Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 21, 2019, 07:06:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill  (Read 19209 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« on: January 22, 2005, 04:07:34 am »

Peter Bell,

Federal funds no longer go to abortion in the US, so we cna't threaten to withdraw funding to get people to comply.

Super,

Go easy on the libertarians, they have their own little world and they're happy in it.  In true libertarian form, what they really want is for everyone to say "That's an interesting philosophy." and them we all leave them alone.

John Dibble,

We don't live in vacuums.  Nearly everything we do affects someone else in some way, and to pretend otherwise is fantasy.  Its also absurd to suggest that Super is on a moral crusade that is any different from any manner of laws that govern morality that you wouldn't object to.  Banning murder governs morality.  Banning theft governs morality.  It just so happens that Super's bill doesn't impose your morality, it imposes his.  So lets be honest about your objections.  You want laws consistent with your morality (based in Objectivism), and Supersoulty wants laws consistent with his morality (based in Catholic social teaching).  All laws impose morality, Super and you have a different morality, and so you disagree on the bill.  That doesn't mean he wants to legislate morality and you don't, it means you both want a different version of morality legislated.  And Supersoulty is not a communist, you know full well it was rude and foolish to say so.

Gabu,

You are a worthy successor to StevenNick.  In this debate you've proven yourself to be a voice of reason and cooperation in the Senate.  Sorry for ever doubting you.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2005, 03:11:34 pm »

Federal funds no longer go to abortion in the US, so we cna't threaten to withdraw funding to get people to comply.

Peter, to answer your second question, no, not all social service offices in the United States are government owned. In fact, though I don't know the exact number, I would say about half of these services are not government owned at all.

Remember, that section is only for the pamphlets.

What possible right does the government have to tell businesses what pamphlets they should be putting out on display, especially if they aren't run off government money?

To me, this looks like one person trying to force his ideological views onto business practices, as opposed to what the spirit of the bill seems to be, which is to give people an alternative to an abortion.

What's the difference between imposing pro-life ideology on business and imposing pro-environment ideology on business?  All laws impose ideology/morality in some way.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2005, 03:39:48 pm »

1. As I've said, I have more than one reason to oppose this law. Laws against murder and theft protect my rights - rights to my life and rights to my property. I believe the only purpose of government is to protect our rights - this bill goes beyond that. I realize we don't live in a vacuum, but just because one's actions affects others does not necessarily justify action against those actions, so long as they don't violate the rights of others. As I said, I don't see how this protects my rights in any way. Abortion is a deeply philisophical issue.

Let them eat cake, I guess.  The reality is that man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains. *

A woman born into privilege has the ability to procure whatever prenatal and postnatal care she needs, while a woman born into poverty cannot.  Soulty's bill directly addresses this question, a question you seem intent on treating as a "philosophical matter", when really it’s a practical matter.  Women often have abortions because they cannot care for the child.  Seems a bit unequal to me, so the idea that you're protecting the rights and liberties of the individual falls a little flat, since you care not one bit for "the individual" except in the abstract sense.  You don't care at all for "individuals" but only the idea of "the individual" So while your ideas may work well on paper, when applied to the real world your abstract concept of the law having its only purpose to respect your rights seems to be little more than a bourgeoisie sham that preserves a separate set of rights to a privileged class.  It's the intellectual justification of injustice.

The reason that two Republicans have been attacking your position with Marxist rhetoric is that your position is a self-evidently ludicrous defense of unrestrained capitalism.  While Marxist solutions to these problems have proven ineffective, Marxist and socialist criticisms of the system have proven spot on.  Without safeguards to ensure the proper conduct of citizens and the economic security of those who are not born to privilege, society cannot function.  Like all ideologies in their pure form, libertarianism is an internally consistent philosophy that cannot and will not adjust itself to fit the practical realities of the world.  Its like the bubble boy, it can't survive in the real world, only in a little bubble where the germs of human imperfection can't touch it.  But it's all right, as long as we have plenty of cake.

*-I promise, this will be the last time I quote two French people back to back.

What's the difference between imposing pro-life ideology on business and imposing pro-environment ideology on business? All laws impose ideology/morality in some way.

