|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 14, 2014 17:00:53 GMT
Well, at least you are candid as regarding your "very low opinion" of most Americans' capacity for rational thought. (It is certainly true that there are some low-information types--and these gave Barack Obama his margin of victory in both 2008 and 2012--but to imagine that these represent Americans in general strikes me as being immensely elitist.) By the way, the Founders--whom you have enlisted in support of your elitist viewpoint--did not live in a society in which a four-year college degree (or even a high-school diploma) was the utterly ubiquitous matter that it is in 2014. As for the possible confusion of "opinions" with actual "news reporting"--well, nice try. But on FNC, at least (which I watch regularly), the two are kept entirely separate. For instance, on Special Report (which airs from 5:00 PM-6:00 PM CT--my own time zone), the first 40 minutes or so are devoted to hard news, whereas the remaining 20 minutes or so are devoted to a panel discussion, in which opinions are routinely offerred. Moreover, I am not at all certain that all illegals in the US are working for "minimum wage." However, even many of those who are may send part of their respective paycheks back home to Mexico. In any case, that is certainly what I have heard reported. Why would our having a robust guest-worker program have to exclude all but "seasonal" work? Contrary to your own suggestion, I have heard it reported on the news that the fence near San Diego (and Baja, California) has slowed illegal immigration there to a mere trickle; in fact, that it has almost stopped it completely. To assert that the US has been racist from the beginning is to miss the point. Yes, Thomas Jefferson had slaves (and even fathered a child by one of those slaves: Sally Hemmings). And Abraham Lincoln, a couple of generations later, made statements about black people that could easily have been the words of the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan (which would actually not be formed until a little later, during the Reconstruction Era). Worse yet, Lincoln's words were not even uttered during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of the 1850s, but during his tenure as President of the United States, during the Civil War. But that has changed enormously since the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. So to lament "our national political ideology by the WASP's that have been in control of our government and our economy since it was created" begs the question: What would you wish to see changed, fundamentally, about out "government and our economy," if only you could wave a magic wand and accomplish it? Would you wish for America to more closely resemble Europe? Or Venezuela? Or what?
Please go back and read what I said. I didn't say that Americans had a low capacity for rational thought. I stated that IMO the American people had a very low understanding and knowledge of the political ideology upon which America was founded. This is no just among common Americans but is reflected at our highest level of government. I'll provide two examples.
1) Rand Paul, that we both acknowledge as being informed, opposes abortion and has endorsed establishing "personhood" for the preborn but fails to understand that would not change the Right of a Woman to have an abortion based upon the Inalienable Rights of a Person. An Inalienable Right is certainly inherent in the Person and while personhood implies Rights for the Preborn there cannot be an Inalienable Right if it conflicts with our infringes upon someone else's Inalienable Rights or creates an obligation upon another Person. The preborn would certainly have a Right to Life if granted personhood but not inside the woman's womb as that would infringed upon her Rights and impose an Obligation upon her. So the Preborn would have a Right to Life outside of the woman's body if it could survive on it's own. In effect granting personhood to the preborn doesn't change anything and a woman related to the abortion issue because Inalienable Rights do not exist where a conflict exists. The Woman still has the Right of Self and the Preborn would have a Right to Life but not in the woman's womb. Doen Rand Paul understand this and is hiding this knowledge from the public or is he uninformed when it comes to Inalienable Rights?
2) Property ownership is established under our laws based upon "Title of Ownership" either by document or possession under the political ideology of the "Divine Right of Kings" and is not based upon the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as established by the arguments presented by John Locke. When people refer to the "Right of Property" they're overwhelmingly referring to "Title of Property" which is not an "Inalienable Right of Property" of the Person.
Ah.... a change in your statements. Yes, some but not all or even a majority of immigrants do send some of their income back to their families in their native countries but it is not a significant percentage of their income most of which they have to spend on the necessary expenditures of living in the United States. If that is what FNC is reporting then it is accurate.
The illegal border crossings did not stop nor were they reduced by the fense in San Diego, they just cross where it's easier to do so. Those seeking to cross illegally will always choose the path of least resistance but they will cross one way or another just the same. It's no different than drug smuggling where all of the efforts by the US government have been completely ineffective at stopping the illegal flow of drugs into the US. The black market always finds a way to circumvent any efforts to stop it.
The H-1B immigration visas are limited to seasonal work. The H-2B visas provide permanent working status that relate to year-round jobs. An immigrant that works in the US year-round is not considered to be a guest worker under our immigration laws.
Overt racial discrimination has been reduced in the United States since the 1960's but racial prejudice that results in discrimination has not been reduced significantly if at all. As I've documented in several studies conducted between 2008 and 2012 they all established that over 50% of All Americans have anti-black and anti-Hispanic racial prejudice when measured for on both explict and implicit criteria.
The question of what I would change about our "government and our economy" is huge and not easily answered but I can state that emulating Europe or Venezuela isn't even on the table as far as a consideration. I would also believe that the problem to be addressed is with the "People" as the government and the ecomony only reflect the people. If I had a magic wand (and three wishes) this is what I'd do:
The first thing I'd do is eliminate invidious prejudice that creates discrimination resulting in denial of economic opportunity and social equality.
The second thing I'd do is to magically give us all an understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. This would have far reaching effects not the least of which would be a change in our understanding of "ownership of property" which, as I noted above, is not based upon a Right of Property but today is based upon the Divine Right of Kings. Even I would gain from this "magic" because I don't claim to know it all but I do believe that in the end we'd all be better off.
The third "wish" I'd save to address that which might need to be addressed after the effects of the first two are realized. Maybe the third "wish" would never be required but I wouldn't waste it prematurely.
You appear to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life--or who believes in the fundamental concept of property rights--is imbued with "a very low understanding and knowledge of the political ideology upon which America was founded." (Well, I guess that is one way to end a debate: Just declare the other side to be uninformed, and briskly--or brusquely--move on.) I am not sure what you might imagine to be a "change in [my] statements" as regarding illegals sending back a portion of their money, to their respective families. Your assertion that illegals continue to cross the border near San Diego in massive numbers certainly does not dovetail with the information that I have received--to put it mildly. But I suppose that you may continue to believe whatever is most congenial to your predetermined view, if you wish. Why should we be restricted to what H-1B and H-2B visas currently do, in our discussion of a robust guest-worker program? Why could we not amend our current immigration laws to allow for such a guest-worker program? Once again, you rely upon your tendentious "studies" to establish that a majority of "All Americans" harbor "anti-black and anti-Hispanic racial prejudice." (I am guessing, however, that you consider yourself morally superior to the majority of Americans.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 15, 2014 10:22:37 GMT
You appear to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life--or who believes in the fundamental concept of property rights--is imbued with "a very low understanding and knowledge of the political ideology upon which America was founded." (Well, I guess that is one way to end a debate: Just declare the other side to be uninformed, and briskly--or brusquely--move on.) I am not sure what you might imagine to be a "change in [my] statements" as regarding illegals sending back a portion of their money, to their respective families. Your assertion that illegals continue to cross the border near San Diego in massive numbers certainly does not dovetail with the information that I have received--to put it mildly. But I suppose that you may continue to believe whatever is most congenial to your predetermined view, if you wish. Why should we be restricted to what H-1B and H-2B visas currently do, in our discussion of a robust guest-worker program? Why could we not amend our current immigration laws to allow for such a guest-worker program? Once again, you rely upon your tendentious "studies" to establish that a majority of "All Americans" harbor "anti-black and anti-Hispanic racial prejudice." (I am guessing, however, that you consider yourself morally superior to the majority of Americans.)
I provided two different examples that should not be considered to establish linkage between the issues per se.
Of note I'm pro-life/pro-choice which is different than being anti-abortion/anti-choice. People confuse "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" often believing they're the same thing but they're not. Sen Rand Paul is anti-abortion/anti-choice because he doesn't believe the woman should have any Inalienable Rights of Self when it comes to her body if she accidentally becomes pregnant and doesn't want to continue that pregnancy. His problem is that he believes that the Rights of One Person supersede the Rights of Another Person when, in fact, that situation cannot exist based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. As I noted in my argument if personhood was granted to the preborn it would establish the Right to Life for the Preborn but not in the Woman's body. The woman would still have the Right to have a fetus removed from her body intact (and alive) even though the fetus would die of natural causes once removed.
As I also noted our "legal right to property" is not based upon our Inalienable Right to Property. It is based upon "title to property" as established by the "Divine Right of Kings" as opposed to being based upon the "Natural Right of Property of the Person" but few seem to understand that fact. Perhaps the worst at understanding this are libertarians that confuse the "Legal Right" with the "Inalienable Right" in their statements. They equate the two as being the same but they're not the same and are, in fact, juxtaposed to each other.
