I don't get Liberals sometimes

August1991 · August 17, 2006

Do we need another abortion debate thread? FBOW, I'll answer here.

Does Hezbollah advocate Sharia law? If that's the case, then our hypothetical Hezbollah-boosting lesbian would be supporting a group that would have her put to death. I guess that's a somewhat illogical position.

Dunno, but many leftish sovereignist Quebecers are now refusing to hold Hizb Allah flags. (BTW, Nasrallah is a hilarious Russian verb, like poutine is a funny name for a president.)

"For a pro-abortion liberal lesbian to argue against war on the grounds it kills innocent children makes about as much sense..."
Again, whether those beliefs are contradictory depends entirely on whether you consider a fetus to be a child. From the point of view of a pro-abortion liberal, they're not illogical or mutually exclusive at all. I don't know why you keep beating that drum.

Fetus, child, drum. Kimmy, that's the sterile "when does life start" discussion. A liberal defines life as starting at point K so that an event at point G is "not taking life". Gee, what is the definition of self-serving, what is the definition of arbitrary and why do liberal arguments always seem to be self-serving and arbitrary?

Once you dispense with "the sanctity of life" premise, you face full square the moral dilemma of who gets to live and who may die and how to decide between the two. I have suggested one moral guide: pragmatism and the consequences of any decision rule. This rule (sort of) justifies abortion and forbids capital punishment.
This is more interesting. Getting rid of both of the moral justifications claimed by one side ("right to control my body!") or the other ("sanctity of life!") is probably not going to be popular with either side of the debate.

True, kimmy, and the problem is so much greater than feminists and religionists.

If this question were a matter of pure pragmatism and no other moral question were considered, when you look at the effects of kids from broken homes and unfit parents... we would probably be *promoting* abortions.

That argument strikes me as "social planning". That is, "smart people could organize society so much better if they had full control to decide for others". Sorry, when I hear "broken home" or "unfit parents", I usually glance away while keeping an ear open for a possibly new perspective.

Socialism fails because it tries to plan the behaviour of people. Imagine trying to organize the delivery of 2,000 cars to the correct driveway in a city (and how you'd respond to complaints) and then think about how quickly a shopping mall empties at 9 pm - and how quickly the right car goes to the right place.

When I speak of pragmatism, I think in terms of billions of people intelligently and intensely concerned about their own lives and what they do according to the perceived rules. Making abortion illegal causes havoc, harm and sheer wasteful nonsense. Imposing capital punishment is foolishly arbitrary and accomplishes nothing.

gnam · August 17, 2006

So the opposite of them must be true!! Thou shall kill, and steal, and bare false witness. Hell, what do they know, completely unapplicable. The world would be a better place with more killing!!
--

Anyways, back to the normal not so anti-religion for the hell of it people... about the sentient baby topic.

Actually, have another look at the portion of my post that you cited. My conclusion drew no inferences regarding what "thou shalt do." Likewise there were no inferences drawn in regard to how to make the world a better place. I simply made an argument, with reference to an oft cited piece of scripture - indeed cited earlier in this thread, that established a valid reason for ignoring that particular piece of scripture with reference to the discussion under way here.

Please don't attribute things to me that I didn't say. If you believe that my comments lead, logically (either deductively or inductively) to the conclusions you attribute to me I would be happy to hear them. Likewise, if you have a counter-argument against mine for why the ten commandments of the old testament should be brought to bear on this discussion then, again, I'd like to hear it. Beyond that try not to express your self so much like the -hysterically religious cos you done blasphemed son- people.

kimmy · August 17, 2006

"For a pro-abortion liberal lesbian to argue against war on the grounds it kills innocent children makes about as much sense..."
Again, whether those beliefs are contradictory depends entirely on whether you consider a fetus to be a child. From the point of view of a pro-abortion liberal, they're not illogical or mutually exclusive at all. I don't know why you keep beating that drum.
Fetus, child, drum. Kimmy, that's the sterile "when does life start" discussion. A liberal defines life as starting at point K so that an event at point G is "not taking life". Gee, what is the definition of self-serving, what is the definition of arbitrary and why do liberal arguments always seem to be self-serving and arbitrary?