Presuming that you are flat out making a company do it, as opposed to incentivising, then in my opinion you have to meet a compelling interest test. Basically the State has to come up with a compelling reason why it has to be able to force the company to do something. Protection of the environment by stopping certain companies polluting excessively is in my opinion a compelling interest (minus any special circumstances) because of the environmental damage that the pollution has been caused to prove which can ultimately lead to various problems in terms of public health. The State has an interest, if not a duty to protect public health. If you can provide a compelling state interest in this case, then I'm all ears, but I can't think of one.

Of course you don't find a compelling state interest, you're not pro-life.  If you believe that protecting fetal life is important, then you think there is a compelling state interest in that case.  If you believe the environment should be protected from pollution, then you believe there is a compelling state interest in that case.  You object to the bill because you disagree with it ideologically, not because you have developed a universal and objective standard for making laws.

You haen't proven that there isn't a compelling interest, you've only proven you're pro-choice.  Therefore, the state interest is not compelling because the fetus has no rights and does not deserve rights.  I disagree, therefore the compelling state interest is the protection of the fetus.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2005, 04:21:03 pm »

Of course you don't find a compelling state interest, you're not pro-life.  If you believe that protecting fetal life is important, then you think there is a compelling state interest in that case.  If you believe the environment should be protected from pollution, then you believe there is a compelling state interest in that case.  You object to the bill because you disagree with it ideologically, not because you have developed a universal and objective standard for making laws.

You haen't proven that there isn't a compelling interest, you've only proven you're pro-choice.  Therefore, the state interest is not compelling because the fetus has no rights and does not deserve rights.  I disagree, therefore the compelling state interest is the protection of the fetus.

I would like to start by saying how dare you paint as whatever you care to paint me as without either personally knowing me or having seen any sort of declared position on the issue of abortion.

I'm not talking about the programme itself (the one providing the shelters), I believe there is plenty of compelling state interest in that case. I DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS BILL. I STATED SO RATHER CLEARLY EARLIER.

I object to the State interfering in a business's right to provide whatever documentation (which is what I was talking about) to its clients/patients that it likes when it receives no funding from the federal government. There is no compelling state interest that means a business should have to provide documentation about one particular government programme.

You can't simply declare that there is no compelling state interest, simply because you don't believe there to be.  Supersoulty obviously believes there is a compelling interest, or he wouldn't have proposed the bill.

You most certainly do object to the bill, you object to section 3e.  Don't pretend otherwise.

So what if I don't know you personally?  None of us know each other personally.  It absurd to say I can't disagree with you without knowing you.

The FDA forces companies to supply nutritional infomation on their products.

Thats a consumer protection issue. Obviously the protection of consumers is a State interest, since the consumers are for the most part, citizens.

I'm still waiting to find out compelling companies to promote Super's plan, (however well-intenioned, effective and ideologcially agreeable to myself it is) over every other plan is a compelling State interest.

So if I shot a tourist, would that be alright?  he's not a citizen of my nation, what government interest does Washington or Sacramento have to regulate the killing of tourists?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2005, 04:43:14 pm »

You can't simply declare that there is no compelling state interest, simply because you don't believe there to be.  Supersoulty obviously believes there is a compelling interest, or he wouldn't have proposed the bill.

I have said that I am more than open to suggestions. Since Supersoulty "obviously believes there is a compelling interest" perhaps he would care to share. Remember, the burden is on him to prove that what he is doing is a compelling interest, as opposed to being on a business (or me) to show that it is not a compelling interest.

Quote
You most certainly do object to the bill, you object to section 3e.  Don't pretend otherwise.

I object to one particulary co-incidental part of the bill; Its removal (or appropriate modification to not apply to companies who receive no federal funding) would have little effect on the bill, and I would then find it entirely acceptable barring spelling mistakes.

Quote
So what if I don't know you personally?  None of us know each other personally.  It absurd to say I can't disagree with you without knowing you.

You are totally misconstructing my remarks. You said that I was pro-choice. I stated that you had no basis to make such remarks. You are now saying you are disagreeing with me, when in fact you were just painting my position for me in the first place. Your response is totally non-sequitur.

Quote
So if I shot a tourist, would that be alright?  he's not a citizen of my nation, what government interest does Washington or Sacramento have to regulate the killing of tourists?

Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a right to life, whether they be citizens or not. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of a straw man.

Actually, it was your argument that was weak enought to be a straw man.  You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens that my response would be exactly what it was.  You walked right into it, so you don't have much ground to be mad at me.

Its like Randy Moss says: If you don't want me to celebrate, keep me out of the end zone.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2005, 06:54:34 pm »

Yea.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines