• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

I wouldn't be so sure. I'm pretty sure that other people are going to view this abhorrent practice as ghastly.

If we're still talking about fetus organ donation, I don't really see it as any different from regular tissue donation.
 
Womp womp

750f6888135d608aa5540cb0fa134adb.jpg

Capital "C" Conservative. By the definition you provided, good job, good effort to your capital D Democrats for slavery and the Rebel flag flying over South Carolina. Numbers was wise enough to look past the labels and look to the heart of the policy.
 
If we're still talking about fetus organ donation, I don't really see it as any different from regular tissue donation.

Consent of the donor is obtained in regular tissue donation.
 
chamberlain's decision re: Czechoslovakia had nothing to do with the the conservative/liberal spectrum. if anything, it was conservative military strategy to buy time for England to, you know, actually build an army to fight Germany.

but this is the Tunnels, where actual history is unimportant when you need a lazy analogy
 
Well to be fair, the Conservative party at that time was still more to the right on the spectrum than Labour if I remember my British political history correctly. If this even has anything to do with conservative/liberal in the appeasement v. attack/whatever position might have been taken.
 
Consent of the donor is obtained in regular tissue donation.

Seems that in instances where a party can't consent due to infancy or incompetency though that the answer isn't that you don't do the procedure that requires consent, it just means that the parent or guardian is entitled to give the consent.

Under this theory a three year old who needs shots wouldn't be able to have them since if he says "no don't do it."

Probably a lazy analogy on my behalf and I'm missing something else embedded in your post, apologies in advance if that's the case.
 
Consent of the donor is obtained in regular tissue donation.

Sometimes, not always

Obtaining Consent: The OPO representative will search the state's donor registry to see if the deceased had enrolled as a donor. If so, that will serve as legal consent. If the deceased had not registered and there was no other legal consent for donation such as a driver's license indicator, the OPO will seek consent from the next of kin. When consent is obtained, medical evaluation will continue, including obtaining the deceased's complete medical and social history from the family.

http://organdonor.gov/about/organdonationprocess.html
 
Welfare "works" in the sense that fewer children are hungry than 1935. How many $T of that debt can be attributed to wars (started by Pubs) in the last 50 years?

As for appeasement (or internment camps), yea, that's not great.

Most brokerage disclosures include disclaimers about past performance. Let's say Dems got everything right until 1972 & 1/2.
And?
 
Don't Ask Don't Tell wasn't great. Carter's hostage crisis. Or his energy crisis.

But again, these aren't really akin to slavery.

If I can defend Numbers' point, none of these are responsive to his question about "Show me a prevailing liberal idea which wasn't smiled upon by history", and arguably these three items were conservative ideas carried out by a Dem. Numbers is making the argument that when history looks back upon social issues, the liberal position is #undefeated.
 
And I'm not going to try to make that point for him.

On the balance sheet, social conservatism doesn't look great compared to social liberalism in (admittedly young) American history.

And?
 
and you haven't invalidated his original point, or even made a real argument except a failed 'gotcha'
 
I didn't say that the liberal position is undefeated, I said I can't personally think of an example of where the socially conservative view has prevailed in the long run as being what was generally accepted as the "better" position by society when looking back.

I still can't think of one. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means I'm legitimately asking for guidance or an answer and every single post you've made on the topic JHMD has been nearly entirely unresponsive.

Again I cringe to think about opposing attorneys having to sort through your responses to interrogatories or your answers to pleadings.
 
You've said this a few times and I'm sure you're trolling, but I'll bite because that's what I do. What other situation can you ever recall or cite evidence to where the conservative social position has been viewed favorably by future generations? More specifically where it has viewed favorably vis-a-vis the more liberal social position comparatively?

Just off the top of my head, it seems like Communism and many of its attendant radical left social positions has more or less subsided as a world wide force. There's tons of heretical positions within various religious groups and denominations which have met opposition in their own time and never prevailed, for example the Anabaptist position on property distribution never really caught on anywhere and still isn't particularly popular. Groups that have espoused either polygamy or celibacy against their prevailing culture never seem to gain traction either (I'm not sure where that would fall on the "social position" scale). The eugenics stuff, which was pretty progressive at the time, has pretty much been rejected. Not sure where pederasty falls on the "social position" scale, but its pretty much gone as a common practice. Prohibition is another stark example, but would that be considered "right-wing" since it arose out of a stricter behavioral ethic or "left-wing" since it expanded the role of government with the aim of creating a healthier society?

I am kind of curious how you would determine if something was on the "liberal social position" side or the "conservative social position" side of a particular issue. It seems like there's a lot of examples throughout history of people taking social positions that were radical relative to their societal norms that never really worked out, but how would you determine if something like, for example, the radical celibacy of the Shakers was "conservative" or "liberal"?
 
I wouldn't normally consider celibacy to be a liberal viewpoint since it's generally based upon doctrines established as the status quo over the past 2,000 years but there are probably instances where it could be liberal (although I don't know enough about the Anabaptists and departures from the religious norms at those times to really know if celibacy in those cases was viewed as a liberal stance broadly by society).

Polygamy is probably a good example although I wouldn't be surprised if in 500 years polygamy has been somewhat more normalized. Good points on semantics between "liberal" and "conservative" positions. I was thinking more recent American history and so your examples definitely make it a more difficult distinction. With recent history, the social divide between a "liberal" and "conservative" position has been relatively easy to distinguish since the "liberal" side is generally correlated with expanding individual rights and the "conservative" side is generally correlated with restricting individual rights.

By those definitions though within certain segments of the population (like religious sects) the expansion of rights for celibacy broadly beyond the religious doctrine would certainly be liberal within that group, but not really a socially liberal idea at broad when applied to the rest of society.
 
and you haven't invalidated his original point, or even made a real argument except a failed 'gotcha'

I love this.

really? You can't see the "real argument" against abortion? Okay, then. Carry on.
 
I didn't say that the liberal position is undefeated, I said I can't personally think of an example of where the socially conservative view has prevailed in the long run as being what was generally accepted as the "better" position by society when looking back.

I still can't think of one. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means I'm legitimately asking for guidance or an answer and every single post you've made on the topic JHMD has been nearly entirely unresponsive.

Again I cringe to think about opposing attorneys having to sort through your responses to interrogatories or your answers to pleadings.

Maybe one day you might get to find out what the practice of law is like. Maybe.
 
I love this.

really? You can't see the "real argument" against abortion? Okay, then. Carry on.

He's not saying that he doesn't see your argument about abortion (although he may not - you haven't really expanded on your own beliefs at all), I believe he's saying that you haven't made a responsive argument to the original question so you couldn't possibly have invalidated the point.
 
Back
Top