[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[Kaelik]

How, please tell me how you do this and still have even a vague resemblence that we still live in a constitutional republic after you are said and done. How can you legally cap the salary of anyone? How can you legally prevent any other form of compensation to anyone?

Easy. Turns out Constitutional Republic doesn't mean ALL THE STUFF BELONGS TO ME!

It's actually just a way of making decisions. If the elected representatives of people choose to pass a law capping salaries of say, any corporation that does interstate business, then those salaries are capped. Because the defining characteristic of a constitutional republic is how decisions are made, not what the decisions are.

[Whatever]

Quiz time!

Our current social structure disproportionately favors:
a) the poor
b) the rich

The people who should pay a disproportionate amount to maintain the current social structure are:
a) the poor
b) the rich

[tzor]

Easy. Turns out Constitutional Republic doesn't mean ALL THE STUFF BELONGS TO ME!

It's actually just a way of making decisions. If the elected representatives of people choose to pass a law capping salaries of say, any corporation that does interstate business, then those salaries are capped. Because the defining characteristic of a constitutional republic is how decisions are made, not what the decisions are.

First of all, the constitution does not allow the Federal Government to target indivuals in law. Laws apply equally to everyone.

Secondly, how do you even write a law that prohibts how much A (a company) can give to B (an individual within that company)? The only place you can even get to anything that defines salary is in the tax code and that is after the fact; that is at the level of person B. There is no place in the tax code where you can effectively do what you are proposing, with the possible exception of completely new regulations in the corporate tax rate and throwing that into the corporate tax system would completely sink the US economy.

And it simply would not work. There is nothing preventing the Incredibly Stupid Company from just breaking up into a plethora of divisions each now becomming their own company and all hiring the same guy for CEO. Are you going to implement laws that limit how many jobs a person can have at the same time?

It just flat out won't work.

There is simply no way to solve the problem without hurting honest CEOs. The crooks will find a way around the law; they always do!

[tzor]

Quiz time!

Oh goody, I lvoe quizzes!

Our current social structure disproportionately favors:
a) the poor
b) the rich

c) the elite

Generally all of the elite are rich, but not all rich are elite.

Bill Gates is rich.
Nancy Pelosi is elite.

The people who should pay a disproportionate amount to maintain the current social structure are:
a) the poor
b) the rich

c) neither. Everyone should pay a "proportionate" amount, otherwise it isn't "fair." Even the elite should pay a proportionate amount.

Now it's my turn ...

The way people pay to "maintain the current social structure" is
a) through charity
b) through taxes
c) all of the above

[Kaelik]

First of all, the constitution does not allow the Federal Government to target indivuals in law. Laws apply equally to everyone.

Secondly, how do you even write a law that prohibts how much A (a company) can give to B (an individual within that company)?

1) Yes, which is why the law will apply to all corporations that the federal government has the right to regulate, IE all of them that engage in interstate commerce. Have you ever read the Civil Rights Act?

2) It's really easy, it's exactly like writing a law that they have to provide insurance to employees, or that they aren't allowed to sell drugs. You make a bunch of clauses about who is or isn't an employer. Then you make a bunch of clauses about who does or doesn't count as an employee, then you make some more about what does or doesn't count as salary, then you make one that says "No X may give more than A Zs to Y."

Bamf. You suddenly have a bill.

Also, technically, you probably wan't an enforcement provision or several too.

[Whatever]

Generally all of the elite are rich, but not all rich are elite.

Bill Gates is rich.
Nancy Pelosi is elite.

Tzor you are an ignorant clown. It took 3 seconds to google "nancy pelosi net worth" and find this on her goddamn wikipedia page:

Nancy Pelosi is among the richest members of Congress,[107] with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million, the 12th highest estimated net worth in Congress, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics[108]

And feel free to give us some wildly incorrect numbers on charitable spending, I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh. The only serious money the wealthy spend on preserving the current system goes to lobbying groups and campaign contributions. I guess it's better to bribe the government than to fund the government?


edit: oh wait, did you seriously mean that only some of the rich people benefit from our current social structure? I assumed you meant it the other way, because you misstating your position would have only been mildly stupid on your part. Evidently, I was wrong to give you that credit. Are you clinically retarded? They are rich, the system protects their wealth. They are the ones with something to lose.

[Neeeek]

First of all, the constitution does not allow the Federal Government to target indivuals in law. Laws apply equally to everyone.

And mandating that the person paid the most by a corporation is not paid more than X times the average person of that corporation targets no one specifically.

