There are 15 comments.

1. Member
   cdor

   Wow! Talk about a star-studded lineup. I can’t wait to listen to this one.

2. Member
   kedavis

   Scott Adams’ apparent position that men shouldn’t be involved with making laws about abortion, sounds a bit like saying that only bank owners should be allowed to decide what is legal or illegal for banks to do. And so forth.

3. Member
   kedavis

   I also don’t know if there’s a credible argument that AOC actually has political “talent” or “capability.” That last I heard, she was essentially elected by white liberals in a district who feel guilty, not by anyone who actually thinks she knows anything, whether of her own ethnicity or any other.

4. Member
   LaChatelaine

   I agree with @kedavis. Scott Adams’ comments on abortion struck me as cowardly. And unimaginative, which was rich coming from someone who supposedly believes too many people don’t use their imaginations enough to think through things properly. 

   Also, it never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people think they can be socially liberal, without expecting to bear the cost. Scott Adams claims to be to the left of Bernie Sanders when it comes to abortion, but he doesn’t want his finances affected by other people’s abortions. News flash: social liberalism is HUGELY expensive. 

5. Member
   kedavis

   Yes, Dennis Miller is another who has similar problems. Social liberalism is VERY expensive. And it ain’t gonna pay for ITSELF!

   Apparently the latest grid-chart of social conservatism vs fiscal conservatism, shows that the majority are actually socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Which seems to mean that, for example, they don’t mind paying for a lot of programs, etc, but NOT ABORTION. Or “gender transition,” etc.

    

6. Member
   kedavis

   And I’m not sure what “imagination” is required, to oppose abortion. The actual SCIENCE in that area, is far more definitive than anything “climate change” alarmists can claim.

7. Coolidge
   Taras

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Yes, Dennis Miller is another who has similar problems. Social liberalism is VERY expensive. And it ain’t gonna pay for ITSELF!

   Apparently the latest grid-chart of social conservatism vs fiscal conservatism, shows that the majority are actually socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Which seems to mean that, for example, they don’t mind paying for a lot of programs, etc, but NOT ABORTION. Or “gender transition,” etc.

    

   Correction: they don’t mind other people paying for a lot of programs, etc., that they expect to benefit from.

8. Coolidge
   Taras

   kedavis (View Comment):

   And I’m not sure what “imagination” is required, to oppose abortion. The actual SCIENCE in that area, is far more definitive than anything “climate change” alarmists can claim.

   The science just tells us what is going on.

   As useful as that is, it can’t decide how to balance the rights of the unborn baby with a woman’s right not to be subjected to involuntary servitude.

9. Member
   kedavis

   I’m not aware that a threat of “involuntary servitude” has ever been accepted as justification for killing in “self-defense” which thereby makes it murder.

   Also, “involuntary” is not applicable. The only truly “involuntary” pregnancy is that which might result from criminal, forcible rape. (By which I exclude any recent “feminist” claptrap.) Anything else falls under a principle known as “assumption of risk.”

   No form of birth control – no artificial form anyway, at least so far – is absolutely 100% certain. There is a non-zero chance of anything failing, whether because of mis-use, or some kind of negation (certain prescription and non-prescription medications can defeat oral contraceptives, for example), or just statistics. Knowing that, but engaging in sexual activities anyway, brings an assumption of risk that, however low the statistical odds, a pregnancy MIGHT result. And because of that, knowing in advance that it MIGHT happen, killing the result is not justified.

   If anyone wants an essentially 0% chance of pregnancy, and hence “involuntary servitude” (what an awful was to see it) the option is celibacy. Anything else involves some risk. And anyone who does so, assumes the responsibility of the possible results.

   It’s really no different than men in the past, and the present too, suffering “involuntary servitude” of child support payments, etc, for a pregnancy they did not “want.” Assumption of risk. Women assume the risk too.

10. Member
    kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Yes, Dennis Miller is another who has similar problems. Social liberalism is VERY expensive. And it ain’t gonna pay for ITSELF!

    Apparently the latest grid-chart of social conservatism vs fiscal conservatism, shows that the majority are actually socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Which seems to mean that, for example, they don’t mind paying for a lot of programs, etc, but NOT ABORTION. Or “gender transition,” etc.

     

    Correction: they don’t mind other people paying for a lot of programs, etc., that they expect to benefit from.

    Actually they don’t seem to mind paying taxes themselves, either. The ones who only want to benefit, but not pay, are the Democrats. And perhaps a minority of those too.

11. Coolidge
    Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Yes, Dennis Miller is another who has similar problems. Social liberalism is VERY expensive. And it ain’t gonna pay for ITSELF!

    Apparently the latest grid-chart of social conservatism vs fiscal conservatism, shows that the majority are actually socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Which seems to mean that, for example, they don’t mind paying for a lot of programs, etc, but NOT ABORTION. Or “gender transition,” etc.

     

    Correction: they don’t mind other people paying for a lot of programs, etc., that they expect to benefit from.

    Actually they don’t seem to mind paying taxes themselves, either. The ones who only want to benefit, but not pay, are the Democrats. And perhaps a minority of those too.

    I suspect that “socially conservative but fiscally liberal” really translates to “don’t rock the boat but don’t rock the boat”; i.e., a bias toward the status quo, as far as both the culture and the welfare state are concerned.

12. Coolidge
    Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I’m not aware that a threat of “involuntary servitude” has ever been accepted as justification for killing in “self-defense” which thereby makes it murder.

    [Remember, in this case a woman is involuntarily subjected to substantial risk — certainty, really — of damage to her body, and possible death. In most jurisdictions, for example, you can shoot somebody who breaks into your house, even if he does not attack you otherwise.—Taras]

    Also, “involuntary” is not applicable. The only truly “involuntary” pregnancy is that which might result from criminal, forcible rape. (By which I exclude any recent “feminist” claptrap.) Anything else falls under a principle known as “assumption of risk.”

    [Girls too young to consent to sex are also too young to consent to assumption of risk. The mentally retarded and mentally ill would also qualify here. Other forms of impairment are a gray area.—Taras]

    No form of birth control – no artificial form anyway, at least so far – is absolutely 100% certain. There is a non-zero chance of anything failing, whether because of mis-use, or some kind of negation (certain prescription and non-prescription medications can defeat oral contraceptives, for example), or just statistics. Knowing that, but engaging in sexual activities anyway, brings an assumption of risk that, however low the statistical odds, a pregnancy MIGHT result. And because of that, knowing in advance that it MIGHT happen, killing the result is not justified.

    [Assumption of risk is not that black-and-white in the real world. For example, if a person suffering from vertigo rides a whirly ride at the amusement park and it lays him out for two days, the court will probably rule it’s his own fault. But if the ride malfunctions and put him in the hospital, courts typically hold it unreasonable to say that the rider assumed the risk merely because it’s well known that rides sometimes malfunction. The analogy here would be with a woman who has made a reasonable effort to avoid pregnancy.—Taras]

    If anyone wants an essentially 0% chance of pregnancy, and hence “involuntary servitude” (what an awful was to see it) the option is celibacy. Anything else involves some risk. And anyone who does so, assumes the responsibility of the possible results.

    It’s really no different than men in the past, and the present too, suffering “involuntary servitude” of child support payments, etc, for a pregnancy they did not “want.” Assumption of risk. Women assume the risk too.

    [Pregnancy is rather more invasive and dangerous than paying child support. A more reasonable comparison might be donating a kidney — except that doesn’t tie you up for nine months!—Taras]

     

13. Member
    kedavis

    It makes a lot of difference if you see – as SCIENCE has shown, more and more – that it’s another person, not just a “blob of tissue” or whatever.

    People take “reasonable precautions” against things all the time, but you still don’t get to escape responsibility if something happens anyway.

    There’s more too, but that’s the main thing. And my posts are limited to 250 words.

    Taras (View Comment):
    [Pregnancy is rather more invasive and dangerous than paying child support. A more reasonable comparison might be donating a kidney — except that doesn’t tie you up for nine months!—Taras]

    No, nothing like 9 months, oh the horror!

    Only EIGHTEEN YEARS. Possibly longer.

    Which, depending on the kind of work being done, could also be far more risky and more demanding – and even more invasive – than 9 months of being pregnant.

14. Coolidge
    Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    It makes a lot of difference if you see – as SCIENCE has shown, more and more – that it’s another person, not just a “blob of tissue” or whatever.

    People take “reasonable precautions” against things all the time, but you still don’t get to escape responsibility if something happens anyway.

    There’s more too, but that’s the main thing. And my posts are limited to 250 words.

    Taras (View Comment):
    [Pregnancy is rather more invasive and dangerous than paying child support. A more reasonable comparison might be donating a kidney — except that doesn’t tie you up for nine months!—Taras]

    No, nothing like 9 months, oh the horror!

    Only EIGHTEEN YEARS. Possibly longer.

    Which, depending on the kind of work being done, could also be far more risky and more demanding – and even more invasive – than 9 months of being pregnant.

    It’s difficult to imagine what you’re thinking of, unless you envision a man paying child support by selling off his organs.

    N.B.: Pregnancy and childbirth make permanent changes to a woman’s body.

    “Person” is a term in philosophy, ethics and law, not biology. Which can only tell us that a fetus is a living member of species Homo sapiens.

15. Member
    kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    It makes a lot of difference if you see – as SCIENCE has shown, more and more – that it’s another person, not just a “blob of tissue” or whatever.

    People take “reasonable precautions” against things all the time, but you still don’t get to escape responsibility if something happens anyway.

    There’s more too, but that’s the main thing. And my posts are limited to 250 words.

    …

    No, nothing like 9 months, oh the horror!

    Only EIGHTEEN YEARS. Possibly longer.

    Which, depending on the kind of work being done, could also be far more risky and more demanding – and even more invasive – than 9 months of being pregnant.

    It’s difficult to imagine what you’re thinking of, unless you envision a man paying child support by selling off his organs.

    N.B.: Pregnancy and childbirth make permanent changes to a woman’s body.

    And 18 YEARS of possibly hard manual labor, doesn’t permanently affect a man?

    “Person” is a term in philosophy, ethics and law, not biology. Which can only tell us that a fetus is a living member of species Homo sapiens.

    How is that not the same thing? (Other than corporations sometimes having legal status as a “person.”) Is it okay to kill a “non-person?” A lot of historical figures would agree, but we tend to view them as having been evil.