The only thing the two examples provide is that they are both linked to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the ideological foundation upon which the United States was founded. The United States was established based upon the political ideology that government exists to protect us from the violations of our individual Inalienable Rights by other individuals and yet Americans seem to be virtually in the dark when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person and that ignorance goes to the highest levels of our government.
The number of illegal border crossings is directly related to the economic opportunities in the US. The "fence" doesn't even slow it down as those seeking to come here either go around it, over it, or under it. We know, for example, that the drug cartels have simply dug tunnels under the fence in the San Diego area and if you can smuggle drugs under the fence you can also smuggle people.
reason.com/reasontv/2014/08/10/rise-of-the-super-drug-tunnels-californi
Yes, currently drug smuggling is more lucrative than smuggling people across the border but both are lucrative financially. Yes, we could change the H-1B and H-2B visa programs and logically it would be based upon "if there's a job then there's a visa" which is basically an open immigratin policy assuming we let the worker also bring their close family members with them (would you deny a man the right to be with his wife and children?).
Forgive me if I misunderstood but I thought you'd stated or implied that a vast majority of immigrant workers sent most of their paychecks back to Mexico as opposed to a small percentage of immigrants sending a few dollars from their paychecks back to Mexico.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 16, 2014 2:26:32 GMT
You appear to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life--or who believes in the fundamental concept of property rights--is imbued with "a very low understanding and knowledge of the political ideology upon which America was founded." (Well, I guess that is one way to end a debate: Just declare the other side to be uninformed, and briskly--or brusquely--move on.) I am not sure what you might imagine to be a "change in [my] statements" as regarding illegals sending back a portion of their money, to their respective families. Your assertion that illegals continue to cross the border near San Diego in massive numbers certainly does not dovetail with the information that I have received--to put it mildly. But I suppose that you may continue to believe whatever is most congenial to your predetermined view, if you wish. Why should we be restricted to what H-1B and H-2B visas currently do, in our discussion of a robust guest-worker program? Why could we not amend our current immigration laws to allow for such a guest-worker program? Once again, you rely upon your tendentious "studies" to establish that a majority of "All Americans" harbor "anti-black and anti-Hispanic racial prejudice." (I am guessing, however, that you consider yourself morally superior to the majority of Americans.)
I provided two different examples that should not be considered to establish linkage between the issues per se.
Of note I'm pro-life/pro-choice which is different than being anti-abortion/anti-choice. People confuse "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" often believing they're the same thing but they're not. Sen Rand Paul is anti-abortion/anti-choice because he doesn't believe the woman should have any Inalienable Rights of Self when it comes to her body if she accidentally becomes pregnant and doesn't want to continue that pregnancy. His problem is that he believes that the Rights of One Person supersede the Rights of Another Person when, in fact, that situation cannot exist based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. As I noted in my argument if personhood was granted to the preborn it would establish the Right to Life for the Preborn but not in the Woman's body. The woman would still have the Right to have a fetus removed from her body intact (and alive) even though the fetus would die of natural causes once removed.
As I also noted our "legal right to property" is not based upon our Inalienable Right to Property. It is based upon "title to property" as established by the "Divine Right of Kings" as opposed to being based upon the "Natural Right of Property of the Person" but few seem to understand that fact. Perhaps the worst at understanding this are libertarians that confuse the "Legal Right" with the "Inalienable Right" in their statements. They equate the two as being the same but they're not the same and are, in fact, juxtaposed to each other.
The only thing the two examples provide is that they are both linked to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the ideological foundation upon which the United States was founded. The United States was established based upon the political ideology that government exists to protect us from the violations of our individual Inalienable Rights by other individuals and yet Americans seem to be virtually in the dark when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person and that ignorance goes to the highest levels of our government.
The number of illegal border crossings is directly related to the economic opportunities in the US. The "fence" doesn't even slow it down as those seeking to come here either go around it, over it, or under it. We know, for example, that the drug cartels have simply dug tunnels under the fence in the San Diego area and if you can smuggle drugs under the fence you can also smuggle people.
reason.com/reasontv/2014/08/10/rise-of-the-super-drug-tunnels-californi
Yes, currently drug smuggling is more lucrative than smuggling people across the border but both are lucrative financially. Yes, we could change the H-1B and H-2B visa programs and logically it would be based upon "if there's a job then there's a visa" which is basically an open immigratin policy assuming we let the worker also bring their close family members with them (would you deny a man the right to be with his wife and children?).
Forgive me if I misunderstood but I thought you'd stated or implied that a vast majority of immigrant workers sent most of their paychecks back to Mexico as opposed to a small percentage of immigrants sending a few dollars from their paychecks back to Mexico.
I use the terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," as a courtesy to those who occupy both camps. Plainly, both are tendentious--many of us who call ourselves "pro-life" are not antiwar or opposed to capital punishment; whereas many who call themselves "pro-choice" are not in favor of choice as the concept applies to secondary education--but the term, "anti-choice," is clearly intended to frame the debate by demonizing the opposition. And I find that tendency most unfortunate, indeed. By the way, you have acknowledged (quite correctly) that the premature removal of an unborn child from his (or her) mother's body would inevitably result in his (or her) death. Yet you appear relatively unconcerned about this. This begs the question: Do you believe that society should become indifferent--through its laws (or the lack thereof)--to the matter of infanticide due to child neglect, if the mother believes that her "inalienable right" to live independently, as she wishes, is being impinged by the necessary duties of motherhood? And the fact that "few seem to understand" things your way, as regarding property rights--even among those in "the highest levels of our government," as well as among the general public--begs the question: Do you suppose that it is more likely that you are right and just about all other Americans are wrong--or vice-versa? Yes, economic conditions in the US can certainly have a significant impact upon the amount of illegal immigration it experiences. But your view that the fence near San Diego "doesn't even slow...down" illegal immigration there flies directly in the face of all that I have heard concerning the matter. I do not believe that we should automatically grant a man's wife and/or children legal status, just because he is granted guest-worker status. Whereas I can understand your position in favor of doing so (as a humanitarian gesture), I would argue that if he wants the job badly enough--and if his family needs it badly enough--he will probably be willing to take it, and then return to his family once it is over. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 16, 2014 12:26:35 GMT
I use the terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," as a courtesy to those who occupy both camps. Plainly, both are tendentious--many of us who call ourselves "pro-life" are not antiwar or opposed to capital punishment; whereas many who call themselves "pro-choice" are not in favor of choice as the concept applies to secondary education--but the term, "anti-choice," is clearly intended to frame the debate by demonizing the opposition. And I find that tendency most unfortunate, indeed. By the way, you have acknowledged (quite correctly) that the premature removal of an unborn child from his (or her) mother's body would inevitably result in his (or her) death. Yet you appear relatively unconcerned about this. This begs the question: Do you believe that society should become indifferent--through its laws (or the lack thereof)--to the matter of infanticide due to child neglect, if the mother believes that her "inalienable right" to live independently, as she wishes, is being impinged by the necessary duties of motherhood? And the fact that "few seem to understand" things your way, as regarding property rights--even among those in "the highest levels of our government," as well as among the general public--begs the question: Do you suppose that it is more likely that you are right and just about all other Americans are wrong--or vice-versa? Yes, economic conditions in the US can certainly have a significant impact upon the amount of illegal immigration it experiences. But your view that the fence near San Diego "doesn't even slow...down" illegal immigration there flies directly in the face of all that I have heard concerning the matter. I do not believe that we should automatically grant a man's wife and/or children legal status, just because he is granted guest-worker status. Whereas I can understand your position in favor of doing so (as a humanitarian gesture), I would argue that if he wants the job badly enough--and if his family needs it badly enough--he will probably be willing to take it, and then return to his family once it is over.
Many use the term "Pro-life" when they should be using the term "Anti-abortion" instead. Just because a person is "Pro-Choice" does not imply they are "Pro-Abortion" as they are often "Pro-Life" at the same time. My mother, a staunch conservative Christian, summarized this best. She personally opposes abortion in almost all cases but she has a greater opposition to our government preventing a woman from making the choice of what's best for herself. My mother doesn't believe "her opinion" should trump the "woman's opinion" when it comes to a issue that affects the woman and not her.
As for infantcide we, as a society are compassionate and we address this matter based upon the inalienable Rights of the Person. We impose an obligation upon the guardian of the child, regardless of whether it's the parent or not, based upon the "voluntary" decision in assuming guardianship. There is no obligation in the United States for the mother of a child to assume guardianship of the infant child. She is fully within her rights to leave the infant at the hospital after the birth and never become the legal guardian of the child. Only if she voluntarily assumes guardianship does she also assume the legal obligation to provide for the welfare of the child. If she refuses that obligation then someone else will assume it whether it's the State taking care of the infant at the hospital or a foster parent or adoptive parent.