Secondly, how do you even write a law that prohibts how much A (a company) can give to B (an individual within that company)? The only place you can even get to anything that defines salary is in the tax code and that is after the fact; that is at the level of person B. There is no place in the tax code where you can effectively do what you are proposing, with the possible exception of completely new regulations in the corporate tax rate and throwing that into the corporate tax system would completely sink the US economy.

That you think that writing such a law would be hard shows you have no idea how laws are written, nor that the legal language is actually really easy to draft. That you think you'd need to use the tax code to do it is even funnier. You just mandate corporate bylaws that require compensation based on median worker income for officers. Frankly, it would be the best thing to happen to corporate bottomlines ever.

And it simply would not work. There is nothing preventing the Incredibly Stupid Company from just breaking up into a plethora of divisions each now becomming their own company and all hiring the same guy for CEO. Are you going to implement laws that limit how many jobs a person can have at the same time?

Wouldn't work. Not even vaguely. The corporate necessities necessary to make that work are incredibly expensive, and, frankly, the CEO wouldn't have time to bother. You do know they face jail time if their books are wrong, right? You think they want to review books from multiple companies?

There is simply no way to solve the problem without hurting honest CEOs. The crooks will find a way around the law; they always do!

It's not possible to hurt the honest CEOs. They would already be earning less than this plan would effect.

[Psychic Robot]

And mandating that the person paid the most by a corporation is not paid more than X times the average person of that corporation targets no one specifically.

not going to work

CEOs will get lots of stock options, cars, and other toys instead of actual money then. you seriously cannot regulate away wealth disparity. best solution is to make sure that the profits of companies stay in america and benefit the nation rather than going overseas to china

[Neeeek]

And mandating that the person paid the most by a corporation is not paid more than X times the average person of that corporation targets no one specifically.

not going to work

CEOs will get lots of stock options, cars, and other toys instead of actual money then.

You realize that you can make giving them that stuff illegal, or treat it as actual monetary compensation, with essentially no trouble whatsoever, right?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I think that even Tzor realizes that all rich people benefit from not being dragged out of their nice comfy mansions and also benefit from not getting lynched in the streets. Which is what will happen if they don't drop the "We do everything for you poor people so stop making me pay taxes" bullshit.

Don't take my word for it, though! Ask the Bourbon family how that turned out. (Spoiler alert: Not well). And there is no amount of Tzor claiming the poor are spoiled helpless children that's going to stop it.

[fbmf]

Generally all of the elite are rich, but not all rich are elite.

Bill Gates is rich.
Nancy Pelosi is elite.

Tzor you are an ignorant clown. It took 3 seconds to google "nancy pelosi net worth" and find this on her goddamn wikipedia page:

Nancy Pelosi is among the richest members of Congress,[107] with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million, the 12th highest estimated net worth in Congress, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics[108]

So...Pelosi is indeed rich. Which is what Tzor said. What's the problem?

(Not denying that there were holes in tzor's argument. Am affirming that this was not one of them.)

Game On,
fbmf

[Psychic Robot]

You realize that you can make giving them that stuff illegal, or treat it as actual monetary compensation, with essentially no trouble whatsoever, right?

I would love to see you try to enforce this

[Whatever]

Generally all of the elite are rich, but not all rich are elite.

Bill Gates is rich.
Nancy Pelosi is elite.

Tzor you are an ignorant clown. It took 3 seconds to google "nancy pelosi net worth" and find this on her goddamn wikipedia page:

Nancy Pelosi is among the richest members of Congress,[107] with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million, the 12th highest estimated net worth in Congress, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics[108]

So...Pelosi is indeed rich. Which is what Tzor said. What's the problem?

(Not denying that there were holes in tzor's argument. Am affirming that this was not one of them.)

Game On,
fbmf

Like I said in my edit, I misread his argument because I could not believe that he was actually arguing that the current system benefits Bill Gates no more than it does someone living in poverty. I mean, what the fuck?

[tzor]

This is what I wrote, please READ IT.

Generally all of the elite are rich, but not all rich are elite.

Tzor you are an ignorant clown. It took 3 seconds to google "nancy pelosi net worth" and find this on her goddamn wikipedia page:

Nancy Pelosi is among the richest members of Congress,[107] with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million, the 12th highest estimated net worth in Congress, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics[108]

You know, if Bill Gates has to fly across the continent ... he has to pay for it.

If Nancy Pelosi has to fly across the continent ... it's FREE. Yea, not having the exclusive military jet she had when she was speaker sucks, but it is still free.

If Bill Gates wants something special out of congress in order to benefit one of his investments, he has to personally bribe (I mean make a political donation to) a bunch of people in congress.

If Nancy Pelosi wants a special perk for one of her husband's investments she snaps her fingers and one of her aids hands her the magic wand and POOF, it happens.

