Random Political Thoughts

[b_dubb]

the civil thing to do is investigate why they are on a hunger strike. if they have a valid beef, resolve it. else ... let the problem solve itself

[Sardondi]

the civil thing to do is investigate why they are on a hunger strike. if they have a valid beef, resolve it. else ... let the problem solve itself

It would be nice to think that cons play by the same rules we do. That way when something remarkable happens, like a supposed 30,000 inmate hunger strike, you'd have to suspect something is really wrong, since that is such a dangerous thing that no rational person would do it absent drastic circumstances. Well, it's nice to think so.

It's also nice to think that the majority of prisoners are regular people, who as kids "got in with the wrong crowd". Yeah, some are. But you must try very hard in America to go to prison.* Particularly hard in California, which has a crushingly large population of violent inmates. By the time the average person goes to prison he's committed multiple felonies, starting as a juvenile. The average long-sentence con has a long, long list of crimes, and has had many chances to straighten out.

Which means that most prisoners are seriously bad men. The vast majority of those participating in a hunger strike are harder than steel. They are manipulative and deceitful beyond anything in your experience, completely without conscience. The whole of existence for so many of them is merely to get over on someone, particularly someone associated wit the straight life or representative of authority. They live by the code of the con, not by anything remotely related to right and wrong, good and bad or law and order. They are at war with the straight life. They can never live like "civilians" as they call a regular crime-free person.

At heart that is what is going on in California. They'll dress it up as something else, as they adopt some other cause, because many are very intelligent, and they know from long experience that there are always any number of gullible members of the media who think they alone can see through the hard exterior of a con to a great soul underneath. But it's all a game. Because the prisoners have 24 hours time to kill every day. And if it they can use it screwing with The Man they count it a good day.



* As opposed to breaking the law. In America it is very easy to break the law, often without any ill intent at all. That is because of the avalanche of administrative and regulatory type offenses which Congress and states have created in the last 30 years. It's a travesty.

[RealCool Daddio]

Guards at the Texas statehouse are confiscating tampons and sanitary pads from people attending the abortion debate today. 


Guns are still ok, though.

[PB the Deplorable]

Guards at the Texas statehouse are confiscating tampons and sanitary pads from people attending the abortion debate today. 


Guns are still ok, though.

You left out jars of paint, urine and shit.  And bricks. 

Maybe they were going to use this stuff to build an outhouse behind the capital.

[NowhereInTime]

You left out jars of paint, urine and shit.  And bricks. 

Maybe they were going to use this stuff to build an outhouse behind the capital.

It's because they mistook the Texas capital as an outhouse. Easy one to make.

[Sardondi]

I'm not even anti-abortion, but I despise the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the forces now trying to turn the Texas situaiton into a fight for women's vaginas. What a repulsive bunch of,liars. Was it just 15 years ago that NARAL and NOW were screaming that partial-birth abortion was a false bugaboo planted by anti-abortion forces as a way of ginning opposition to normal, nice abortion? Why, pro-choice people never never never wanted to see the horrible, terrible, not so good partial birth abortion passed. It was all an anti lie!

Except today, well, it's not. Because in Texas national abortion forces are shrieking that their vaginas will never be free unless abortionists can wait until a baby has emerged out to its navel before its skull is cracked open and its brains either scrambled or sucked out. For that is what the process is. And, darn it, it's worth scrambling the brains of a few thousand babies whose feet are the only thing remaining inside the birth canal, to keep vaginas everywhere free.

[onan]

I'm not even anti-abortion, but I despise the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the forces now trying to turn the Texas situaiton into a fight for women's vaginas. What a repulsive bunch of,liars. Was it just 15 years ago that NARAL and NOW were screaming that partial-birth abortion was a false bugaboo planted by anti-abortion forces as a way of ginning opposition to normal, nice abortion? Why, pro-choice people never never never wanted to see the horrible, terrible, not so good partial birth abortion passed. It was all an anti lie!

Except today, well, it's not. Because in Texas national abortion forces are shrieking that their vaginas will never be free unless abortionists can wait until a baby has emerged out to its navel before its skull is cracked open and its brains either scrambled or sucked out. For that is what the process is. And, darn it, it's worth scrambling the brains of a few thousand babies whose feet are the only thing remaining inside the birth canal, to keep vaginas everywhere free.

I have never heard of naral not supporting late term abortions. what I remember was someone coming forward and saying many of the late term abortions were not, as had been suggested, all for the health of the mother. And there is certainly room to suspect some less than honest talk about that... it did put some egg on some proponents faces.

[stevesh]

I have never heard of naral not supporting late term abortions. what I remember was someone coming forward and saying many of the late term abortions were not, as had been suggested, all for the health of the mother. And there is certainly room to suspect some less than honest talk about that... it did put some egg on some proponents faces.

The argument went from to save 'the life of the mother' to 'the health of the mother' to 'the health, including mental health, of the mother'. In other words, partial-birth abortion is OK if the 'mother' changes her mind at the last minute. It's always been a mystery to me how otherwise decent people can actually advocate for infanticide.