Providing for the welfare of a child is based upon a voluntary obligation under the law.
The preborn is placing an involuntary obligation of the woman to provide for it during pregnancy. The imposition of an involuntary obligation violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
I would remind you that only a very small percentage of Americans were knowledgeable about Natural (Inalienable) Rights when America was founded and even they were generally still in the infancy stage of understanding. Thomas Jefferson was among the foremost experts and even he failed to fully understand the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person. I've been highly dedicated to understanding the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person for the last 30 years and the knowledge I've gained has literally shaken many of the very "conservative" beliefs I held before. I can't think of anyone that has been as dedicated to the understanding of the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person as I have been and perhaps I'm the foremost expert on the subject today as I've seen no recent writings that address the issues uncovered.
When it comes to "property" I would state that I am more likely right because I've been actively studying the Rights of the Person for over 30 years while 99.9% of Americans mindlessly accept the status quo based upon the "Legal Ownership of Property based upon Title" as opposed to attempting to understand the "Natural Right of Property created by the Sweat Equity of the Person" as argued for by John Locke. This happens to be one of those issues where my long held beliefs in the status quo were shocking overturned as my knowledge and understanding of "Natural (Inalienable) Rights" developed after decades of research.
The facts related to San Diego don't mean anything because all that's really being established is that those that want to enter the United States seek the easiest path. Let me provide an analogy. Both I-5 and Hwy 99 provide a road from SoCal to WA and most people use I-5 because it's easier. Let's assume that $100,000 will be given to 100,000 people if they drive from SoCal to WA. If I-5 closes tomorrow those 100,000 people would simply use Hwy 99. It might take them longer but the financial incentive is enough so that the more difficult route would still be taken and the same 100,000 people would still end up in WA.
The "job" that the immigrant fills might very well be never-ending so they would logically never return home to their family. I can understand your position when it comes to temporary labor under our current H-1B visa program but we've agreed to removed the "temporary" criteria and assume many are permanent year-round jobs (basically making them H-2B immigrants). Should an immigrant working in permanent employment be denied the company of their family?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 16, 2014 12:26:46 GMT
I use the terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," as a courtesy to those who occupy both camps. Plainly, both are tendentious--many of us who call ourselves "pro-life" are not antiwar or opposed to capital punishment; whereas many who call themselves "pro-choice" are not in favor of choice as the concept applies to secondary education--but the term, "anti-choice," is clearly intended to frame the debate by demonizing the opposition. And I find that tendency most unfortunate, indeed. By the way, you have acknowledged (quite correctly) that the premature removal of an unborn child from his (or her) mother's body would inevitably result in his (or her) death. Yet you appear relatively unconcerned about this. This begs the question: Do you believe that society should become indifferent--through its laws (or the lack thereof)--to the matter of infanticide due to child neglect, if the mother believes that her "inalienable right" to live independently, as she wishes, is being impinged by the necessary duties of motherhood? And the fact that "few seem to understand" things your way, as regarding property rights--even among those in "the highest levels of our government," as well as among the general public--begs the question: Do you suppose that it is more likely that you are right and just about all other Americans are wrong--or vice-versa? Yes, economic conditions in the US can certainly have a significant impact upon the amount of illegal immigration it experiences. But your view that the fence near San Diego "doesn't even slow...down" illegal immigration there flies directly in the face of all that I have heard concerning the matter. I do not believe that we should automatically grant a man's wife and/or children legal status, just because he is granted guest-worker status. Whereas I can understand your position in favor of doing so (as a humanitarian gesture), I would argue that if he wants the job badly enough--and if his family needs it badly enough--he will probably be willing to take it, and then return to his family once it is over.
Many use the term "Pro-life" when they should be using the term "Anti-abortion" instead. Just because a person is "Pro-Choice" does not imply they are "Pro-Abortion" as they are often "Pro-Life" at the same time. My mother, a staunch conservative Christian, summarized this best. She personally opposes abortion in almost all cases but she has a greater opposition to our government preventing a woman from making the choice of what's best for herself. My mother doesn't believe "her opinion" should trump the "woman's opinion" when it comes to a issue that affects the woman and not her.
As for infantcide we, as a society are compassionate and we address this matter based upon the inalienable Rights of the Person. We impose an obligation upon the guardian of the child, regardless of whether it's the parent or not, based upon the "voluntary" decision in assuming guardianship. There is no obligation in the United States for the mother of a child to assume guardianship of the infant child. She is fully within her rights to leave the infant at the hospital after the birth and never become the legal guardian of the child. Only if she voluntarily assumes guardianship does she also assume the legal obligation to provide for the welfare of the child. If she refuses that obligation then someone else will assume it whether it's the State taking care of the infant at the hospital or a foster parent or adoptive parent.
Providing for the welfare of a child is based upon a voluntary obligation under the law.
The preborn is placing an involuntary obligation of the woman to provide for it during pregnancy. The imposition of an involuntary obligation violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
I would remind you that only a very small percentage of Americans were knowledgeable about Natural (Inalienable) Rights when America was founded and even they were generally still in the infancy stage of understanding. Thomas Jefferson was among the foremost experts and even he failed to fully understand the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person. I've been highly dedicated to understanding the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person for the last 30 years and the knowledge I've gained has literally shaken many of the very "conservative" beliefs I held before. I can't think of anyone that has been as dedicated to the understanding of the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person as I have been and perhaps I'm the foremost expert on the subject today as I've seen no recent writings that address the issues uncovered.
When it comes to "property" I would state that I am more likely right because I've been actively studying the Rights of the Person for over 30 years while 99.9% of Americans mindlessly accept the status quo based upon the "Legal Ownership of Property based upon Title" as opposed to attempting to understand the "Natural Right of Property created by the Sweat Equity of the Person" as argued for by John Locke. This happens to be one of those issues where my long held beliefs in the status quo were shocking overturned as my knowledge and understanding of "Natural (Inalienable) Rights" developed after decades of research.
The facts related to San Diego don't mean anything because all that's really being established is that those that want to enter the United States seek the easiest path. Let me provide an analogy. Both I-5 and Hwy 99 provide a road from SoCal to WA and most people use I-5 because it's easier. Let's assume that $100,000 will be given to 100,000 people if they drive from SoCal to WA. If I-5 closes tomorrow those 100,000 people would simply use Hwy 99. It might take them longer but the financial incentive is enough so that the more difficult route would still be taken and the same 100,000 people would still end up in WA.
The "job" that the immigrant fills might very well be never-ending so they would logically never return home to their family. I can understand your position when it comes to temporary labor under our current H-1B visa program but we've agreed to removed the "temporary" criteria and assume many are permanent year-round jobs (basically making them H-2B immigrants). Should an immigrant working in permanent employment be denied the company of their family?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 16, 2014 23:59:04 GMT
I use the terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," as a courtesy to those who occupy both camps. Plainly, both are tendentious--many of us who call ourselves "pro-life" are not antiwar or opposed to capital punishment; whereas many who call themselves "pro-choice" are not in favor of choice as the concept applies to secondary education--but the term, "anti-choice," is clearly intended to frame the debate by demonizing the opposition. And I find that tendency most unfortunate, indeed. By the way, you have acknowledged (quite correctly) that the premature removal of an unborn child from his (or her) mother's body would inevitably result in his (or her) death. Yet you appear relatively unconcerned about this. This begs the question: Do you believe that society should become indifferent--through its laws (or the lack thereof)--to the matter of infanticide due to child neglect, if the mother believes that her "inalienable right" to live independently, as she wishes, is being impinged by the necessary duties of motherhood? And the fact that "few seem to understand" things your way, as regarding property rights--even among those in "the highest levels of our government," as well as among the general public--begs the question: Do you suppose that it is more likely that you are right and just about all other Americans are wrong--or vice-versa? Yes, economic conditions in the US can certainly have a significant impact upon the amount of illegal immigration it experiences. But your view that the fence near San Diego "doesn't even slow...down" illegal immigration there flies directly in the face of all that I have heard concerning the matter. I do not believe that we should automatically grant a man's wife and/or children legal status, just because he is granted guest-worker status. Whereas I can understand your position in favor of doing so (as a humanitarian gesture), I would argue that if he wants the job badly enough--and if his family needs it badly enough--he will probably be willing to take it, and then return to his family once it is over.
Many use the term "Pro-life" when they should be using the term "Anti-abortion" instead. Just because a person is "Pro-Choice" does not imply they are "Pro-Abortion" as they are often "Pro-Life" at the same time. My mother, a staunch conservative Christian, summarized this best. She personally opposes abortion in almost all cases but she has a greater opposition to our government preventing a woman from making the choice of what's best for herself. My mother doesn't believe "her opinion" should trump the "woman's opinion" when it comes to a issue that affects the woman and not her.