If Bill Gates actually violated the law he would have his ass dragged into court. (Gee didn't the EU do that to Microsoft?)

If Nancy Pelosi actually violated the law, she would laugh at how you could possibly be serious.

Never underestimate the power of the elite; which cannot be measured in terms of money.


Speaking of elites ... Green-jobs success: Jobs created … in Finland « Hot Air http://bit.ly/oNEHsavia @hotairblog

Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.

...

Yes, the car is named the Karma, in what can only be called delicious irony. Not so delicious are the car company’s connections, and its performance. Want to guess what famous name is behind Fisker? Surprise, surprise: it’s Al Gore, whose venture capital firm invested heavily in Fisker, an investment that got quite a boost from taxpayer dollars.

If that sounds familiar, just do a search on this site for “George Kaiser.” Once again, a taxpayer-funded loan guarantee ends up benefiting the commercial venture of a man with deep political connections to the Democratic Party and/or Barack Obama. What a coincidence!

So this is the real power of the elites, it is not their wealth alone. They also have the wealth and full faith and credit of the United States government, which makes even the richest man seem only slightly wealthy.

They wield the real power.

[Psychic Robot]

tzor this is the abortion thread not the republican talking points thread

although that car does cost $97,000. SHIT BAMMY GET IT TOGETHER

[tzor]

tzor this is the abortion thread not the republican talking points thread

I'm just replying to ... whatever.

[virgil]

/frustration
In response to a statement of "Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions. It stops safe abortions."

making them legal doesn't stop them either.
I dont know why is so complicated. We define death at any point the body has zero brain activity and heart beat. Logically, the inverse must be true, if you have either a heartbeat or brain activity then you are alive. Mathematically is IF A (and) B >> C, then (not)C >> (not)A or (not)B. This logic cannot be denied or argued. It simply is.
All I mean by this is, I do not think its the right of anyone to take the life of another. That being said it is difficult to say ""when" life begins. Thus saying that abortion should be allowed because people will do it anyways isn't a foundation for not having a law. If this is the argument of the poster you have just stated that all laws should not exist and therefor even murder is okay. So we must have a foundation for our logic and how we go about our laws. Since religion cannot be incorporated(which again is foolish) then you must break down to logic. This is why I am always barking at silly little posters like this. Their only intention is forcefully push an idea on someone who does not agree. And then the person who posted it to laugh at the people who disagree with it entirely.
So, I believe keep it illegal at any point we know a baby to be alive. And if you have a problem with it do not have sex. Rape cases for pregnancy is so freaking low, and yet again you could simple handle "before" it is considered alive; that argument only makes me laugh.

More stuff happens, someone brings up mandatory organ transplants & mother's rights...

"wow, yeah, mother rights tramp the fetus's rights." Fetus = period of time of fertilization prior to known impregnation....Baby = we know know that the impregnation created another life. As to the rest; baby = person. Sometimes they are created under the worst cases known. I am sorry but I protect life and the horrible act has already happened. Two wrongs = no right.
So people don't have the right to their organs? Baby = person = right to life.
Citizens are obligated to compulsory marrow transplants? You are installing crap again. I never said this was okay.
The way in which you introduce the idea is one of assaulting characteristics and the only why I can respond is to be on the defensive about it. So, if you want to ask what about taking drugs or being forced to take bone marrow trans...these things have nothing of course to do with abortion topic. Death argument I brought up was to show the inverse. The inverse to being a live is to be dead. We have defined death(in some states this of course is not universal among all states). I was using a basic logic script and applying to what laws we have already generated; again albeit not in every state, to define when abortion is illegal. Note; I did not say abortion should be 100% illegal. Why D&E's are considered abortion I will never know.
When a poster says abortion should be legal, it is specifying all abortions. I have given plenty of information, anyone would be able to find out my standings and why I said what I have. And to the people that illegally go to clinics and illegally gave abortions I don't know what to say, the only argument given so far has been "they are going to do it anyway". I am really exasperated by this. I keep saying "what, why would you, how do you, how old are you?" Have you any idea what it looks like to have an abortion 4 months in? 5 months? 6 months? I really wish you do pass those laws that allow for murder. Seriously, all I would need then is gods blessing for all those killings after the first trimester; I would strike vengeance.

I'm trying to think of a proper response.