You're trying to push me in defending a position I don't actually hold, and I don't think I'll bother.

"Fetus, child, drum" ...as Ernie and Bert would ask, which one of these is not like the others? The stock pro-life position puts you in the position of arguing that a clump of cells that can't do anything except for divide is somehow equivalent to an adult. Do you really find a position that equates a 4-cell embryo to an adult human to be intellectually satisfying?

On the other hand, the stock pro-choice position puts you on a slippery slope wearing greased skis.

You seem to support the pro-life view that life begins at conception because it's absolute and unambiguous. It might be, but it requires buying into a view of what makes a person a person that I find unappealing.

Rather than argue this topic myself, I'll just refer you to Riverwind, who has proposed some ideas for addressing the question in a logical rather than arbitrary manner.

If this question were a matter of pure pragmatism and no other moral question were considered, when you look at the effects of kids from broken homes and unfit parents... we would probably be *promoting* abortions.
That argument strikes me as "social planning". That is, "smart people could organize society so much better if they had full control to decide for others". Sorry, when I hear "broken home" or "unfit parents", I usually glance away while keeping an ear open for a possibly new perspective.

It might not be a new perspective, but I think it's a troubling issue. The people least able to care for children are also the people who have more children and have them at younger ages.

You're a mathematician, right? Compute a growth model for two populations. Population A is 10 times larger than population B. Population A produces on average 3 offspring per 2 adults, at an average age of 27 years. Population B produces an average of 4 offspring per 2 adults, at an average age of 18 years. How long before population B outnumbers population A?

I have a strong suspicion that the clueless young alcoholic deadbeat dropout parents are raising a whole generation of kids who won't be able to find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that by the time my (still hypothetical) children reach elementary school, a lot of their classmates will be the socially maladjusted, completely undisciplined children of people who just aren't fit to raise children.

Your analogy...

Imagine trying to organize the delivery of 2,000 cars to the correct driveway in a city (and how you'd respond to complaints) and then think about how quickly a shopping mall empties at 9 pm - and how quickly the right car goes to the right place.

...becomes somewhat worrying if a significant percentage of those people leaving the mall are drunk and don't even know how to drive in the first place.

-k

betsy · August 19, 2006

What about this:

The liberals who were screaming angrily that we are paying for the healthcare of smokers...are the same ones who are now suggesting we should provide free needles and safe crack rooms for addicts!

BubberMiley · August 19, 2006

What about this:
The liberals who were screaming angrily that we are paying for the healthcare of smokers...are the same ones who are now suggesting we should provide free needles and safe crack rooms for addicts!

How do you know they were the same people?

betsy · August 19, 2006

What about this:

The liberals who were screaming angrily that we are paying for the healthcare of smokers...are the same ones who are now suggesting we should provide free needles and safe crack rooms for addicts!

How do you know they were the same people?

Dr. CUSHMAN, the head honcho who started the crack-down on smoking in public places....now wants to hand over crack pipes. He must have a big crack on his head!

"It was a pathetic sight at City Hall on April 2l" when City of Ottawa Medical Officer Dr. Robert Cushman whined that too much money was going in to drug enforcement, not rehabilitation. Dr. Cushman's solution which is supported by Mayor Chiarelli, councillors Bedard, Feltmate, Holmes, Cullen, Doucet and Stavinga is to provide crack pipes to cocaine addicts. A City of Ottawa van with city employees goes to various destinations to give these kits to cocaine addicts and needles to heroin addicts. The City of Ottawa should be getting these people off the street, not aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Not one study has shown this reduces spread of Hepatitis C or other infectious disease. Pipes and needles are being found in parks and playgrounds by young children which is, totally shameful.