As for infantcide we, as a society are compassionate and we address this matter based upon the inalienable Rights of the Person. We impose an obligation upon the guardian of the child, regardless of whether it's the parent or not, based upon the "voluntary" decision in assuming guardianship. There is no obligation in the United States for the mother of a child to assume guardianship of the infant child. She is fully within her rights to leave the infant at the hospital after the birth and never become the legal guardian of the child. Only if she voluntarily assumes guardianship does she also assume the legal obligation to provide for the welfare of the child. If she refuses that obligation then someone else will assume it whether it's the State taking care of the infant at the hospital or a foster parent or adoptive parent.
Providing for the welfare of a child is based upon a voluntary obligation under the law.
The preborn is placing an involuntary obligation of the woman to provide for it during pregnancy. The imposition of an involuntary obligation violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
I would remind you that only a very small percentage of Americans were knowledgeable about Natural (Inalienable) Rights when America was founded and even they were generally still in the infancy stage of understanding. Thomas Jefferson was among the foremost experts and even he failed to fully understand the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person. I've been highly dedicated to understanding the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person for the last 30 years and the knowledge I've gained has literally shaken many of the very "conservative" beliefs I held before. I can't think of anyone that has been as dedicated to the understanding of the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person as I have been and perhaps I'm the foremost expert on the subject today as I've seen no recent writings that address the issues uncovered.
When it comes to "property" I would state that I am more likely right because I've been actively studying the Rights of the Person for over 30 years while 99.9% of Americans mindlessly accept the status quo based upon the "Legal Ownership of Property based upon Title" as opposed to attempting to understand the "Natural Right of Property created by the Sweat Equity of the Person" as argued for by John Locke. This happens to be one of those issues where my long held beliefs in the status quo were shocking overturned as my knowledge and understanding of "Natural (Inalienable) Rights" developed after decades of research.
The facts related to San Diego don't mean anything because all that's really being established is that those that want to enter the United States seek the easiest path. Let me provide an analogy. Both I-5 and Hwy 99 provide a road from SoCal to WA and most people use I-5 because it's easier. Let's assume that $100,000 will be given to 100,000 people if they drive from SoCal to WA. If I-5 closes tomorrow those 100,000 people would simply use Hwy 99. It might take them longer but the financial incentive is enough so that the more difficult route would still be taken and the same 100,000 people would still end up in WA.
The "job" that the immigrant fills might very well be never-ending so they would logically never return home to their family. I can understand your position when it comes to temporary labor under our current H-1B visa program but we've agreed to removed the "temporary" criteria and assume many are permanent year-round jobs (basically making them H-2B immigrants). Should an immigrant working in permanent employment be denied the company of their family?
The explanation of your mother's position as concerning abortion, above, seems to be predicated upon the belief that opposition to abortion is entirely a subjective matter; and that one should not, therefore, "impose" one's own subjective beliefs upon others. I would fully agree that any law lacking a truly objective basis is highly suspect--to say the least. But I would not agree with the proposition that all opposition to abortion--especially of those who are recognizably human (and not mere zygotes)--must necessarily be steeped in subjectivity. The fact is that we often make laws that are grounded in the objective harm to others that their violation necessarily causes. Laws agains armed robbery, rape, assault, and murder are a few examples. And what if the mother leaves the hospital with her baby (if a hospital is even involved; I know someone who has had two children at home, with the assistance of a midwife), and subsequently decides that the duties of motherhood are just too taxing upon her time? And what if there is really no one else who wants the child, to her knowledge? Would infanticide be perfectly acceptable under those circumstances, in your view? I will take your word for it that you have spent "over 30 years" studying "the Rights of the Person." What I will not accept, however, is your apparent belief that "99.9% of Americans" are utterly "mindless" in their acceptance of certain views that are different from your own. Your analogy with regard to the two highways from Southern California to Washington state makes sense--in theory, anyway. But I have never heard it reported that illegal immigration into California has remained constant (or even increased), despite the fence near San Diego. Rather, I have heard just exactly the opposite. If a Mexican citizen (or a citizen of some Central American country, or anyone else) desires permanent employment in the US, then he should apply for permanent citizenship--yes, that requires going to the back of the line--rather than merely applying for a temporary visa, and hoping that the rest of his family may be included as some sort of package deal. (Our current immigration system, by the way, could surely be improved. There would appear to be no good reason why it should take 10 or 12 years for an applicant to be granted American citizenship.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 17, 2014 14:36:35 GMT
The explanation of your mother's position as concerning abortion, above, seems to be predicated upon the belief that opposition to abortion is entirely a subjective matter; and that one should not, therefore, "impose" one's own subjective beliefs upon others. I would fully agree that any law lacking a truly objective basis is highly suspect--to say the least. But I would not agree with the proposition that all opposition to abortion--especially of those who are recognizably human (and not mere zygotes)--must necessarily be steeped in subjectivity. The fact is that we often make laws that are grounded in the objective harm to others that their violation necessarily causes. Laws agains armed robbery, rape, assault, and murder are a few examples. And what if the mother leaves the hospital with her baby (if a hospital is even involved; I know someone who has had two children at home, with the assistance of a midwife), and subsequently decides that the duties of motherhood are just too taxing upon her time? And what if there is really no one else who wants the child, to her knowledge? Would infanticide be perfectly acceptable under those circumstances, in your view? I will take your word for it that you have spent "over 30 years" studying "the Rights of the Person." What I will not accept, however, is your apparent belief that "99.9% of Americans" are utterly "mindless" in their acceptance of certain views that are different from your own. Your analogy with regard to the two highways from Southern California to Washington state makes sense--in theory, anyway. But I have never heard it reported that illegal immigration into California has remained constant (or even increased), despite the fence near San Diego. Rather, I have heard just exactly the opposite. If a Mexican citizen (or a citizen of some Central American country, or anyone else) desires permanent employment in the US, then he should apply for permanent citizenship--yes, that requires going to the back of the line--rather than merely applying for a temporary visa, and hoping that the rest of his family may be included as some sort of package deal. (Our current immigration system, by the way, could surely be improved. There would appear to be no good reason why it should take 10 or 12 years for an applicant to be granted American citizenship.)
The issue is the law and not abortion per se. Whether there should be laws to prohibit abortion or not is purely a subjective political opinion. As we know, for example, while some might disagree with the exact conditions of the Roe v Wade decision the vast majority of Americans support it in principle. As I recall only 7% of Americans believe that abortion should be outlawed completely and perhaps 25% believe it should only be allowed if the life/health of the woman is at stake. If this wasn't a matter of "opinion" then we wouldn't have differing opinions on the issue of abortion laws.
Yes, we do have laws to protect us from acts of aggression by other person but in no cases do we logically have laws that violate "Person B's" rights to protect "Person A's" rights. Our laws are logically about protection of our Rights and not about violating them. As I've noted by example a person has a Right to Eat but they don't have a Right to be Fed. The ability to "eat" is inherent in the Person and is an Inalienable Right but being "fed" is dependent upon another person and therefore, by definition, cannot be an Inalienable Right. We have laws related to children where the voluntary guardian is required to feed them but it's based upon voluntary consent of guardianship and is not an involuntary obligation of the person. No one's inalienable rights are being violated. That's not true when it comes to the preborn because the woman did not voluntarily consent to "feeding" the preborn in her womb.
This issue of voluntary consent is a matter of contract. When the woman takes "possession" of her child and assumes guardianship (a woman also has up to two weeks after the birth to take the infant to a hospital and leave it in the custody of the state) then she's become a party to the contract with society under the law to provide for the care of the child. Once a party becomes a voluntary party to a contract they can not unilaterally withdraw from the contract but we do provide the means in the contract (under the law) for a woman to withdraw from the contract (e.g. she can put the child up for adoption).
So you don't believe that 99% of the people can be wrong in their opinions? What about when virtually everyone believed the Earth was flat? Were they wrong or right in their opinion when less than 1% believed it was round?
Can anyone actually dispute, for example, that legal ownership of property is based upon "title to the property" (either written or extablished by possession) based upon the Divine Right of Kings (i.e. kings granted statutory title to individuals and with that came title to land and natural resources) as opposed to being established based upon the "Natural Right of Property" arguments put forward by John Locke? Most Americans refer to their "Right of Property" when they should actually be refering to their "Title of Property" under our laws because the two are completea ly different. The first is a Right and the second is Statutory.
So who's correct? Am I because I know the difference between the "Natural Right of Property" and "Statutory Ownership of Property" or are those that don't understand the difference correct?