[Username17]

I can't really follow the reasoning the person you're quoting has for dismissing the organ transplant argument. There doesn't actually seem to be one. It's actually quite simple:

• I have leukemia, I will die unless I get some of your bone marrow products. Because of the luck of protein typing, no other person will do. Taking your bone marrow would hurt you, cause you noticeable risk, and make you lose time from work or school. But if you aren't forced to give it up, I will die.
• I am a fetus, I will die unless I get some of your bone marrow products. Because of the luck of uterus location, no other person will do. Taking your blood would hurt you, cause you noticeable risk, and make you lose time from work or school. But if you aren't forced to give it up, I will die.

Now, that still doesn't cover it, because the entire argument that fetuses are babies is simply out and out bullshit. Fetuses are fetuses, babies are babies - there's no confusing those two things. But there's literally no possible part of the "two wrongs = no right" argument for forced birthing that doesn't also result in mandatory kidney donations. If you have a right to someone else's body parts just because "not having them would make you die" at age negative six months, I don't see how that right would go away at age six years or age sixty years.

Either right to life trumps the sanctity of each person's body or it fucking doesn't. If you're a forced birther, you necessarily have determined that other peoples' right to life trumps your ownership of your own body parts. There's no moral argument you could make that would make that apply to someone's uterus but not their liver.

-Username17

[Starmaker]

Don't argue with the Chewbacca defense. The person or people you are arguing with are evidently incapable of reason and logic. Instead, they argue about (1) legality and (2) ethics employing the "technique" commonly seen in free association "games" played on lesser forums - specifically, they string vaguely related nouns to arrive at their goal: person - baby - carriage - cars - Disney - Mickey - copyright law - pirates - ninjas - Japan - anime - tentacles - Cthulhu - Wait! I know! Abortion is an alien plot!

If you absolutely have to continue the discussion, go strictly utilitarian, provide and focus on actual numbers describing the quality of life of living humans, not living tissue, and don't budge.

[Maj]

The classifications for babies and injured adults is different because babies can only actually become babies if they're biologically developed enough to make it outside the womb. Yeah, heartbeats are great, but if you can't breathe because your lungs haven't been fully developed yet, a beating heart is sort of pointless.

[name_here]

Okay, his argument about heartbeat and brain activity is extremely stupid. Obviously a fetus is alive, but that isn't the issue in any interpretation. Aside from Frank's argument, which is valid for any level of development that can't survive a cesarean section, being alive and qualifying for human rights are different. Insects are definitely alive, after all.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Do you think that someone can make a utilitarian argument for forced kidney or uterus donations to needy people?

That's a really extreme position, to be sure, but on the other hand most (though not all) people can recognize the morality of conscription. And forced military service has moral problems above and beyond stealing peoples' labor and lives.

[erik]

I think virgil, the proper response to that person's word salad argument is to back slowly away and make no loud noises or sudden movements. They cap it off by saying they seek god's blessing to murder people if only it would not inconvenience them legally. You have a fucking repressed violent nut on your hands.

Associating with these types cannot end well.

[Chamomile]

Do you think that someone can make a utilitarian argument for forced kidney or uterus donations to needy people?

The hard part is making a utilitarian argument against forced kidney donations. If someone's going to die without it, and the odds you will be killed in the process are pretty slim, then from a utilitarian perspective your comfort and convenience is not worth the other person's life (I'm assuming that kidney donations aren't all that risky and don't cause permanent debilitating problems to the donor, but haven't really done any research so I could be completely wrong). The only drawback is societal trust: People might not trust a government/society that's willing to harvest their non-essential organs for other people's benefit, but that's really just a problem of social engineering. Grant some hefty tax breaks to the people who you harvest a kidney from, because they paid in a kidney instead of cash, and there's decent odds you'll have your pick of volunteers.

[Kaelik]

Do you think that someone can make a utilitarian argument for forced kidney or uterus donations to needy people?

The hard part is making a utilitarian argument against forced kidney donations. If someone's going to die without it, and the odds you will be killed in the process are pretty slim, then from a utilitarian perspective your comfort and convenience is not worth the other person's life (I'm assuming that kidney donations aren't all that risky and don't cause permanent debilitating problems to the donor, but haven't really done any research so I could be completely wrong). The only drawback is societal trust: People might not trust a government/society that's willing to harvest their non-essential organs for other people's benefit, but that's really just a problem of social engineering. Grant some hefty tax breaks to the people who you harvest a kidney from, because they paid in a kidney instead of cash, and there's decent odds you'll have your pick of volunteers.

Actually, the utilitarian argument is really easy. If you force people to give up a kidney to save someone then the process of determining who's kidney to take is super fucking hard and actually costs more resources than some random fuck is worth.

On the other hand, if you just let whomever wants to give a kidney do so, and you put all those resources towards taking those kidneys and prioritizing them to the people who most need them, you can actually get more for the same resources.

Especially with Kidneys, because people can totally live without them for some time.