Conservatism Has Lost Touch With Reality

[4588686]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310358229' post='2265625']
how could you ever forget, hassy?

thanks, MT!
[/quote]

Well




Maybe






Just maybe










I could forget










Because......































[size="7"][i][b][u]I STILL DON'T HAVE MY beaver dam COOKIES >([/u][/b][/i][/size]

Edited July 11, 2011 by Hasan

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1310346020' post='2265512']
Socrates, while some of your specifics might be correct, I think you are missing the point. I don't think J_lol's point was that the law actually criminalized natural miscarriage; obviously no one could pass such a ridiculous law.[/quote]
My primary issue was with J-lol's original posts on this thread (which you apparently missed), which clearly insinuated that that the lawmakers in question had the actual intent to criminalize miscarriages (apparently motivated by cruelty!).

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310134989' post='2264426']
I am saying that [b]the fact that some politicians want to criminalize miscarriages makes them both out of touch, idiots and cruel.[/b]
[/quote]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310135470' post='2264430']
although [b]when politicians use anti abortion laws to do stupid stuff like criminalize miscarriages[/b], it makes it easier to justify getting rid of those laws
[/quote]

I stand by my statements that such accusations are either slanderous, or display a serious lack of reading comprehension.

[quote] However, the point is precisely what the article stated:



This is ultimately the point. Laws which are vague and nebulous in structure can and will ultimately lead to misuse, misapplication and abuse. Give a government an inch and they will take the mile, and your house, and your car, and your firstborn. This law was so intentionally vague as to make it possible for women to have to defend themselves against accusations of doing something to their unborn child...as the governor said, possible unintended consequences. In addition, the law as presently structured could easily be overturned on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, as it presently exists, the law clearly states that a woman has a protected right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. How could a law be made that said a woman could be guilty of murdering her unborn child when she has a legal right to do it? I understand that the argument is about an outside agent, i.e. an attacker, but the law is not written to specify this. Instead, you have a poorly written and vague piece of legislation which could be used for any number of situations, and which seems to be a roundabout way to be able to prosecute women. I have seen recent cases where, for example, a young woman who attempted suicide while pregnant and failed, but whose child did not live, will be charged with murder. Is a murder conviction and a prison sentence really the answer to a situation like this? I would argue no. When it comes to issues of law, it is not about intention, it's about application. Those laws J_lol quoted did NOT stipulate that the person causing the murder of the infant was someone other than the mother...this means that, yes, in fact, a woman could be prosecuted for the death of her unborn child under these statues. [/quote]
There's quite a bit of difference between arguing that the wording of the law was too vague, and could open itself up to loopholes, and should be more precisely worded, and accusing the lawmakers of "wanting to criminalize miscarriages" (which you earlier agreed was an absurd accusation). Although you here state that the laws are"intentionally vague" for the purpose of prosecuting innocent women. Which is it?


Personally, I thought the law was quite clear and explicit that intention to kill the child was a requisite for a person to be charged with the crime of "prenatal murder."
[quote]'Prenatal murder' means the[b] intentional[/b] removal of a fetus from a woman with an[b] intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus[/b]; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder.[/quote]
If intention to remove the fetus is missing, then "prenatal murder" cannot be charged. Unintentional miscarriages thus could not be charged as "prenatal murder."

The clause that keeps getting quoted out of context defines "miscarriage" or "spontaneous abortion," which is explicitly [b]not[/b] criminalized under that proposed law.
Of course, there are cases in between prenatal murder and accidental miscarriage, which could be result in charges of manslaughter or criminal negligence, just as there are for actions which result in the death of an already-born person, but that's another matter. A mother who exhibits grossly negligent behavior which results in the death of her already-born child can (justly, I believe) face criminal charges.

These proposed laws are essentially "stepping-stone" laws which establish legal precedent for giving legal protection to the life of an unborn person, and thus could be used to eventually challenge Roe v. Wade.