I don't have any statistics on the increase in illegal immigration to California specifically but we do know that illegal immigration to the US is up and illegal immigration is a national issue and not a state issue. The national statistics matter and not the statistics for an individual state.
With regards to the immigrant that comes here on a "temporary work visa" in what becomes long term employment it would logically make sense to put them at the front of the line when it comes a "permanent work visa" and pathway to citizenship. Let me use an analogy. I've worked as a contract engineer (i.e. temporary engineer) for numerous companies and often they've offered me a direct position with the company because I've learned the job which makes me typically superior to someone off the street. In a couple of cases I've accepted that employment and I went from a temporary (visa) to a permanent (visa) with the company. An immigrant already working in the US is better than someone that isn't already working in the US because they've already have a job, they're already paying taxes, and already contributing to the United States. The "temporary worker" should be at the front of the list when it comes to obtaining permanent status and citizenship opportunities.
The same would apply to those already here regardless of their "legal" status. They already have a job, they're already paying taxes, and they're already beneficial to the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 18, 2014 0:52:54 GMT
The explanation of your mother's position as concerning abortion, above, seems to be predicated upon the belief that opposition to abortion is entirely a subjective matter; and that one should not, therefore, "impose" one's own subjective beliefs upon others. I would fully agree that any law lacking a truly objective basis is highly suspect--to say the least. But I would not agree with the proposition that all opposition to abortion--especially of those who are recognizably human (and not mere zygotes)--must necessarily be steeped in subjectivity. The fact is that we often make laws that are grounded in the objective harm to others that their violation necessarily causes. Laws agains armed robbery, rape, assault, and murder are a few examples. And what if the mother leaves the hospital with her baby (if a hospital is even involved; I know someone who has had two children at home, with the assistance of a midwife), and subsequently decides that the duties of motherhood are just too taxing upon her time? And what if there is really no one else who wants the child, to her knowledge? Would infanticide be perfectly acceptable under those circumstances, in your view? I will take your word for it that you have spent "over 30 years" studying "the Rights of the Person." What I will not accept, however, is your apparent belief that "99.9% of Americans" are utterly "mindless" in their acceptance of certain views that are different from your own. Your analogy with regard to the two highways from Southern California to Washington state makes sense--in theory, anyway. But I have never heard it reported that illegal immigration into California has remained constant (or even increased), despite the fence near San Diego. Rather, I have heard just exactly the opposite. If a Mexican citizen (or a citizen of some Central American country, or anyone else) desires permanent employment in the US, then he should apply for permanent citizenship--yes, that requires going to the back of the line--rather than merely applying for a temporary visa, and hoping that the rest of his family may be included as some sort of package deal. (Our current immigration system, by the way, could surely be improved. There would appear to be no good reason why it should take 10 or 12 years for an applicant to be granted American citizenship.)
The issue is the law and not abortion per se. Whether there should be laws to prohibit abortion or not is purely a subjective political opinion. As we know, for example, while some might disagree with the exact conditions of the Roe v Wade decision the vast majority of Americans support it in principle. As I recall only 7% of Americans believe that abortion should be outlawed completely and perhaps 25% believe it should only be allowed if the life/health of the woman is at stake. If this wasn't a matter of "opinion" then we wouldn't have differing opinions on the issue of abortion laws.
Yes, we do have laws to protect us from acts of aggression by other person but in no cases do we logically have laws that violate "Person B's" rights to protect "Person A's" rights. Our laws are logically about protection of our Rights and not about violating them. As I've noted by example a person has a Right to Eat but they don't have a Right to be Fed. The ability to "eat" is inherent in the Person and is an Inalienable Right but being "fed" is dependent upon another person and therefore, by definition, cannot be an Inalienable Right. We have laws related to children where the voluntary guardian is required to feed them but it's based upon voluntary consent of guardianship and is not an involuntary obligation of the person. No one's inalienable rights are being violated. That's not true when it comes to the preborn because the woman did not voluntarily consent to "feeding" the preborn in her womb.
This issue of voluntary consent is a matter of contract. When the woman takes "possession" of her child and assumes guardianship (a woman also has up to two weeks after the birth to take the infant to a hospital and leave it in the custody of the state) then she's become a party to the contract with society under the law to provide for the care of the child. Once a party becomes a voluntary party to a contract they can not unilaterally withdraw from the contract but we do provide the means in the contract (under the law) for a woman to withdraw from the contract (e.g. she can put the child up for adoption).
So you don't believe that 99% of the people can be wrong in their opinions? What about when virtually everyone believed the Earth was flat? Were they wrong or right in their opinion when less than 1% believed it was round?
Can anyone actually dispute, for example, that legal ownership of property is based upon "title to the property" (either written or extablished by possession) based upon the Divine Right of Kings (i.e. kings granted statutory title to individuals and with that came title to land and natural resources) as opposed to being established based upon the "Natural Right of Property" arguments put forward by John Locke? Most Americans refer to their "Right of Property" when they should actually be refering to their "Title of Property" under our laws because the two are completea ly different. The first is a Right and the second is Statutory.
So who's correct? Am I because I know the difference between the "Natural Right of Property" and "Statutory Ownership of Property" or are those that don't understand the difference correct?
I don't have any statistics on the increase in illegal immigration to California specifically but we do know that illegal immigration to the US is up and illegal immigration is a national issue and not a state issue. The national statistics matter and not the statistics for an individual state.
With regards to the immigrant that comes here on a "temporary work visa" in what becomes long term employment it would logically make sense to put them at the front of the line when it comes a "permanent work visa" and pathway to citizenship. Let me use an analogy. I've worked as a contract engineer (i.e. temporary engineer) for numerous companies and often they've offered me a direct position with the company because I've learned the job which makes me typically superior to someone off the street. In a couple of cases I've accepted that employment and I went from a temporary (visa) to a permanent (visa) with the company. An immigrant already working in the US is better than someone that isn't already working in the US because they've already have a job, they're already paying taxes, and already contributing to the United States. The "temporary worker" should be at the front of the list when it comes to obtaining permanent status and citizenship opportunities.
The same would apply to those already here regardless of their "legal" status. They already have a job, they're already paying taxes, and they're already beneficial to the United States.
"Whether there should be laws to prohibit abortion" may, indeed, be a matter of "opinion." But for many of us who oppose the existence of abortion on demand, it is all about objective reality--that is, the killing of an innocent human life--and not about subjective matters of personal morality. (The latter has no legitimate place in the discussion, as far as I am concerned.) As for your contention that "only 7% of Americans believe that abortion should be outlawed completely and perhaps 25% believe it should only be allowed if the life/health of the woman is at stake," that is certainly at odds with the information I have seen. In fact, a CNN poll from this past spring indicates that 38 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be "legal in a few circumstances." with another 20 percent believing that it should "always be illegal"--a combined total of 58 percent of Americans holding a position that is essentially pro-life: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283 Do you seriously believe that a woman's responsibility to care for her infant child is merely a matter of "contract" law, with no other compelling reason to declare that she should be required to care for her infant child? Your analogy to flat-Earth theory utterly fails. It confuses mere ignorance with stupidity. (Those who once believed that the Earth is flat--or even that it is the center of the unvierse--were merely ignorant of accurate cosmotology. Those whom you describe as "mindless," on the other hand, must necessarily fall into the stupid category.) Yes, illegal immigration is, indeed, "a national issue." So it makes sense that the other border states (i.e. Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) might want to emulate the actions of Southern California, as regarding a fence. The mere fact that illegals "already have a job" and are "already paying taxes" cannot vitiate the fact that they came here illegally; and they should not be allowed to benefit from this illegal action--especially at the expense of those who are trying to become Americans in the legal and proper manner. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 18, 2014 11:10:57 GMT
"Whether there should be laws to prohibit abortion" may, indeed, be a matter of "opinion." But for many of us who oppose the existence of abortion on demand, it is all about objective reality--that is, the killing of an innocent human life--and not about subjective matters of personal morality. (The latter has no legitimate place in the discussion, as far as I am concerned.) As for your contention that "only 7% of Americans believe that abortion should be outlawed completely and perhaps 25% believe it should only be allowed if the life/health of the woman is at stake," that is certainly at odds with the information I have seen. In fact, a CNN poll from this past spring indicates that 38 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be "legal in a few circumstances." with another 20 percent believing that it should "always be illegal"--a combined total of 58 percent of Americans holding a position that is essentially pro-life: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283 Do you seriously believe that a woman's responsibility to care for her infant child is merely a matter of "contract" law, with no other compelling reason to declare that she should be required to care for her infant child? Your analogy to flat-Earth theory utterly fails. It confuses mere ignorance with stupidity. (Those who once believed that the Earth is flat--or even that it is the center of the unvierse--were merely ignorant of accurate cosmotology. Those whom you describe as "mindless," on the other hand, must necessarily fall into the stupid category.) Yes, illegal immigration is, indeed, "a national issue." So it makes sense that the other border states (i.e. Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) might want to emulate the actions of Southern California, as regarding a fence. The mere fact that illegals "already have a job" and are "already paying taxes" cannot vitiate the fact that they came here illegally; and they should not be allowed to benefit from this illegal action--especially at the expense of those who are trying to become Americans in the legal and proper manner.
