<p>Clinton is better looking. I think I might prefer Paul’s humor.</p>
<p>I know this is just a tangent, but I need to reiterate re the abortion issue that even if we criminalize only the doctor who opposes abortion and not the woman undergoing one, this will still impact only poor women. If doctors stop performing them women will return to the back alley abortions of my adolescence or bear children the Conservatives don’t want to provide for. Rich women will always have access ton safe abortions. This is just part of the hypocrisy of this position.</p>
<p>Mythmom, there is also a law under consideration that requires M.D.s to be required to recommend against abortion before doing one. If the Dr. doesn’t highly discourage the mother in writing, he will be breaking a law.</p>
<p>Yeah, that makes me want to throw up!</p>
<p>@JHS</p>
<p>"I will admit to not having paid a whole lot of attention to Ron Paul.</p>
<p>Quote:
Ron Paul said that the [John Birch Society] has a good educational impact. I don’t think anybody would dispute that fact.
Sorry, afruff23, but I sure will. Ron Paul’s favorable comment on Birch’s “educational impact”, even if it was an isolated instance and not repeated, puts him way over the edge for me. Your defense of it puts you there, too. I can think of a few organizations more poisonous than the John Birch Society, but not many."</p>
<p>I agree with Hitler’s view on industrializing for more practicality. Does that make me a Nazi and over the edge?</p>
<p>So you think that gun control works and the 2nd amendment is wrong? Because if you don’t, then that means the JBS has had an educational impact.</p>
<p>Oh no you didn’t.</p>
<p>You just invoked Hitler to justify your support for the John Birch Society.</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s convincing.</p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<p>Sorry that I had to invoke Godwin’s law, but you people just can’t seem to understand logical fallacies. The variables A, B, and C seem to mean nothing to you, so I have to put replace them with an example.</p>
<p>That is why illogical arguments like the one you and JHS are making are absurd.</p>
<p>Really.</p>
<p>If you say, “I agree with Hitler’s view on industrializing for more practicality,” and you don’t follow it up with “Does that make me a Nazi?”, indicating that you didn’t mean to endorse Hitler, then I have to think you’re endorsing Hitler. Or at least, that you are massively insensitive to the reasons for not leaving any ambiguity about your position towards him. I feel almost exactly the same way about the John Birch Society. So, I believe, do most informed Americans. Thank God.</p>
<p>As for gun control and the Second Amendment: I live in Philadelphia. If there’s a hell, I hope all the opponents of gun control wind up there, because they are morally responsible for killing hundreds of people here. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it either way, as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>JHS: My sentiments exactly.</p>
<p>@JHS</p>
<p>The second amendment has plenty to do with it. JBS and Paul firmly support the constitution. Since the JBS is saying why gun control is dumb and that the 2nd amendment is correct, then they are educating people about an issue.</p>
<p>So, JBS educates people about gun control. Ron Paul says that the JBS educates people. Am I missing something here?</p>
<p>It’s a bit of a stretch to make these assumptions about Ron Paul, because he likes that they educate people about the Constitution. You’re just assuming that is an endorsement. A testimonial is not necessary an endorsement. </p>
<p>If Paul liked the JBS so much, then he would have joined it. He is upfront about his views and is known for being unpopular in Congress (his nickname was Dr. No for being the only person voting against some bills). He voted against giving a medal to Mother Theresa whereas everybody else voted for it. He did this because he thought it to be a waste of taxpayer money (the minting of the medal and the presentation is expensive).</p>
<p>Afruff - what’s with all the logical, illogical fallacy stuff? Are you in a symbolic logic class, a law student, a lawyer? Can’t you say what you want to say without the flowery language?</p>
<p>Please, it has been years since I’ve taken symbolic logic and I’m not a lawyer. Plain language please!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the only justification people are willing to admit to for wanting abortion to be illegal, is that it’s “murder.” There is no instance in which it’s across the board legal to hire to someone to commit murder and illegal to commit it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>higherlead, I’ve yet to hear an expert say that a surge in US casualties, a decline in the readiness of the Iraqi army, and an increase in the strength of Al Queda and the ease with which it can achieve its goals are desireable outcomes.</p>
<p>“this will still impact only poor women.”</p>
<p>Abortion is genocide directed at the poor who are disproportionately black and brown. The pro-abortion movement had its start with Margaret Sanger who was nothing if not the grossest and basest eugenicists. All that of course is my opinion and your milage may differ.</p>