I don't see them at all as sinister attempts by psychopathically cruel monsters to persecute women who innocently miscarry their child, but if that's the way you see it, I believe it says more about you than anything else.

[quote]The real story here is the larger argument that seems to indicate that if someone disagrees with something that someone has branded "conservative" then this somehow revokes any other moral positions simply because the popular climate presses absolute political identity. What is sad to see is that people blindly affiliate themselves with political labels and will argue in defense of pretty much anything if it has brand X or brand Y political label attached to it. Republican? You'd rather be shot than vote in favour of something perceived as "liberal." Democrat? Call it conservative and watch them run quickly in the other direction without even contemplating the merits. And if you argue otherwise, you have no real understanding of popular politics.

Are there exceptions? Of course, there are no absolutes. However, in terms of political posturing, those exceptions are about as easily found as a dodo.[/quote]
The real story here is a left-wing poster who attacks conservatives at every opportunity blatantly twisting the facts to accuse pro-life lawmakers of cruelly wanting to criminalize miscarriages.

And no, this has nothing to do with "Republican vs. Democrat." If the law in question had been proposed by a Democrat, I would have defended it just the same. Just as I oppose pro-abortion Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Guilliani. And I have supported legislation proposed by pro-life Democrats.

I'd say the issue has more to do with a rabid political partisan who apparently has the firm belief that anyone with an "R" after their name is ipso facto simultaneously an idiot and a psychopathic monster.

If you think the original accusations have nothing to do with political posturing, then I think you need to look again.

And I think it telling that those on the political left will always find fault with any legislation providing any kind of legal protection on the unborn or placing any restrictions on abortion. If they think the wording of that clause is too nebulous, why don't they work to amend it to clarify, rather than simply trying to shoot down such legislation altogether?

Seems that the current post-Roe status of abortion-on-demand is the only legal position most modern day liberals seem happy with.

[quote]Then there is the "well, they are innocent until proven guilty" argument. Let's face it, if you seriously believe that is true then you are profoundly naive. Legally? Perhaps. In truth? Not on your life. All it takes is the accusation of something these days and your life is potentially ruined. Ask any number of falsely accused priests and let them tell you what innocent until proven guilty means to them. It means absolutely nothing.[/quote]
I've already addressed how the law specifically states that deliberate intent is a necessity to be proven for someone to be charged with "prenatal murder."

But, yes, any law can (and does) result in false charges. Does that mean we should get rid of all murder and homicide laws, and that the law should simply allow people to shoot up, stab, and slice-and-dice people for any reason, lest people be falsely accused of murder?
Or should we abandon all laws against pederasty so that innocent persons won't be falsely accused?

And, practically speaking, I think it would be difficult to convince the average jury that a woman who innocently miscarried was in fact guilty of murder, unless there was in fact overwhelming evidence to support deliberate intent.
Yes, juries can be wrong, but that is true with any crime being prosecuted.


[quote]Other than the issues of bad legislation and political posturing, there is something that seriously concerns me about your post. You pretty much openly insinuated that J_lol was either stupid or malicious in his points. First, let's not even address the egregious lack of charity. Your argument, while somewhat myopic, might be better received if it wasn't peppered with screaming arrogance. Second, asserting that any of these points were posted in malice is pretty ludicrous. Where is the malice? Disagreement? The perfectly legitimate questioning of the potential for misapplication of a law is not malice, it's prudence. Blind defense of a law or political position just because it seems to be affiliated with one perspective or another is a simple and misguided way to approach politics. Just because something seems on its face to be "pro-life" doesn't make it good or worthy of consideration. Government intervention of ANY sort should be regarded with suspicion.[/quote]
Yes, I consider accusing the lawmakers of intentionally trying to criminalize miscarriage to be either stupid or malicious.

And yes, I consider such charges themselves to display an egregious lack of charity.
Are we to always give those who oppose pro-life legislation the benefit of the doubt, yet presume that people making laws which provide legal protection to the unborn are acting out of malicious cruelty? Are such charges in any way charitable?