Chief Bevan was also at same meeting and has strongly advised against handing out crack pipes and is now seeking advice from the provincial and federal crown attorneys whether this program is in fact illegal. The Police are responsible for law enforcement and Ottawa has to have a Zero Tolerance policy. The Police need the support of the politicians and the public as this Mayor and Council are definitely soft on crime!"

http://www.kilreaformayor.ca/story_e.aspx?id=12

betsy · August 19, 2006

Dr. Cushman's solution which is supported by Mayor Chiarelli, councillors Bedard, Feltmate, Holmes, Cullen, Doucet and Stavinga is to provide crack pipes to cocaine addicts.
http://www.kilreaformayor.ca/story_e.aspx?id=12

They booted out something which is LEGAL (cigarette-smoking) in public places...and now wants to fund paraphelnalia, AND considering to build public places for something ILLEGAL!

betsy · August 19, 2006

What about this:

The liberals who were screaming angrily that we are paying for the healthcare of smokers...are the same ones who are now suggesting we should provide free needles and safe crack rooms for addicts!

How do you know they were the same people?

Then there's this Toronto City Council

"The Toronto, Ontario City Council overwhelmingly approved a wide-ranging drug strategy in Dec. 2005. The Toronto Star reported on Dec. 15, 2005 ( "Addicts Get Crack Pipes In New Drug Strategy") that "Crack users will be given pipes and the city will study whether to set up sites where addicts can use drugs under a wide-ranging drug strategy approved by city council yesterday"

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/canada.htm

"BARS SPENT THOUSANDS

He said bars and restaurants invested thousands of dollars to build previously required designated smoking rooms, only to see those rules go up in smoke under new provincial Smoke Free Ontario legislation.

Bill 53, which rewrites the City of Toronto Act, allows city council to determine the definition of "public places" for the purpose of smoking restrictions. It requires only that the "provision that is the most restrictive of the smoking of tobacco prevails" if there is a difference between provincial and municipal rules."

http://www.mychoice.ca/display_page.asp?page_id=794

betsy · August 19, 2006

What about this:

The liberals who were screaming angrily that we are paying for the healthcare of smokers...are the same ones who are now suggesting we should provide free needles and safe crack rooms for addicts!

How do you know they were the same people?

Then there's Dalton McGuinty!

"During Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s recent election campaign, he promised to implement a province-wide smoking ban in all public places, workplaces, bars and restaurants. The proposed smoking ban would take effect in three years, so bars and restaurants that currently allow smoking won’t need to quit cold turkey. "

http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/do...totw/sbubak.htm

"McGuinty referred to Toronto City Council as a "mature government (we have to remember that Dalton lies a lot) and is giving them more power including the power of taxation.

Last week, Toronto City Council agreed to issue "safe crack kits" to those who partake of the illegal drug and are considering setting up safe injection sites where those who take illegal drugs can safely break the law."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/toronto121905.htm

betsy · August 19, 2006

The liberals had abandoned moral standards......and yet demands that we become "morally responsible!"

They abandoned moral standards...and then hypocritically demand that we behave morally! By what moral standards do they make this demand? Moral relativism?

Sounds like a typical liberal circular argument. It is right if I say it is right.

gc1765 · August 20, 2006

They booted out something which is LEGAL (cigarette-smoking) in public places...and now wants to fund paraphelnalia, AND considering to build public places for something ILLEGAL!

I think the whole point of these safe-sites is to get the addicts AWAY from the public. Would you rather an addict smoke crack and shoot heroin in the middle of the streets, or in a building where you don't have to see it?

Personally, I disagree with handing pipes and needles out in the street, but I would like to see safe & clean needles being handed out in a safe injection site and then disposed of appropriately, in order to reduce the spread of diseases.

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

They booted out something which is LEGAL (cigarette-smoking) in public places...and now wants to fund paraphelnalia, AND considering to build public places for something ILLEGAL!

I think the whole point of these safe-sites is to get the addicts AWAY from the public. Would you rather an addict smoke crack and shoot heroin in the middle of the streets, or in a building where you don't have to see it?

Personally, I disagree with handing pipes and needles out in the street, but I would like to see safe & clean needles being handed out in a safe injection site and then disposed of appropriately, in order to reduce the spread of diseases.

I'd rather see all addicts put in padded cells with no access to drugs until they are clean. That might work, then they are out of the publics way and I'm not paying for crackpipes and needles.