<p>“There is no instance in which it’s across the board legal to hire to someone to commit murder and illegal to commit it.”</p>
<p>That may be true but many pro-life people see the mother as a victim as well as the child. </p>
<p>“I’ve yet to hear an expert say that a surge in US casualties”</p>
<p>Us casualties were down last month not up - the lowest since last November.</p>
<p>BTW Obama just said he wants to pull out of Iraq and invade Pakistan instead. I amnot sure if that is before or after he chats with Kim and Castro and Ahmadinijad. Also not sure what he intends to discuss with those fruitloops since they seem to inhabit an alternate universe. It ought to be an interesting four years if we elect him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the right thinks that women are too mentally defective to make competent decisions, that’s their look out. And it’s very revealing, I think, of what their true motives are: to control those whom they do not value.</p>
<p>If they try establish law on that basis, it’s going to set some very interesting precedents. Is a woman competent to stand trial for murdering her husband if the law says she isn’t competent enough to be held responsible for murdering her child? Can a woman enter into a legally binding contract or own property if the law takes such a dim view of her mental capacity? Or is that the ultimate goal…a return to the Lord and Master laws of the '70s, because a woman who doesn’t have any sense when it comes to her uterus can’t possibly manage stocks or real estate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps when the right gets their way and the government has control over women’s reproductive health, this will be true. Right now it’s not because women themselves and not the government get to say who has an abortion in this country–no one is forced to have one. </p>
<p>And it is hardly only the poor and minorities who have abortions. </p>
<p>What gives this argument an extra little fillip of absurdity is that many of the same people advancing it also publicly lament as too high the birthrate among minorities and people in poverty.</p>
<p>Yes, it would be foolish to deny that Margaret Sanger did have despicable opinions about the value of eugenics. In this vein she was anti-semitic. However, I don’t dismiss her contributions to women’s freedom, nor do I think she practiced genocide against Jews because she sent diaphragms in the mail even though I am Jewish. If abortion is illegal the people you claim to be trying to protect will suffer fatalities and lesser complications from illegal abortions. When I was a teenager long term care facilities were filled with perennially unconscious women who had suffered septicemia from backstreet procedures. They were of all races. They did not include wealthy young girls whose parents took them out of the country for legal procedures or those who could afford to pay huge incentives to Park Ave. practitioners.</p>
<p>You seem to pain with a very broad brush by calling Kim, Castro, Ahmadinijad “fruitloops”. That certainly does impede any communication. And I have to say that having the lowest casualties since November is not consoling to me.</p>
<p>Who is the famous professor at Princeton who is a proponent of eugenics. Forced eugenics.</p>
<p>Margaret Sanger is considered the “mother of birth control.” She believed in non-coerced eugenics, which is a lot different than eugenics as the Nazis practiced, or as Mr. Princeton proposes.</p>
<p>Higherlead, you also make an earlier reference to flouride and its danger and post a link. Flouride is widely accepted in the medical and dental community as beneficial, and only fringe elements object to its use. Please get your facts straight.</p>
<p>@merrymom</p>
<p>That’s what a debate is like. You attack other positions and defend your own.</p>
<p>I refer to logical fallacies because they are completely objective arguments and thus are safe from criticism. I’m sorry if I confused you, but it isn’t very complicated at all. I even included examples to make sure people would understand.</p>
<p>I have not taken any classes on logic other than basic geometry. It is your duty as a debater to understand why an argument is logical or illogical. If I could simplify it any more than it already is, I would. Until then, please try to understand logical fallacies.</p>
<p>It’s not “flowery” language as you claim. Just refer to the previous examples to understand. Here it is again with a different example:</p>
<p>Illogical Argument:
“If A, then C
If B, then C
Therefore if A, then B”</p>
<p>So an example would be:</p>
<p>“I eat cheese
Danish people eat cheese
Therefore, I am Danish.”</p>
<p>Of course, this line of reasoning is absurd (AKA illogical) and people in this topic have used this line of reasoning.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>Margaret Sanger no doubt educated people about rights women have, even though she espoused some bad ideas (eugenics). It is in this vain, Paul is not supporting JBS completely. He agrees with only their drive to constitutional interpretation. He is like how people agree with birth control ideas of Snager but don’t agree with her eugenics idea.</p>
<p>Afruff, my post was tongue in cheek. Sorry you missed it. My indirect point was intended to be that we would all understand whatever point you are trying to make if you state it directly.</p>