If you think the proposed law was poorly worded, and in need of amending for clarification, that's one thing. But baselessly accusing the lawmakers of having malicious and cruel intent is quite another. It's dishonest political posturing, an act of rash judgment, and contrary to Christian charity.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Socrates

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310408357' post='2265806']

, but if that's the way you see it, I believe it says more about you than anything else.


The real story here is a left-wing poster who attacks conservatives at every opportunity blatantly twisting the facts to accuse pro-life lawmakers of cruelly wanting to criminalize miscarriages.


I'd say the issue has more to do with a rabid political partisan who apparently has the firm belief that anyone with an "R" after their name is ipso facto simultaneously an idiot and a psychopathic monster.

If you think the original accusations have nothing to do with political posturing, then I think you need to look again.

Yes, I consider accusing the lawmakers of intentionally trying to criminalize miscarriage to be either stupid or malicious.


[/quote]

Socrates, back the hell off.

[kujo]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310424415' post='2265955']
Socrates, back the hell off.
[/quote]

If you're gonna stoop to his level, you should just change the title underneath your avatar into something he accused you of being (like he did with my "knuckle-dragging hominid" comment). An example would be "Rabid Political Partisan."

EDIT: I called him a slack-jawed hominid, not a knuckle-dragging hominid. I did invoke "knuckle-dragging" another time when I accused him of being a "knuckle-dragging nose-breather."

Edited July 11, 2011 by kujo

[Laudate_Dominum]

What J_Lawl said. Stuff it Socrates or else we'll gang up on you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310424682' post='2265960']
What J_Lawl said. Stuff it Socrates or else we'll gang up on you.
[/quote]
Before anyone flips out I'll make it clear that I've read one post in this entire thread (J_lol's one-liner above) and my post is just a lame joke.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310424610' post='2265958']
If you're gonna stoop to his level, you should just change the title underneath your avatar into something he accused you of being (like he did with my "knuckle-dragging hominid" comment). An example would be "Rabid Political Partisan."
[/quote]

not really sure how i am stooping to his level. He just shot out a bunch of personal attacks and insinuations against me and peyton, who is a good friend of mine. i think what i said is appropriate.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310424802' post='2265963']
not really sure how i am stooping to his level. He just shot out a bunch of personal attacks and insinuations against me and peyton, who is a good friend of mine. i think what i said is appropriate.
[/quote]
Geezum. Okay, maybe my post shouldn't be a joke. haha.

[kujo]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310424802' post='2265963']
not really sure how i am stooping to his level. He just shot out a bunch of personal attacks and insinuations against me and peyton, who is a good friend of mine. i think what i said is appropriate.
[/quote]

Makin' jokes, bro...

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310424864' post='2265968']
Makin' jokes, bro...
[/quote]

lol, i know i got the joke dude. just responding to the stooping part, wasnt sure how that was meant.

[Marie-Therese]

Gentlemen, allow me.

Socrates, you are a prime example of precisely what I was talking about...someone who is so enamored of the placard he's toting around that he refuses to actually regard fact.

First: vague and poorly written laws can be used by those who have (granted, bizarre and frankly incomprehensible) agendas. Why would someone want to prosecute pregnant women? Well I certainly don't understand, but there are those on the fringe radical right who would regard any woman's miscarriage as a possible prosecutable offense, until proven otherwise. There are, even though you seem incapable of understanding this, people who would do crazy things with laws if they had an opportunity. There are people on the fringe left who think you should be able to partially deliver a viable infant and shove scissors into its brain, if you think that you don't want the kid anymore. You believe that there are not similar elements in the pro-life category who are so vehemently "pro-life" that they would take that to an extreme? Really?