The term "human life" is subjective and not defined by any objective criteria. A "human cell" is not human life although it has the DNA necessary to produce a human life for example. The vast majority of abortions occur prior to a fetus reaching viability and, under the law, after a fetus reaches viability only a medically diagnosed threat to the woman's health or life will allow for an abortion. There is a huge amount of subjectivity when it comes to what is a "human life" in the abortion debate. As for my information on abortion I was working from memory so here's the poll I referred to.
A new NBC/WSJ poll finds that, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, 70 percent of Americans want the landmark abortion rights ruling to stay. Only 24 percent would like Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
In the same Pew poll, 54 percent think abortion should be always legal or legal most of the time. Another 35 percent think abortion should be illegal but with exceptions; only 9 percent think it should be illegal with no exceptions.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/22/poll-on-roe-v-wade-anniversary-most-want-decision-to-stay/
If I stated people were stupid as opposed to ignorant then I apologize. 99% of Americans are ignorant when it comes to understanding the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person. Is that better? That shouldn't be surprising because probably fewer than 1% of Americans have probably read John Locke that established the understanding and foundation of the "Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person" in the first place. Anyone that doesn't know and understand Locke's arguments is ignorant of the "Natural (Inalienable) Rights" of the Person.
There is no evidence that the "fense" prevents illegal border crossings as all indications are the illegal border crossings are based upon economic opportunity regardless of any measures we take to suppress it. The I-5 and Hwy 99 analogy is highly accurate and even if no roads at all existed the 100,000 people in my analogy would still manage the trek from SoCal to WA for the $100,000 at the end of that journey. I don't know about you but I'd walk the couple of thousand miles from LA to Seattle for $100,000 and I don't think I'd have any problem finding 99,999 others willing to do the same.
Let me address the current "illegal" immigration problem from another perspective. You've claimed to be a Constitutional Conservative (as I recall) that believes the powers of the federal government should logically be limited to it's enumerated roles and responsibilities. Is that not correct? That being the case the US Constitution does not enumerate any roles or responsibilities to the US government to control immigration. It does enumerate a responsibility for Congress to provide "uniform laws of naturalization" which means Congress should be non-discriminatory in establishing the pathway to citizenship for immigrants.
Your proposition is that Congress should be discriminatory against those where it exceeded it's Constitutional authority by denying them a means of legal immigration. That's a double violation of your beliefs based upon Constitutional Conservatism.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 18, 2014 23:57:30 GMT
"Whether there should be laws to prohibit abortion" may, indeed, be a matter of "opinion." But for many of us who oppose the existence of abortion on demand, it is all about objective reality--that is, the killing of an innocent human life--and not about subjective matters of personal morality. (The latter has no legitimate place in the discussion, as far as I am concerned.) As for your contention that "only 7% of Americans believe that abortion should be outlawed completely and perhaps 25% believe it should only be allowed if the life/health of the woman is at stake," that is certainly at odds with the information I have seen. In fact, a CNN poll from this past spring indicates that 38 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be "legal in a few circumstances." with another 20 percent believing that it should "always be illegal"--a combined total of 58 percent of Americans holding a position that is essentially pro-life: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283 Do you seriously believe that a woman's responsibility to care for her infant child is merely a matter of "contract" law, with no other compelling reason to declare that she should be required to care for her infant child? Your analogy to flat-Earth theory utterly fails. It confuses mere ignorance with stupidity. (Those who once believed that the Earth is flat--or even that it is the center of the unvierse--were merely ignorant of accurate cosmotology. Those whom you describe as "mindless," on the other hand, must necessarily fall into the stupid category.) Yes, illegal immigration is, indeed, "a national issue." So it makes sense that the other border states (i.e. Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) might want to emulate the actions of Southern California, as regarding a fence. The mere fact that illegals "already have a job" and are "already paying taxes" cannot vitiate the fact that they came here illegally; and they should not be allowed to benefit from this illegal action--especially at the expense of those who are trying to become Americans in the legal and proper manner.
The term "human life" is subjective and not defined by any objective criteria. A "human cell" is not human life although it has the DNA necessary to produce a human life for example. The vast majority of abortions occur prior to a fetus reaching viability and, under the law, after a fetus reaches viability only a medically diagnosed threat to the woman's health or life will allow for an abortion. There is a huge amount of subjectivity when it comes to what is a "human life" in the abortion debate. As for my information on abortion I was working from memory so here's the poll I referred to.
A new NBC/WSJ poll finds that, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, 70 percent of Americans want the landmark abortion rights ruling to stay. Only 24 percent would like Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
In the same Pew poll, 54 percent think abortion should be always legal or legal most of the time. Another 35 percent think abortion should be illegal but with exceptions; only 9 percent think it should be illegal with no exceptions.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/22/poll-on-roe-v-wade-anniversary-most-want-decision-to-stay/
If I stated people were stupid as opposed to ignorant then I apologize. 99% of Americans are ignorant when it comes to understanding the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person. Is that better? That shouldn't be surprising because probably fewer than 1% of Americans have probably read John Locke that established the understanding and foundation of the "Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person" in the first place. Anyone that doesn't know and understand Locke's arguments is ignorant of the "Natural (Inalienable) Rights" of the Person.
There is no evidence that the "fense" prevents illegal border crossings as all indications are the illegal border crossings are based upon economic opportunity regardless of any measures we take to suppress it. The I-5 and Hwy 99 analogy is highly accurate and even if no roads at all existed the 100,000 people in my analogy would still manage the trek from SoCal to WA for the $100,000 at the end of that journey. I don't know about you but I'd walk the couple of thousand miles from LA to Seattle for $100,000 and I don't think I'd have any problem finding 99,999 others willing to do the same.
Let me address the current "illegal" immigration problem from another perspective. You've claimed to be a Constitutional Conservative (as I recall) that believes the powers of the federal government should logically be limited to it's enumerated roles and responsibilities. Is that not correct? That being the case the US Constitution does not enumerate any roles or responsibilities to the US government to control immigration. It does enumerate a responsibility for Congress to provide "uniform laws of naturalization" which means Congress should be non-discriminatory in establishing the pathway to citizenship for immigrants.
Your proposition is that Congress should be discriminatory against those where it exceeded it's Constitutional authority by denying them a means of legal immigration. That's a double violation of your beliefs based upon Constitutional Conservatism.
Actually, it seems to me that a "human cell" is, by defintion, a form of "human life"; but it is not a full-fledged human being. And I have consistently stated a desire to protect innocent human life that is "recognizably human." So I would request that you debate me in this regard, and not debate other pro-lifers. Your claim that there is "no evidence" that the fence near San Diego significantly inhibits illegal immigration flies in the face of all that I have heard. Now, I have no firsthand knowledge in this area. And I am guessing that you have none, either. Oh, I should just note that your analogy as concerning the trek from Southern California to Washington state may appear rational enough; but whenever an apparently rational argument is at loggerheads with empirical evidence to the contrary, I would prefer to go with the latter. Why would you assert that my "proposition" is that Congress should be "discriminatory"? That is, unless you believe that requiring illegals to go to the back of the line, in applying for citizenship, is (somehow) "discriminatory." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 19, 2014 14:35:09 GMT
Actually, it seems to me that a "human cell" is, by defintion, a form of "human life"; but it is not a full-fledged human being. And I have consistently stated a desire to protect innocent human life that is "recognizably human." So I would request that you debate me in this regard, and not debate other pro-lifers. Your claim that there is "no evidence" that the fence near San Diego significantly inhibits illegal immigration flies in the face of all that I have heard. Now, I have no firsthand knowledge in this area. And I am guessing that you have none, either. Oh, I should just note that your analogy as concerning the trek from Southern California to Washington state may appear rational enough; but whenever an apparently rational argument is at loggerheads with empirical evidence to the contrary, I would prefer to go with the latter. Why would you assert that my "proposition" is that Congress should be "discriminatory"? That is, unless you believe that requiring illegals to go to the back of the line, in applying for citizenship, is (somehow) "discriminatory."
I believe you and I discuss moreso than debate and, of course I would certainly enjoy dicussing this issue with you. I will address this right after addressing the other issues you address.
