[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

WTF is "the aristocracy" in the context of American politics?

Elimination of the middle class. The working class is there to support the rich.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's ironic because Saturn is an aborted GM brand. Clearly the "keep abortion legal" sticker is a pro-Saturn rallying cry.

In the same way, "legalize gay" t-shirts are really a statement in support of hipster fashion trends.

Post of the Day.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Elimination of the middle class. The working class is there to support the rich.

I don't want to seem like I'm playing 20 questions, but what is the "middle class" you're talking about? I don't think there was previously some large class of people who lived by not working and thus didn't benefit business owners, so the situation you're describing sounds like business as usual.

[ebuddy]

I don't know about ironic, but you certainly don't see this combination of stickers very often. In fact, come to think of it... I've never seen this combination of stickers. Of course I'm willing to consider the odds of any two bumper stickers on a car in general and how well these drivers are represented among the truly insightful.

I'd rather see a Chevy truck with a picture on the back window of Calvin pissing on the Chevy emblem.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It is the exact same system, the only difference is who you label as the constituents. The conservative constituent is the group that ensures wealth and power to a select few at the expense of the poor.

The 'at the expense of the poor' is just the typical leftist class-envy nonsense. Conservatives don't benefit from masses of poor people, or making more people poor- they benefit from masses of middle and upper middle class people.

I've asked this question before, and received the usual cricket chirps from our friends on the left: to what benefit is it for conservatives to want there to be more poor people? So they can get votes from them? No. Support for the agenda of smaller government? No. Support for the agenda of the individual over the collective? No.

To what benefit is it for liberals to want there to be more poor people? So they can get votes from them? Yes. Support for the agenda of bigger government? Yes. Support for the agenda of the collective over the individual? Yes.

Last I checked, it wasn't conservatives insisting that we actually IMPORT more poor people by the tens of thousands each year, dump them on the poorest of communities already (making our home grown poor even poorer in the process) in order to exploit them.

The liberal constituent is the poor, kept poor at the expense of the groups in charge of protecting the wealth and power of a select few.

So, even if we take your argument at face value-

The conservative constituent is some pawn in the master plan of some 'aristocracy' and yet, in the meantime- he's encouraged to be a business owner, he's encouraged to be a landowner, he's encouraged to be a stockholder, he's encouraged to a skilled, well paid and productive member of society that's wealthy enough to actually have something at stake in the system and something to lose from socialist busibodies that want to take from him, therefore he opposes them...

vs.

"The liberal constituent is poor, and kept poor at the expense of the groups in charge of protecting the wealth and power of a select few." In the meantime- he's encouraged to be jealous of business owners, hate landowners, believe the stock market -and indeed the entire engine of the capitalist system he lives in- is rigged against him, he's encouraged to have little to lose so that when socialist busibodies want to rob "someone else wealthier than him", he believes he'll benefit and therefore supports them.

So even at face value, I'll take the first, thank you. So you enjoy being poor for whoever is 'in charge' of you, and I'll enjoy a very comfortable upper middle class existence while not giving a crap about some 'aristocracy' that may not even exist, let alone be in charge of me.

It's the same wagon, you're just arguing over using a donkey or a mule. You're either oppressed by the government, or you're oppressed by the aristocracy. Pick one.

For many liberals, I'd say there's another choice that you picked: "you're oppressed by your own mind." And when that happens, apparently a person will fall for just about anything. Like a clueless and broke government that can't even run itself, promising you it'll give you everything you need if you just hand them even more power and even more of someone else's money, while ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS looking the other way and ignoring whichever rathole they tossed the last batch of both money and promises down. Suure they will.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The 'at the expense of the poor' is just the typical leftist class-envy nonsense.

How is what you were saying not a generalization? "Typical" of conservatives blaming peoples' current economic state simply on laziness. There are very real economic, racial, gender, and physical (i.e. disabled persons) barriers that make it extremely difficult for them to get ahead in life. There are many people who are in a financial wreck not because they weren't working hard enough, or weren't smart with their investments, but because the economy in general simply crashed regardless of any safe guards as recommended by their stock brokers (many stock brokers, mind you, who just simply took advantage of people and contributed to the mess.)

But to you, they're just lazy. Somehow they're not trying hard enough.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Conservatives don't benefit from masses of poor people, or making more people poor- they benefit from masses of middle and upper middle class people.

It's the middle class that bares the burden of most of the taxes. Their relatively high pay cheque (from an employer or as a business owner, which is important) is taxed pretty severely; ironically more so while under a conservative Republican administration. The wealthy, despite technically having a higher income tax, rarely get their income in the form a pay cheque from an employer. It is mostly from relatively low taxed dividends and bonuses.

So you're right, it is dependent on the middle and upper middle class, which is squeezed endlessly. I can understand your frustration.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've asked this question before, and received the usual cricket chirps from our friends on the left: to what benefit is it for conservatives to want there to be more poor people? So they can get votes from them? No. Support for the agenda of smaller government? No. Support for the agenda of the individual over the collective? No.