Second: I will tell you straight out that your personal prejudice against J_lol is disgusting to me. I happen to know this man personally. He is not only a Christian but a pro-life Christian at that. Disagree with his politics? Fine. But to invoke the same slander you are so fond of accusing him of by trying to claim that he is attacking conservatives and pro-life legislation is not only false, it is personally offensive to me. What he is capable of doing, and what you seem pathologically unable to do, is to view a law on its merits and to see its potential abuses, whether or not those abuses might be likely or not. Even the governor of Utah, as I quoted in my initial post, expressed reservations over potential unintended consequences of the law; in small words spoken slowly, that means even he could see a potential misuse of the law.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310408357' post='2265806']
There's quite a bit of difference between arguing that the wording of the law was too vague, and could open itself up to loopholes, and should be more precisely worded, and accusing the lawmakers of "wanting to criminalize miscarriages" (which you earlier agreed was an absurd accusation). Although you here state that the laws are"intentionally vague" for the purpose of prosecuting innocent women. Which is it?[/quote]

Your repeated charges of issues with reading comprehension should, perhaps, be revisited. I never said that the purpose of the law was to prosecute women. I said that the law was so vague as to make that a possibility. Not the same thing.


[quote]These proposed laws are essentially "stepping-stone" laws which establish legal precedent for giving legal protection to the life of an unborn person, and thus could be used to eventually challenge Roe v. Wade.[/quote]

I am perfectly aware of the political ramifications of this legislation. However, legal precedent which is opposed to standing law, especially law which has been vigorously reinforced by multiple Supreme Court rulings, is going to have a hard time standing. As difficult as this is to swallow, it is what all of us who value life are facing: a serious uphill battle for upholding the inherent value of life.

[quote]I don't see them at all as sinister attempts by psychopathically cruel monsters to persecute women who innocently miscarry their child, but if that's the way you see it, I believe it says more about you than anything else.[/quote]

You are awfully fond of tossing around accusations in regards to personal viewpoints, particularly those of which you have zero knowledge. You don't know me or what I think, and nothing that I posted gave any indication that I held this opinion at all. I said the law was poorly written and could therefore be used by those who had an agenda. If you want to read into my words, I think that says more about YOU than anything else.


[quote]The real story here is a left-wing poster who attacks conservatives at every opportunity blatantly twisting the facts to accuse pro-life lawmakers of cruelly wanting to criminalize miscarriages.[/quote]

Nope.

[quote]And no, this has nothing to do with "Republican vs. Democrat." If the law in question had been proposed by a Democrat, I would have defended it just the same. Just as I oppose pro-abortion Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Guilliani. And I have supported legislation proposed by pro-life Democrats.[/quote]

Bully for you. However, you'll find that the political landscape is peopled with partisan hacks. Generally, those are the sorts who level baseless accusations and make presumptions about the personal beliefs of people they don't know, based on what they assume their politics are.

[quote]And I think it telling that those on the political left will always find fault with any legislation providing any kind of legal protection on the unborn or placing any restrictions on abortion. If they think the wording of that clause is too nebulous, why don't they work to amend it to clarify, rather than simply trying to shoot down such legislation altogether?

Seems that the current post-Roe status of abortion-on-demand is the only legal position most modern day liberals seem happy with.[/quote]

J_lol is pro-life. Whether you regard him as liberal is another matter; however, you are making assumptions. I will refrain from giving voice to the entire old cliche about what happens when you assume.


[quote]Yes, I consider accusing the lawmakers of intentionally trying to criminalize miscarriage to be either stupid or malicious.
And yes, I consider such charges themselves to display an egregious lack of charity.
Are we to always give those who oppose pro-life legislation the benefit of the doubt, yet presume that people making laws which provide legal protection to the unborn are acting out of malicious cruelty? Are such charges in any way charitable?
If you think the proposed law was poorly worded, and in need of amending for clarification, that's one thing. But baselessly accusing the lawmakers of having malicious and cruel intent is quite another. It's dishonest political posturing, an act of rash judgment, and contrary to Christian charity.
[/quote]

What lacks in charity is presuming to know the heart of one of your brethren, calling them stupid and malicious. Because, frankly, the only stupidity I see is someone thinking they know everything. The only malice is trying to assign moral hatred to someone who was simply calling out bad policy.