Riverwind · August 20, 2006

I'd rather see all addicts put in padded cells with no access to drugs until they are clean. That might work, then they are out of the publics way and I'm not paying for crackpipes and needles.

A better solution would put addicts in reasonably comfortable rehab centers where they can walk out the door anytime. However, if they choose to walk of the door then they should be hussled off to prison for a good long time. That approach may seem soft but you can't teach someone to make responsible choices if you don't give them any.

gc1765 · August 20, 2006

I'd rather see all addicts put in padded cells with no access to drugs until they are clean. That might work, then they are out of the publics way and I'm not paying for crackpipes and needles.

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

I'd rather see all addicts put in padded cells with no access to drugs until they are clean. That might work, then they are out of the publics way and I'm not paying for crackpipes and needles.
A better solution would put addicts in reasonably comfortable rehab centers where they can walk out the door anytime. However, if they choose to walk of the door then they should be hussled off to prison for a good long time. That approach may seem soft but you can't teach someone to make responsible choices if you don't give them any.

That's actually a great idea, I'm onboard completely. But for your suggestion to work, our prisions would have to be drug free, which they aren't. That's why I'd suggest a seperate 'forced detox' centre for addicts, where they would be placed in solitary padded rooms to just go nuts until they clear their addiction. Keeps them out of the general prision population, and way from drugs, they aren't all neccessarily violent criminals. Having addicts in the prision population also puts the other inmates at higher risk of AIDS transmission.

I'd rather see all addicts put in padded cells with no access to drugs until they are clean. That might work, then they are out of the publics way and I'm not paying for crackpipes and needles.

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?

What's more moral, straightening someone out, or providing them the means to continue their self-destruction?

Lives before money is kind of an important value, I thought you were a liberal?

betsy · August 20, 2006

I think the whole point of these safe-sites is to get the addicts AWAY from the public. Would you rather an addict smoke crack and shoot heroin in the middle of the streets, or in a building where you don't have to see it?

I thought that's what jail time is for possession of illegal drugs?

betsy · August 20, 2006

I'd rather see all addicts put in padded cells with no access to drugs until they are clean. That might work, then they are out of the publics way and I'm not paying for crackpipes and needles.

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?

Oh yeah? Only needles? They're already talking building public places...and STAFFING those places!

Next will be the nutritional concern for addicts...they'll have a chef ready to whip up a big meal for everyone.

Then what happens when someone over-dosed? Resident doctors and emergency teams on standby, right there on each and every public crack safe house!

If someone don't have any crack or heroin to shoot up....will someone lobby to provide for those as well? After all, wouldn't it be inhumane to see someone writhing in pain from withdrawal?

You bet, anything the Liberals does almost.... always.... escalates out of control.

But the main thing is, paying for needles give a message: that you are condoning drug use.

betsy · August 20, 2006

I think the whole point of these safe-sites is to get the addicts AWAY from the public. Would you rather an addict smoke crack and shoot heroin in the middle of the streets, or in a building where you don't have to see it?

They didn't allow separate smoking rooms for cigarette smokers to get them away from the non-smokers! And yet tobacco is legal!

These addicts are your lotus-eaters who hardly contribute anything to society...except problems! Drugs are supposed to be illegal!

Nobody is lobbying to build safe smoking joints for cigarette smokers.....who pay high taxes for their vice!

betsy · August 20, 2006

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?

Mmmm, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.

Liberals are pushing for Euthanasia.

Perhaps that's the great plan. Start with the junkies!

Get all these junkies euthanized, by OD of their favorite drugs. At least they die happy!

Charles Anthony · August 20, 2006

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?
Mmmm, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.

Yes but most people are blind.

Here is a solution:

1) stop wasting money on the illegal-illicit-drug-enforcement industry

2) decriminalize all street drugs

3) if you really care, treat drug addiction as a health problem

Call me a Liberal or a Conservative or a Lefty McRighty, I do not care.

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

And all that disgusting filth on the streets remains Charles, what do we do about the guy grabbing your leg as you walk by, asking for more money to spend on drugs and booze?

