children who retain their parents values into adulthood. The anti-abortion side has also benefited from immigration, Since most Latinos are catholic.
16th April 2012, 8:08 PM
DJ it doesn't say any ware in the article that she was doing this to make a point. In fact in the article it clearly states that she was completely serious about the bill. Proving without a doubt she's off her rocker. It's a good thing it didn't pass.
16th April 2012, 8:16 PM
alien space marine Wrote:If Liberals would just have more kids they would not be losing the war demographically on this issue, The other-side simply has bigger families with children who retain their parents values into adulthood. The anti-abortion side has also benefited from immigration, Since most Latinos are catholic. The Latino vote heavily favors Democratic candidates. etoven Wrote:DJ it doesn't say any ware in the article that she was doing this to make a point. In fact in the article it clearly states that she was completely serious about the bill. Proving without a doubt she's off her rocker. It's a good thing it didn't pass. The article was really just a blurb, and it was a blurb about a black, democratic, pro-abortion politician by Fox News.
Sometimes you get the scorpion.
16th April 2012, 9:50 PM
Fox News? More like Faux News. Right?
Seriously, WATCH the video I posted there. You'll actually hear from the maker of the bill and she makes it incredibly clear it's meant to make a point. Only Fox News would pretend she actually means it to make it "shocking" enough to get viewers to watch. It's just like that story about the person suing McDonald's for coffee that's too hot. The only thing any of us ever heard about it was how silly it was, and yeah, THAT story is ridiculous. The real story has come out and it turns out that the person bringing the suit actually did get 3rd degree burns, it really was far hotter than it should have been, the suit was about lowering the serving temp of the coffee more than just the warning, and the winnings were far less than the mythical "millions" that person supposedly won. The person bringing the suit could never actually reveal this though, because part of the terms of the out of court settlement (the suit never actually went to court) was a standard NDA. In the end, people like me got convinced that "frivolous lawsuits" are OUT OF CONTROL in this country and made it a little bit easier for companies to get away with stuff.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
16th April 2012, 10:45 PM
etoven Wrote:DJ it doesn't say any ware in the article that she was doing this to make a point. In fact in the article it clearly states that she was completely serious about the bill. Proving without a doubt she's off her rocker. It's a good thing it didn't pass. If she was Republican, only then would I believe that the proposal was serious and crazy. Besides, let's assume it was precisely that. Let's even assume the entire state legislative body was crazy enough to pass it. How would you even enforce a law like that?
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
17th April 2012, 9:59 AM
Weltall Wrote:If she was Republican, only then would I believe that the proposal was serious and crazy.She was crazy enough to call for a vote, that's precisely why it didn't pass because apparently there is still one or two sane people left. Again, I challenge anyone to show me anywhere where it says she was doing it to prove a point. Both the article and the video clearly say she was serious.
17th April 2012, 10:35 AM
etoven Wrote:Again, I challenge anyone to show me anywhere where it says she was doing it to prove a point. Right here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...nhood-bill
Sometimes you get the scorpion.
17th April 2012, 12:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th April 2012, 12:53 PM by alien space marine.)
Great Rumbler Wrote:The Latino vote heavily favors Democratic candidates. When it comes to which way they vote in plebiscites its a totally different matter, Its really republican stupidity & racism that has stood in the way of them truly tapping into the more traditional conservative segments amongst minorities, Someday in the near future they will likely try to more aggressively court minorities down the road like they have done with the Jews.
17th April 2012, 4:21 PM
You're quite right, ASM -- there are certainly strong elements in the black and latino communities that would be open to conservatism, if the Republican party wasn't ideologically very strongly anti-immigrant... but they are, so minorities are very dominantly Democratic.
It is foolish long-term, because Latinos particularly are a rapidly expanding group, but for now anti-Latino policies can work at the ballot box because there are more anti-Latino whites than Latinos. Over time though if they stick with this it makes winning in some states look less and less likely in the future for sure. But with how hateful so much of their base is, I don't see them changing just because of that anytime soon... |
|
|
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}