Your post is a breathtaking example of precisely what I was talking about. You were so quick to assume "liberal politics...oh, must be one of those baby-killers" that you impugned the character of a good person in the name of political labeling.

I would ask you to examine your heart about trying to be gentle with your fellow Christians and to emulate the love of Jesus in your dealings with those with whom you disagree, and I would ask you to refrain from being a total windbag, and I say that in all charity.

This is precisely the reason I quit posting here. My blood pressure doesn't need this nonsense.

[kujo]

First off, Marie-Therese FTW.

Second, regarding this:

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1310427289' post='2265998']
...to emulate the love of Jesus in your dealings with those with whom you disagree...
[/quote]

Get ready for the "Jesus turned over tables" excuse.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1309796641' post='2263015']
Honestly I see very little difference between conservative or liberal. They're equally corrupt.
[/quote]
as Mark Shea says, you have your pick between the Stupid Evil Party and the Evil Stupid Party.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1310427743' post='2266010']
as Mark Shea says, you have your pick between the Stupid Evil Party and the Evil Stupid Party.
[/quote]

Or, as South Park says

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/SMU9GQzTYGI/AAAAAAAAHRQ/fyS6t5VByWE/s400/giantdouchevsturdsandwich7om.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1310427289' post='2265998']
Gentlemen, allow me.

Socrates, you are a prime example of precisely what I was talking about...someone who is so enamored of the placard he's toting around that he refuses to actually regard fact.

First: vague and poorly written laws can be used by those who have (granted, bizarre and frankly incomprehensible) agendas. Why would someone want to prosecute pregnant women? Well I certainly don't understand, but there are those on the fringe radical right who would regard any woman's miscarriage as a possible prosecutable offense, until proven otherwise. There are, even though you seem incapable of understanding this, people who would do crazy things with laws if they had an opportunity. There are people on the fringe left who think you should be able to partially deliver a viable infant and shove scissors into its brain, if you think that you don't want the kid anymore. You believe that there are not similar elements in the pro-life category who are so vehemently "pro-life" that they would take that to an extreme? Really? [/quote]
No, I don't believe there are such people. I've been around people active in the pro-life movement all my life and have never come in contact with, nor heard of, any people who would want to prosecute accidental miscarriages.
If such people exist outside an isolated padded cell, they certainly have absolutely zero influence in American law or politics.
I'm open to correction if actual evidence is provided to the contrary, but until then, I contend that such persons exist only in the drug-induced night terrors of the more hysterical elements of the "pro-choice" lobby.

But in the meantime, I try not to worry so much about purely hypothetical non-existent people.



[quote]Second: I will tell you straight out that your personal prejudice against J_lol is disgusting to me. I happen to know this man personally. He is not only a Christian but a pro-life Christian at that. Disagree with his politics? Fine. But to invoke the same slander you are so fond of accusing him of by trying to claim that he is attacking conservatives and pro-life legislation is not only false, it is personally offensive to me. What he is capable of doing, and what you seem pathologically unable to do, is to view a law on its merits and to see its potential abuses, whether or not those abuses might be likely or not. Even the governor of Utah, as I quoted in my initial post, expressed reservations over potential unintended consequences of the law; in small words spoken slowly, that means even he could see a potential misuse of the law.
[/quote]
I have no personal prejudice against J-lol, since I don't know him personally. While he may well be a swell guy off-line in "real life," my problem is with what he has posted on here in black-and-white, which is indeed slanderous.

