WrongWay 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Partisanship vs. reasonable compromise.It seems to me that the country is “in general” fed up with the polarization and partisanship in politics. Oddly, at the same time, we’re more entrenched into our particular positions than ever before.In looking for compromise, I find that NEITHER side really wants it. Each side wants the polarization and partisanship to go away so that their side can have everything it wants. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.In my opinion, politics is like Chinese finger cuffs. The harder you pull, the harder the other side pulls back. The only way to actually get anything done is to stop pulling as hard as you can… ease off, give in a little, then gently slide in a direction you desire.I’ll offer a few examples.Abortion/birth control: The pro-choice side wants abortion on demand at anytime. They strongly fight ANY restriction on abortion, seeing any restriction as the slippery slope to the return to the days when abortion was illegal. The pro-life side wants a complete ban on abortions, and in fact would actually want to see a huge number of forms of birth control banned as well. Abortive birth control like the pill, IUD, morning after, abortion pill, etc. The actively push restrictions, not for the sake of restrictions, but as a step toward returning to the days where abortions were illegal. How about compromise? Looking at the facts of reproduction.When does life begin? Answer, it doesn’t. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive. When they join, the zygote is alive. At no point in the process does life not exist.When does it become a human? PURELY depends on the definition of human.When does it have a soul? We can’t show that a soul exists, let alone test for when it is created.So, what can we use? If we use conception, than even absent birth control, 2/3rds of all humans die n the first month of life…before the woman even knew she was pregnant…or before she was pregnant if we define pregnancy as embryo embedded and halted her cycle.Here is a CRAZY idea. How about we use the same definition for the start of being a human as we use for when we decide you are no longer a human.That is, sufficient brain activity to maintain a heartbeat absent external cardiac support or suppression.No, this is not the current SCOTUS running of viability where “if the baby can live outside the womb”. The womb is not cardiac support. The womb does not affect brain activity.It is the point in the reproduction cycle where the fetus has a heartbeat. When does this happen? About 6 weeks into the pregnancy. Since they count from the end of the last cycle, it is typically a month after conception; 2 weeks after the woman is “late”.Why this point? It is the point where the survival rate flips from 30% to 90%. It is highly testable. It doesn’t change with improving technology. It is consistent with our definition of death. And, it is probably the best answer because it doesn’t please either side. All forms of birth control are protected. A woman has time (a couple weeks) to end her pregnancy once she SHOULD realize she is pregnant. If she can’t decide if she wants an abortion within a couple weeks, then she probably shouldn’t get one. And, a big concern of the pro-lifers goes away… the slogan “Abortion stops a beating heart”.So, how do we get this done? How do we move from the current deadlock to what I see as the ideal compromise? Well, each side would have to be willing to give. But neither side is since they know the other side is in it for all-or-nothing. The only way we can get there is Constitution Amendment. We need an amendment to the Constitution that defines start of humanity as being heartbeat, forbidding abortion after this time unless the mother’s health is at serious and imminent risk AND forbidding any restriction on birth control or abortion prior to this point. Only through Constitutional Amendment can either side give without fear the other side will continue to take. It is just too hard to change a Constitutional Amendment.Why won’t we get there? Neither party wants to lose an issue that attracts extremists to their side. How could we get there? The moderates organize and start demanding that the nut-job extremists on both sides start making real changes.Other potential compromises: Gun control: One side wants to ban all guns. The other fights any restriction as a step toward total ban. Compromise: modify the 5th amendment to require all sales of guns and ammo be done through licensed dealers, registered, tracked and accounted for, but reaffirm the right of law abiding citizens to own non-automatic guns for recreation and personal protection.Social Security: remove the last vestiges of pretending it is a savings account. Add means testing to the payouts and remove the cap on the tax. Rising medical costs: Tort reform. The biggest and fastest rising cost associated with healthcare is the liability of being sued. Now, when we go to the doctor, we give $25 to the doc and $75 to the lotto, which only pays out if there is a bad result. I don’t want to play lotto every time I go to the doctor, especially not a lotto in which the lawyers are going to take half of the payout.Others? Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Gun control: One side wants to ban all guns. The other fights any restriction as a step toward total ban. Compromise: modify the 5th amendment to require all sales of guns and ammo be done through licensed dealers, registered, tracked and accounted for, but reaffirm the right of law abiding citizens to own non-automatic guns for recreation and personal protection.This is the only one I really didn't like. The point of the SECOND amendment is that there shouldn't be restrictions for citizens to own guns. Registering/tracking would allow a corrupt government to find the guns and take them. I think the laws that exist are good..have an illegal gun? 5 years in the can.The abortion idea is fine but women will still get abortions after a particular "deadline" has passed, especially if it's short. I think we need to concentrate on distributing birth control and education on the matter instead of trying to define the undefineable. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The point of the SECOND amendment is that there shouldn't be restrictions for citizens to own guns.That's not true. The point is that you should be allowed to own a gun or many guns, not necessarily any kind of gun you want. Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yes, a corrupt government could use registration lists to find guns and take them. But is that really our biggest concern? IF the government is that corrupt, then they'll be rolling tanks through the streets.The bigger concern is that when they ban gun ownership, the registration lists let them track down the guns and collect them.Is a ban a possibility? I think so. Why? The huge number of crimes committed with guns. (Must are drug related so stopping the silly war on drugs would help more.) Still, with reasonable tracking of guns and ammo that would help solve crimes, I think we pull the rug out from under a lot of the anti-gun argument.I own guns and am very anti-gun control. However, do I want to take an "all or nothing" stand, and lose it all. Or do I want to give reasonable compromise in exchange for neutering the pro-gun control movement?Yes, if we use heartbeat as the point of "no more abortions" then there will still be abortions. True! And we treat women that have illegal abortions the same as people that drown a new-born or toss it in the garbage.If we define human as sufficiently developed to have a heartbeat, than an illegal abortion is murder that stops a beating heart is murder.We have people tossing their babies into trash cans now. Does that mean we should make it legal to toss your baby into a trash can? Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I can't believe you typed all this out and posted it on a poker forum. Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 I can't believe you typed all this out and posted it on a poker forum.why? What else have I got to do? Internet poker is blocked from work...Posting to a political site is a waste. People that are there are SO entrenched that reason just bounces off. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 why? What else have I got to do? Internet poker is blocked from work...Posting to a political site is a waste. People that are there are SO entrenched that reason just bounces off. New here?What are your thoughts about gay marriage? Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 What are your thoughts about gay marriage?Marriage should be a purely religious thing.. like baptism or confirmation. Govt should have NOTHING to do with it.What government licenses, tracks, acknowledges, disolves, etc. is civil partnership. Any two adult humans, not already in a civil partnership, should be allowed to form a civil partnership. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Marriage should be a purely religious thing.. like baptism or confirmation. Govt should have NOTHING to do with it.What government licenses, tracks, acknowledges, disolves, etc. is civil partnership. Any two adult humans, not already in a civil partnership, should be allowed to form a civil partnership.I agree with you. Marriage is a religious institution not a government one. Government is should unionize people and then if they want to get "Married" they could. Link to post Share on other sites
Ralph Mexico 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What are your thoughts about gay marriage?It dont matter what he thinks hun. We know its right and thats all that mattersWhich reminds me Ron-Ron, may I puleeeese have that darling little sweater that I found in Southbeach? It has those little pockets on the sleeves and peacock feathers sewn on the back. Its just to die for!As for the post-it you left on the mirror this morning, I replace the curb feelers on your Ford and wiped the lube from them. Didnt you notice?XXXXOOOORalphie Link to post Share on other sites
beans-n-icewater 18 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 curb feelersdamn....looks like "secret santa" has to buy something else this year Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Marriage should be a purely religious thing.. like baptism or confirmation. Govt should have NOTHING to do with it.What government licenses, tracks, acknowledges, disolves, etc. is civil partnership. Any two adult humans, not already in a civil partnership, should be allowed to form a civil partnership.no, I meant me and you? What about us gettin hitched? Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 This thread is so gay, and it has nothing to do with the OP.Love it. Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 no, I meant me and you? What about us gettin hitched?Sorry, your manhood is not nearly large enough for me. I only go black. Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Sorry, your manhood is not nearly large enough for me. I only go black.I understand. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now