[FightTheFuture]

The argument went from to save 'the life of the mother' to 'the health of the mother' to 'the health, including mental health, of the mother'. In other words, partial-birth abortion is OK if the 'mother' changes her mind at the last minute. It's always been a mystery to me how otherwise decent people can actually advocate for infanticide.

Word

[Sardondi]

...It's always been a mystery to me how otherwise decent people can actually advocate for infanticide.

Because vaginas.

[Yorkshire pud]

Because vaginas.

..are also known as growlers, snatches, clams...

[Lunger]

..are also known as growlers, snatches, clams...

Mmmmmm  Clams!

[Yorkshire pud]

Mmmmmm  Clams!

green lipped ones? Ahem...


Sorry.. 

[NowhereInTime]

Because vaginas.

This explains a lot about you, Sardondi.  Nothing wrong with vaginas that few frumpy old self righteous white men can't fix.

[Sardondi]

This explains a lot about you, Sardondi.  Nothing wrong with vaginas that few frumpy old self righteous white men can't fix.

I'm just still trying to figure out how prohibiting the killing of infants which have emerged up to the umbilicus from the birth canal (that condition which for most of recorded medical history has been known as "live birth") somehow implicates the GOP in a supposed power grab for women's vaginas, as has quite literally been argued by the pros in Austin. Not to be confused with the pros from Dover.

[onan]

Late term abortions start at 20 weeks, 7 to 10 days before viability. The fetus is still small. Smaller than the size of a man's hand flexed. Most women are just starting to "show" they are pregnant.


In the little experience I have, I believe what Sardondi explains is incorrect. The fetus has not been partially "delivered" to the umbilicus. It has in fact been terminated by surgical means in utero. It isn't pretty. It isn't easily and certainly not delicately explained.


But if a fetus/infant is already delivered to the umbilicus; it would be almost impossible for the delivery not to complete in a very few seconds.


I don't like discussing this topic because it becomes more about personal beliefs than any specific procedure. Why a woman chooses to have a late term abortion is complicated. But facts are important.


And as much as some do not like it, the decision is better handled between patient and doctor. Not a bunch of forum talkers.

[Sardondi]

...But if a fetus/infant is already delivered to the umbilicus; it would be almost impossible for the delivery not to complete in a very few seconds....

And thus the fiction inherent to the procedure. But I think that, quite literally, delivery to the umbilicus is considered the limit of late-term abortion. Now, whether I saw that description in the literal language of the act, or as an AMA definition of late-term abortion I can't say. But I saw it someplace like that. And I do agree that trying to stop a normal delivery past the shoulders would be like keeping a grape inside a split skin.

And I agree as well that even discussing this stuff makes me feel dirty and depressed.

[RealCool Daddio]

I said previously that I don't like to wade into abortion discussions, and posted a link to some thought experiments by Judith Thomson.  Here is one of them for those who didn't follow the link:


In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of somethingâ€"the use of your bodyâ€"to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of somethingâ€"the use of the pregnant woman's bodyâ€"to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.[6]

[Marc.Knight]

I said previously that I don't like to wade into abortion discussions, and posted a link to some thought experiments by Judith Thomson.  Here is one of them for those who didn't follow the link:


In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of somethingâ€"the use of your bodyâ€"to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of somethingâ€"the use of the pregnant woman's bodyâ€"to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.[6]

This is more of a "lack of thought experiment". 

[RealCool Daddio]

This is more of a "lack of thought experiment".

A succinct, but baseless, conclusion.

[Marc.Knight]

A succinct, but baseless, conclusion.

With total respect for you, and none for the excerpt, I cannot even begin to unpack all of the illogic presented as some kind of intellectual discourse.

[RealCool Daddio]

With total respect for you, and none for the excerpt, I cannot even begin to unpack all of the illogic presented as some kind of intellectual discourse.

Fair enough, and I admit it that her choice of example, and words, is not particularly elegant.  But I do think this part gets to the heart of the debate:


For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of somethingâ€"the use of the pregnant woman's bodyâ€"to which it has no right.


I am not choosing sides in this, and it is certainly an emotional subject, but it does capture the essence of women's rights vs. the rights of the unborn.

[Marc.Knight]

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of somethingâ€"the use of the pregnant woman's bodyâ€"to which it has no right.

Sophomoric reasoning.  A simple interjection of 'causality' destroys this proposition.

[Yorkshire pud]

And as much as some do not like it, the decision is better handled between patient and doctor. Not a bunch of forum talkers.

^^^ This.. and only this.

[FightTheFuture]

The cardiovascular system is the first major system to function. At about 22 days after conception the child's heart begins to circulate his own blood, unique to that of his mother's, and his heartbeat can be detected on ultrasound.