Again:
[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310134989' post='2264426']
[b]I am saying that the fact that some politicians want to criminalize miscarriages makes them both out of touch, idiots and cruel.[/b]
[/quote]
He claims these politicians "[b]want to[/b] criminalize miscarriages," which means, unless my understanding of Canadian English is way off, that they have a deliberate intent to criminalize miscarriages, which he describes (truly enough if we are to believe such an evil intent on their part) as "cruel." That's quite a serious charge, and quite different from talking about "potential abuses" by hypothetical whackos.

While I don't have time to break down and parse the laws yet again, I see absolutely nothing there to justify such a horrific accusation regarding the lawmakers' intent.
Unless he has something serious to back it up, such an accusation is indeed slanderous.

It's as stupid and offensive as those claims that the Pope is against condoms because he sadistically enjoys people to suffering and dying of AIDS.


[quote]Your repeated charges of issues with reading comprehension should, perhaps, be revisited. I never said that the purpose of the law was to prosecute women. I said that the law was so vague as to make that a possibility. Not the same thing.
[/quote]
Yes, what J-lol said in the above quote was not the same thing at all. You may have never said that, but he most certainly did. (If you doubt me, read it again, and follow the link.)


[quote]I am perfectly aware of the political ramifications of this legislation. However, legal precedent which is opposed to standing law, especially law which has been vigorously reinforced by multiple Supreme Court rulings, is going to have a hard time standing. As difficult as this is to swallow, it is what all of us who value life are facing: a serious uphill battle for upholding the inherent value of life.[/quote]
And? That's why I'm in favor any laws that will grant the lives of the unborn some of the legal protections provided to persons already born, as those proposed laws do, rather than treating the unborn child as a non-entity. People are held liable for the deaths of born children by reckless actions, and these laws would simply extend the same liabilities regarding the unborn.



[quote]You are awfully fond of tossing around accusations in regards to personal viewpoints, particularly those of which you have zero knowledge. You don't know me or what I think, and nothing that I posted gave any indication that I held this opinion at all. I said the law was poorly written and could therefore be used by those who had an agenda. If you want to read into my words, I think that says more about YOU than anything else.[/quote]
Which could be said of the accusing the lawmakers of cruelly wanting to criminalize innocent women for having miscarriages.


[quote]Nope.



Bully for you. However, you'll find that the political landscape is peopled with partisan hacks. Generally, those are the sorts who level baseless accusations and make presumptions about the personal beliefs of people they don't know, based on what they assume their politics are.



J_lol is pro-life. Whether you regard him as liberal is another matter; however, you are making assumptions. I will refrain from giving voice to the entire old cliche about what happens when you assume.
[/quote]
He's a liberal by his own admission. Most of his posts here are insults and attacks on various conservatives. Not an assumption, but fact, but again irrelevant. Posting slander is wrong regardless of one's political convictions.



[quote]What lacks in charity is presuming to know the heart of one of your brethren, calling them stupid and malicious. Because, frankly, the only stupidity I see is someone thinking they know everything. The only malice is trying to assign moral hatred to someone who was simply calling out bad policy.[/quote]
While making outrageous unfounded accusations against people you don't know, then calling them "idiots and cruel," on the other hand is perfectly charitable. . .

Or is such "charity" not owed to "right-wingers"?

[quote]Your post is a breathtaking example of precisely what I was talking about. You were so quick to assume "liberal politics...oh, must be one of those baby-killers" that you impugned the character of a good person in the name of political labeling..[/quote]
I never called anyone a baby-killer. Just pointing out how certain folks on here have nothing to offer but insults and criticism towards pro-lifers, regardless what their own personal convictions may be.

[quote]I would ask you to examine your heart about trying to be gentle with your fellow Christians and to emulate the love of Jesus in your dealings with those with whom you disagree, and I would ask you to refrain from being a total windbag, and I say that in all charity.

This is precisely the reason I quit posting here. My blood pressure doesn't need this nonsense[/quote]
Then don't post here and contribute to it.

If J-lol doesn't like being called out for slander, he shouldn't post slanderous statements on here. It's that simple.

Seems some folks can take what they dish out on a daily basis.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Socrates