Who's going to protect the kids from cocaine and other hard drugs too if they are legal? It's not like they can always make a clear informed decision on the topic, free from pressure.

Charles Anthony · August 20, 2006

And all that disgusting filth on the streets remains Charles, what do we do about the guy grabbing your leg as you walk by, asking for more money to spend on drugs and booze?

First, it distresses me when you use the terms "filth on the streets" to describe drug addiction. Are you concerned about these people's health? You do not have to be but I am curious.

Second, I have never had anybody grab my legs. If you have, just treat them as you would any other attacker. That issue does not have to focus on drugs.

Third, I see drug addiction and laziness everyday. I see poverty too.

What do I do? I usually say "No. I have no change." and I continue to walk by. My donation will help more when it goes to the local shelter or soup kitchen or church. I am entitled to my opinion. I am not expecting everybody to do the same. There is no right or wrong.

What do I recommend as policy? Cut the spending on drug enforcement of police departments and decriminalize illicit drugs. The money that is saved on these cuts can be directed into rehab, if you care. The reason is simple: use the same policies that are used when drunk people commit crimes or when the mentally ill commit crimes. We permit anti-depressants and alcohol. The only difference is that "friends" of the licensing boards make the money.

Who's going to protect the kids from cocaine and other hard drugs too if they are legal?

That has nothing to do with the criminality.

Who is protecting them now that can not protect them if illicit drugs are decriminalized?

It's not like they can always make a clear informed decision on the topic, free from pressure.

No public policy of criminalized drugs can do that anyway.

betsy · August 21, 2006

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?
Mmmm, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.
Yes but most people are blind.
Here is a solution:

1) stop wasting money on the illegal-illicit-drug-enforcement industry

2) decriminalize all street drugs

3) if you really care, treat drug addiction as a health problem

Call me a Liberal or a Conservative or a Lefty McRighty, I do not care.

Drug Rehab centers not good enough?

Why should I put the "health" of addicts before that of others who are contributing to society?

How much drop in crime will it be in places like Toronto...if there were no addicts?

I care for the others MORE than I care for addicts....and I make no apology for I find no wrong in it.

I do emphatize however, for those who wish to cleanse themselves out and are having tough luck....and for their families who had to go through hell with them.

Most of these addicst have chosen this lifestyle....amidst all the barrage of information warning them about the horrors and dangers of drugs. That they've chosen to ignore all is their choice. That they wish to wreck their lives is of their own choice.

Most of these addicts lead dangerous lives....a lot are from the sex trade (as an example). Well if, drugs don't get them, AIDS will....or someone like the pig farmer!

If a person is bent on self-destructing....I think it is impractical to waste our resources concentrating on them. The resources should go where it will be most beneficial for EVERYONE! There are a lot of other programs worthy of more funding.

I say take the infants and children away from addicts. Help those children!

Charles Anthony · August 21, 2006

Why should I put the "health" of addicts before that of others who are contributing to society?

That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that it makes no sense to criminalizing them.

gc1765 · August 21, 2006

What's more expensive, paying for needles or paying to keep addicts in jail?

What's more moral, straightening someone out, or providing them the means to continue their self-destruction?

Lives before money is kind of an important value, I thought you were a liberal?

Well you are the one who brought up the issue of money. I simply pointed out that in terms of money, paying for needles is probably a lot less expensive than putting someone in jail. If you want to make the moral argument instead, fine, but I thought conservatives believed in people taking responsibility for their choices? I am a liberal, but I believe in small government, as in it's not the governments job to legislate morality. From a "moral" point of view, I agree with Riverwind's ideas, to give them the option to get clean and pay for those services. But that's also probably expensive, and therefore I imagine a lot of conservatives would be opposed to the idea. Either way I don't think putting them straight into jail is solving any problems.

As a small government liberal, I would say as long as people aren't harming others, they should be able to choose what they want to do with their lives. The problem is when addicts start breaking into homes to pay for their addiction. A better solution might be to lay off people who do drugs, and focus more on the people who steal to support their habit. Those are the people that belong in jail.