Just because the baby is vulnerable and small, gives no right to anyone to stop the baby's heart and extinguish the most innocent of life

[Yorkshire pud]

Just because the baby is vulnerable and small, gives no right to anyone to stop the baby's heart and extinguish the most innocent of life

There are many reasons why abortion takes place. 99% of the time it isn't a decision taken lightly, and frequently it's taken with ongoing distress to the mother for several years afterwards. This is quite apart from the instances of conceptions that could result in the mother's death, unbidden pregnancy from rape/ incest, failed contraception (men lying about a vasectomy or a forgotten daily pill), unsuitable contraception that fails (coil v pill) ..My son was an unplanned conception due to his mother being on meds for a condition; the meds made her forgetful, she literally forgot to take her pill; and contrary to some myths, some do need to be taken daily.


In Ireland this week they've just dragged themselves into the 20th century and allowed (because their legislature is inextricably linked into what the Vatican demands) terminations from conceptions that put the mother at risk from death. They still ban abortions from such as 12 year old girls being raped by the favourite uncle, or a serial rapist picking out a mother of two kids.. But life is so simple and black and white when you don't directly have to deal with such things, and can simply condemn a woman for killing a foetus.


Simply bringing in 'rules' against abortion won't stop it; which is why in Ireland (But by means the only place) the instances of young and not so young women frequently dying as a result of back street abortions is not something they like to brag about. The same way laws on drugs and prostitution doesn't stop either, it merely makes it go underground.

[Lunger]

There are many reasons why abortion takes place. 99% of the time it isn't a decision taken lightly, ....

What are you basing that number on?

[Yorkshire pud]

What are you basing that number on?

From the various people involved in the medical side of it, who are trotted out on debates on TV/ radio every time this topic is flavour of the week on this side of the pond. I accept it's anecdotal, but I guess admin don't usually send out a questionnaire pre and post termination to gauge if the mother has/ will do/ never will regret what they're doing..


From my own point of view, I'm a man, and I don't have a say in what a woman should do with her own body. I have also been in a position where that very topic came up in my own fatherhood circumstances. Of course I'm thankful that my son's mother chose to carry him, although it was pointed out that it could be dangerous to her with her ongoing medical issues..Given the choice at the time and she had been facing serious disability/ death, and  it had been her or him? No way would I have lost her. But of course being the woman she is, she'd have risked herself. Until you're faced with it, (and as prospective parents we could have at any time in the term) you don't know for certain what you'd do until it happens.


But it's interesting that you pick that one point up, but non of the others that give some of the reasons why it happens in the first place, and how forcing it underground will simply make things worse. 

[Yorkshire pud]

From the various people involved in the medical side of it, who are trotted out on debates on TV/ radio every time this topic is flavour of the week on this side of the pond. I accept it's anecdotal, but I guess admin don't usually send out a questionnaire pre and post termination to gauge if the mother has/ will do/ never will regret what they're doing..


From my own point of view, I'm a man, and I don't have a say in what a woman should do with her own body. I have also been in a position where that very topic came up in my own fatherhood circumstances. Of course I'm thankful that my son's mother chose to carry him, although it was pointed out that it could be dangerous to her with her ongoing medical issues..Given the choice at the time and she had been facing serious disability/ death, and  it had been her or him? No way would I have lost her. But of course being the woman she is, she'd have risked herself. Until you're faced with it, (and as prospective parents we could have at any time in the term) you don't know for certain what you'd do until it happens.


But it's interesting that you pick that one point up, but non of the others that give some of the reasons why it happens in the first place, and how forcing it underground will simply make things worse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22890049


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23151838


The second link is interesting..Only applies if the prospective woman is suicidal; not if it would kill her! Gotta love em eh?

[Marc.Knight]

From the various people involved in the medical side of it, who are trotted out on debates on TV/ radio every time this topic is flavour of the week on this side of the pond. I accept it's anecdotal, but I guess admin don't usually send out a questionnaire pre and post termination to gauge if the mother has/ will do/ never will regret what they're doing..


From my own point of view, I'm a man, and I don't have a say in what a woman should do with her own body. I have also been in a position where that very topic came up in my own fatherhood circumstances. Of course I'm thankful that my son's mother chose to carry him, although it was pointed out that it could be dangerous to her with her ongoing medical issues..Given the choice at the time and she had been facing serious disability/ death, and  it had been her or him? No way would I have lost her. But of course being the woman she is, she'd have risked herself. Until you're faced with it, (and as prospective parents we could have at any time in the term) you don't know for certain what you'd do until it happens.


But it's interesting that you pick that one point up, but non of the others that give some of the reasons why it happens in the first place, and how forcing it underground will simply make things worse.

Given the number of abortions, 50 million in the USA since 1973, there is a likelihood that the decision to have an abortion is not initially seriously discerned.  In fact, by many it is seen as simply another means of contraception.

An underlying force behind abortion is the profit motive.  Inclusive of government funding Planned Parenthood generated an annual $1.2 billion and ended the 2010-11 fiscal year with $87.4 million in excess funds.

It is an industry like any other and should be judged as such.  This means having a more comprehensive regulatory framework and effective diversion programs.

Regardless of one's point of view, none of this should be taken lightly.