I've stated that the fence in San Diego, and the rest of the fenses along the Mexican border, do not stop or reduce the influx of illegal aliens. The flow of illegal aliens is predicated upon two things. First is the quota system that denies them a means of legal immigration. Second is the economic opportunity. So long as they see it as being economically worth it to immigrate illegally into the United States they will and they will use the easiest means possible of accomplishing that. We can make it more difficult but they will overcome any difficulties we create so long as they benefit financially from overcoming the obsticles we place in their path. It's sort of like what Gen George Patton said. Fixed fortifications are obsolete and a fence is a fixed fortification.
The "end of the line" doesn't make sense logically. They're already here, already working, already paying taxes, and already used to our laws. At the very least they should be granted work status (i.e. make them legal immigrants) and start out equal with any other person when it comes to the path to citizenship. That is logical. It is illogical to impose the same prohibition upon them that forced them to become illegal immigrants in the first place on them again. They've already been denied legal entry once so why would we do it again?
Now back to addressing "pro-life" and your expressed desire to protect "recogizably human" life. We can start with the simple fact that the vast majority of abortions occur before the criteria of "recognizably human" even becomes an issue. If memory serves me correctly 92% of all abortions occur during the first trimester well before the fetus is recognizably human. Based upon your statement I'll assume that you don't object to abortions during this timeframe and agree with the Roe v Wade decision that left abortion decisions solely up to the woman. You can correct me if I'm wrong but you'd have to change your statement to do so.
"Recognizably human" include functionality as well as appearance.
By way of analogy I can have a box for a TV but if the TV isn't in the box then I don't have a TV, I have a box. I could even have the housing for the TV but it it doesn't contain the functioning components it's still not a TV. Another analogy would be an "assault weapon" that looks like an "assault rifle" but it's not. Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is that what it looks like. Functionality defines what something really is.
In short, at least in my opinion, the fetus would require fully functional organs before it would meet the criteria of "recognizably human" and at that point it is has become a viable fetus able to live outside of the womb without the assistance of medical technology. Of course at natural viability of the fetus when we have a "recognizably human" then the woman does not have an elective choice to have an abortion. At this point in the development of the "human being" the fetus is highly protected and elective abortion is not even on the table. A woman never "chooses" to have an abortion at this point but can be forced to have an abortion due to a medical diagnosis.
An abortion at that point requires a clinically diagnosed threat of death or serious threat related to health of the woman if she doen't have have an abortion. Her choice then isn't about having the abortion but instead is about not having the abortion as she is at severe medical risk if she chooses not to. It's sort of like looking at your appendix. You could have it removed voluntarily without any real harm but if you have an appendicitis and choose to not have it removed it is likely to kill you. The different conditions create opposing decisions.
Of course late term abortions are rare accounting for only about 2% of all abortions. There is also the possibility of premature removal of the fetus that is viable but only so long as the surgery does not, in and of itself, create a serious threat to the woman's health or life. It is an option though and is exercised in many cases that aren't "published" because it's just considered to be a normal medical practice that is not in dispute by anyone.
Once again this is fundamentally what the Roe v Wade decison established.
So first and last trimester abortions have basically been addressed.
The only remaining timeframe is the second trimester where the fetus is not fully functional (i.e. recognizably human) and where we have, under the Roe v Wade decision, a requirement that the abortion is not purely elective but instead requires medical consent to the abortion. This is the "middle ground" and I'm not sure how we could address it more pragmatically.
So where do we really differ and based upon what argument?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 20, 2014 0:11:39 GMT
Actually, it seems to me that a "human cell" is, by defintion, a form of "human life"; but it is not a full-fledged human being. And I have consistently stated a desire to protect innocent human life that is "recognizably human." So I would request that you debate me in this regard, and not debate other pro-lifers. Your claim that there is "no evidence" that the fence near San Diego significantly inhibits illegal immigration flies in the face of all that I have heard. Now, I have no firsthand knowledge in this area. And I am guessing that you have none, either. Oh, I should just note that your analogy as concerning the trek from Southern California to Washington state may appear rational enough; but whenever an apparently rational argument is at loggerheads with empirical evidence to the contrary, I would prefer to go with the latter. Why would you assert that my "proposition" is that Congress should be "discriminatory"? That is, unless you believe that requiring illegals to go to the back of the line, in applying for citizenship, is (somehow) "discriminatory."
I believe you and I discuss moreso than debate and, of course I would certainly enjoy dicussing this issue with you. I will address this right after addressing the other issues you address.
I've stated that the fence in San Diego, and the rest of the fenses along the Mexican border, do not stop or reduce the influx of illegal aliens. The flow of illegal aliens is predicated upon two things. First is the quota system that denies them a means of legal immigration. Second is the economic opportunity. So long as they see it as being economically worth it to immigrate illegally into the United States they will and they will use the easiest means possible of accomplishing that. We can make it more difficult but they will overcome any difficulties we create so long as they benefit financially from overcoming the obsticles we place in their path. It's sort of like what Gen George Patton said. Fixed fortifications are obsolete and a fence is a fixed fortification.
The "end of the line" doesn't make sense logically. They're already here, already working, already paying taxes, and already used to our laws. At the very least they should be granted work status (i.e. make them legal immigrants) and start out equal with any other person when it comes to the path to citizenship. That is logical. It is illogical to impose the same prohibition upon them that forced them to become illegal immigrants in the first place on them again. They've already been denied legal entry once so why would we do it again?
Now back to addressing "pro-life" and your expressed desire to protect "recogizably human" life. We can start with the simple fact that the vast majority of abortions occur before the criteria of "recognizably human" even becomes an issue. If memory serves me correctly 92% of all abortions occur during the first trimester well before the fetus is recognizably human. Based upon your statement I'll assume that you don't object to abortions during this timeframe and agree with the Roe v Wade decision that left abortion decisions solely up to the woman. You can correct me if I'm wrong but you'd have to change your statement to do so.
"Recognizably human" include functionality as well as appearance.
By way of analogy I can have a box for a TV but if the TV isn't in the box then I don't have a TV, I have a box. I could even have the housing for the TV but it it doesn't contain the functioning components it's still not a TV. Another analogy would be an "assault weapon" that looks like an "assault rifle" but it's not. Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is that what it looks like. Functionality defines what something really is.
In short, at least in my opinion, the fetus would require fully functional organs before it would meet the criteria of "recognizably human" and at that point it is has become a viable fetus able to live outside of the womb without the assistance of medical technology. Of course at natural viability of the fetus when we have a "recognizably human" then the woman does not have an elective choice to have an abortion. At this point in the development of the "human being" the fetus is highly protected and elective abortion is not even on the table. A woman never "chooses" to have an abortion at this point but can be forced to have an abortion due to a medical diagnosis.
An abortion at that point requires a clinically diagnosed threat of death or serious threat related to health of the woman if she doen't have have an abortion. Her choice then isn't about having the abortion but instead is about not having the abortion as she is at severe medical risk if she chooses not to. It's sort of like looking at your appendix. You could have it removed voluntarily without any real harm but if you have an appendicitis and choose to not have it removed it is likely to kill you. The different conditions create opposing decisions.
Of course late term abortions are rare accounting for only about 2% of all abortions. There is also the possibility of premature removal of the fetus that is viable but only so long as the surgery does not, in and of itself, create a serious threat to the woman's health or life. It is an option though and is exercised in many cases that aren't "published" because it's just considered to be a normal medical practice that is not in dispute by anyone.
Once again this is fundamentally what the Roe v Wade decison established.
So first and last trimester abortions have basically been addressed.
The only remaining timeframe is the second trimester where the fetus is not fully functional (i.e. recognizably human) and where we have, under the Roe v Wade decision, a requirement that the abortion is not purely elective but instead requires medical consent to the abortion. This is the "middle ground" and I'm not sure how we could address it more pragmatically.
So where do we really differ and based upon what argument?
Addressing the matter of illegal immigration first: You continue to rely upon rationalist reasons to claim that the fence near San Diego is just not working, without any regard to what is actually happening. It is as if I were to insist that a bumblebee just cannot fly, based upon its body weight vis-à-vis its wingspan, while entirely disregarding all observable evidence to the contrary. Of course requiring illegals to go to the end of the line makes sense. To do otherwise would be, effectively, to give them a very large advantage over those who are in the process of applying to come to the US legally--and therefore render the latter to be little more than suckers. I certainly do not believe that a preborn child should be required to be capable of "liv[ing] outside the womb without the assistance of medical technology" in order to be considered recognizably human. And that child, in any case, would certainly be unable to live outside the womb, for very long at all, without the assistance of a parent or guardian to supply milk and food, among other things. As for the 92 percent figure that you have cited, I would not dispute it--it may be accurate; I just do not know--but it is entirely irrelevant. By way of analogy, I would imagine that 99.9 percent of all Americans--probably upwards of 99.99 percent--are not bank robbers; but should we conclude from that number that is just silly to to make it illegal to rob banks? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 20, 2014 13:51:41 GMT
Addressing the matter of illegal immigration first: You continue to rely upon rationalist reasons to claim that the fence near San Diego is just not working, without any regard to what is actually happening. It is as if I were to insist that a bumblebee just cannot fly, based upon its body weight vis-à-vis its wingspan, while entirely disregarding all observable evidence to the contrary. Of course requiring illegals to go to the end of the line makes sense. To do otherwise would be, effectively, to give them a very large advantage over those who are in the process of applying to come to the US legally--and therefore render the latter to be little more than suckers. I certainly do not believe that a preborn child should be required to be capable of "liv[ing] outside the womb without the assistance of medical technology" in order to be considered recognizably human. And that child, in any case, would certainly be unable to live outside the womb, for very long at all, without the assistance of a parent or guardian to supply milk and food, among other things. As for the 92 percent figure that you have cited, I would not dispute it--it may be accurate; I just do not know--but it is entirely irrelevant. By way of analogy, I would imagine that 99.9 percent of all Americans--probably upwards of 99.99 percent--are not bank robbers; but should we conclude from that number that is just silly to to make it illegal to rob banks?
As I mentioned in the other thread if we end the quota system, ending the economic protectionism, then there isn't an "end of the line" and those already in the US and those applying for visas to work legally in the US are all the same. They're all at the front of the line because they could immigrate to the US and work legally. There's not logic to sending someone back to their native country just to get a damn piece of paper.
Please define what "recognizably human" is to you.
We need to make a distinction between a "withdrawal from the bank" and "bank robbery" to use your analogy. As I recalled at least 92% of abortions occur when we know the preborn is not "recognizably human" so we seem to agree that there is no reason whatsoever to prohibit them. Only about 2% of abortions occur where we would tend to agree that the fetus is almost certainly "recognizably human" but there are mitigating factors such as the life of the woman that is unquestionably recongizably human. In any case we're only addressing about 8% of abortions based upon your criteria.
Yes, an infant does require the assistance to live but as was noted that is based upon the voluntary consent of the "guardian" of the child. The infant has a "right to eat" but not a "right to be fed" although we, as a compassionate society, do impose a requirement for the care of the infant based upon the voluntary consent of the person that voluntarily becomes the guardian. When a fetus is removed from the womb it becomes an infant (baby) and the same consideratins apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 21, 2014 0:03:47 GMT
Addressing the matter of illegal immigration first: You continue to rely upon rationalist reasons to claim that the fence near San Diego is just not working, without any regard to what is actually happening. It is as if I were to insist that a bumblebee just cannot fly, based upon its body weight vis-à-vis its wingspan, while entirely disregarding all observable evidence to the contrary. Of course requiring illegals to go to the end of the line makes sense. To do otherwise would be, effectively, to give them a very large advantage over those who are in the process of applying to come to the US legally--and therefore render the latter to be little more than suckers. I certainly do not believe that a preborn child should be required to be capable of "liv[ing] outside the womb without the assistance of medical technology" in order to be considered recognizably human. And that child, in any case, would certainly be unable to live outside the womb, for very long at all, without the assistance of a parent or guardian to supply milk and food, among other things. As for the 92 percent figure that you have cited, I would not dispute it--it may be accurate; I just do not know--but it is entirely irrelevant. By way of analogy, I would imagine that 99.9 percent of all Americans--probably upwards of 99.99 percent--are not bank robbers; but should we conclude from that number that is just silly to to make it illegal to rob banks?
As I mentioned in the other thread if we end the quota system, ending the economic protectionism, then there isn't an "end of the line" and those already in the US and those applying for visas to work legally in the US are all the same. They're all at the front of the line because they could immigrate to the US and work legally. There's not logic to sending someone back to their native country just to get a damn piece of paper.
Please define what "recognizably human" is to you.
We need to make a distinction between a "withdrawal from the bank" and "bank robbery" to use your analogy. As I recalled at least 92% of abortions occur when we know the preborn is not "recognizably human" so we seem to agree that there is no reason whatsoever to prohibit them. Only about 2% of abortions occur where we would tend to agree that the fetus is almost certainly "recognizably human" but there are mitigating factors such as the life of the woman that is unquestionably recongizably human. In any case we're only addressing about 8% of abortions based upon your criteria.
Yes, an infant does require the assistance to live but as was noted that is based upon the voluntary consent of the "guardian" of the child. The infant has a "right to eat" but not a "right to be fed" although we, as a compassionate society, do impose a requirement for the care of the infant based upon the voluntary consent of the person that voluntarily becomes the guardian. When a fetus is removed from the womb it becomes an infant (baby) and the same consideratins apply.
The logic of sending illegals to the back of the line, in their respective applications for American citizenship--whether or not they are required to return to their native country first--is not about some mere techincality (as you have implied with your remark about acquiring "a damn piece of paper"). Rather, it is about the fact that they should not be allowed to jump the turnstile--in effect, to jump ahead of those who are already applying for American citizenship legally.
I would define the term, "recognizably human," as referring to the fact that a human fetus--unlike a mere embryo--has acquired physical characteristics that make it (obviously) human; and that, irrespective of any other considerations. Your mere "8% of abortions" would surely amount to a figure far greater than the number of bank robberies in the US each year. Do you suppose, therefore, that bank robberies should be made entirely legal, just because there are not all that many of them? Oh, and I would assert that in any truly civilized society, an infant does have a "right to be fed," irrespective of the parents' "voluntary consent" (or the lack thereof). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 21, 2014 12:21:12 GMT
The logic of sending illegals to the back of the line, in their respective applications for American citizenship--whether or not they are required to return to their native country first--is not about some mere techincality (as you have implied with your remark about acquiring "a damn piece of paper"). Rather, it is about the fact that they should not be allowed to jump the turnstile--in effect, to jump ahead of those who are already applying for American citizenship legally.
I would define the term, "recognizably human," as referring to the fact that a human fetus--unlike a mere embryo--has acquired physical characteristics that make it (obviously) human; and that, irrespective of any other considerations. Your mere "8% of abortions" would surely amount to a figure far greater than the number of bank robberies in the US each year. Do you suppose, therefore, that bank robberies should be made entirely legal, just because there are not all that many of them? Oh, and I would assert that in any truly civilized society, an infant does have a "right to be fed," irrespective of the parents' "voluntary consent" (or the lack thereof).
Once again, if we eliminate the economic protectionism then there isn't a "line" at all. All applicants for legal immigration status would be treated the same regardless of whether they're already in the US working or in Timbuktoo filing a new application for a visa. Both would file an application for a visa and there would be no preferential treatment at all.
In short your position is that "recognizably human" is based solely upon external appearance so a plastic doll and a baby are identical based upon appearance. I'm not buying "external appearance" as being a valid criteria. The non-visable parts such as heart, brain, and other internal organs would also have to be "recognizably human" from a scientific viewpoint for your definition to be valid.
You confuse moral obligation to fed an infant with the natural rights of the person. We have a moral obligation to provide for the care of the infant/child but that is not based upon the inalienable rights of the person (i.e. infant/child). Once again I'll provide the criteria of natural (inalienable) rights.
A natural (inalienable) right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
We can not only note that a natural (inalienable) right can be determined based upon this criteria but also it limits what we can do (or authorize) as a person. We only have a "right" to do that which is based upon our Inalienable Rights as a Person. That's one reason I have a problem with capital punishment. We have a Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression against us but we don't have a Right of Revenge. We can kill someone in self-defense based upon an imminate threat of death or serious bodily harm but a prisoner doesn't respresent an imminant threat of death or serious bodily harm. Capital punishment is not based upon the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense and we have no Inalienable Rights that support capital punishment that violates the Right to Life of another Person. There is no logical argument for capital punishment based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
I do agree, as do the vast majority of people, that society has a moral obligation to ensure the care of the helpless and those in need, such as children, but that obligation is based upon compassion as opposed to a Natural (Inalienable) Right of the Person. The same compassion we have in requiring for the care of a child under our laws is the same compassion we express with our welfare assistance laws. Just because a person is older and hungry, for example, doesn't mean we shouldn't ensure that they have something to eat. A hungry person, regardless of whether they're 10 months old or 75 years old, is still a hungry person. From a moral perspective we need to feed the hungry, treat the sick, ensure shelter, and provide the basic necessities for those that are incapable of providing for themselves regardless of cause. All we should ask is that they try to provide for themselves first as that is their moral obligation.
|
|