Labor force. Who the hell wants to spend 14 hours a day bent over in 100° weather picking crops? I don't.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So, even if we take your argument at face value-

I wasn't arguing against your point, I was showing how silly your generalizations are.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So even at face value, I'll take the first, thank you. So you enjoy being poor for whoever is 'in charge' of you, and I'll enjoy a very comfortable upper middle class existence while not giving a crap about some 'aristocracy' that may not even exist, let alone be in charge of me.

In the meantime, despite be technically poor, I'll continue to serve my community as a productive member of our education system; trying to help others live up to the ideals you hold so dear; knowing full well that when they do get into a position similar to yours, they can look back on people like me and tell me that I'm poor because I don't try hard enough.

Sometimes it's a labor of love and not everyone measures their success by the size of the pay cheque.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

For many liberals, I'd say there's another choice that you picked: "you're oppressed by your own mind."

You realize that many of the poor (especially migrant workers, legal or not) are conservatives, right? That the majority of poorest states in our country are largely conservative. Just wondering if you're aware of that. To say that only liberals have that mind set or enforce it is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And when that happens, apparently a person will fall for just about anything. Like a clueless and broke government that can't even run itself, promising you it'll give you everything you need if you just hand them even more power and even more of someone else's money, while ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS looking the other way and ignoring whichever rathole they tossed the last batch of both money and promises down. Suure they will.

Yes, because all liberals are simply socialists. You've figured it out. Maybe you should've gotten the Nobel Prize in economics.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't want to seem like I'm playing 20 questions, but what is the "middle class" you're talking about? I don't think there was previously some large class of people who lived by not working and thus didn't benefit business owners, so the situation you're describing sounds like business as usual.

Wealthy individuals rarely pay an income tax. Their income is in the form of dividends and bonuses with a relatively low rate. So the income tax bracket is pointless for 10% of Americans.

So, yes, there is a large class of people who live by not "working," as far as taxes are concerned. That needs to change. I'm not advocating taxing people more simply because they make more, I'm advocating that they simply pay their fair share. If you're younger than 65 and your income is in the form dividends and bonuses, it needs to be taxed as income in the form of the appropriate income tax. The government needs to come down on people using off shore tax shelters. Then perhaps actual income tax that working Americans have to pay can be lowered.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There are very real economic, racial, gender, and physical (i.e. disabled persons) barriers that make it extremely difficult for them to get ahead in life.

It's MAINLY liberals that believe race, gender and physical disabilities stand in the way of people getting ahead (or wherever they choose to go) in life. Mainly liberals perpetuate this belief, insist on it, get mad at people that don't subscribe to it, and many ultimately will NEVER -while they live- let the belief go. The simple fact is, for many, if there's no strife to get worked up over, then all the need for bullcrap like 'change' goes out the window. And so hold on to those sacred beliefs of rampant inequality and inferiority based on the above criteria- even when it means perpetuating it yourself.

Talk about a sad irony.

There are many people who are in a financial wreck not because they weren't working hard enough, or weren't smart with their investments, but because the economy in general simply crashed regardless of any safe guards as recommended by their stock brokers (many stock brokers, mind you, who just simply took advantage of people and contributed to the mess.)

But to you, they're just lazy. Somehow they're not trying hard enough.

Notice how you leave the government out of the above equation, as usual. Many conservatives and libertarians weren't shocked by the markets- many were warning of it long before it happened. Meanwhile, many Democrat politicians were right up to the market collapse insisting everything was just fine.

Once again, you miss the point- conservatives dislike the 'laziness' of believing that a government 'bailout' is going to save anyone from anything bad happening, as opposed to what you as an individual make happen for yourself- so long as you're allowed to by a government that stays the hell out of your way. We've seen that the only thing government really bails out is gigantic financial institutions full of their cronies. They aren't going to bail out your healthcare needs. They aren't going to bail any Joe Average out of their stock market mistakes. They aren't going to keep paying anyone's mortgage they can't afford. They aren't going to provide you with health, wealth, or any of the other pie in the sky nonsense they keep promising in order to keep people pulling a lever. The more people that realize this, and therefore naturally tap into their talents and get on with life without feeling the need for some government crutch, the better for conservatives.

Once more, I submit most liberal beliefs are exactly the opposite. There's the need for more poor people so you can have government 'fix' poverty. More sick and unhealthy people and you can stomp your feet for government healthcare. More people that hate capitalism means fewer people who know how to survive in the capitalist system, but then you can push for more socialism.

The wealthy, despite technically having a higher income tax, rarely get their income in the form a pay cheque from an employer. It is mostly from relatively low taxed dividends and bonuses.

The IRS itself has proven you wrong every single time you've made this claim. It's no mystery that the higher income brackets pay the lion's share of the taxes. You can keep repeating over and over the opposite, but that doesn't make it so.

So you're right, it is dependent on the middle and upper middle class, which is squeezed endlessly. I can understand your frustration.

So you really think that the government trying to run a gigantic healthcare ponzi scheme, and cap and tax, and a myriad of other ill effects of bigger government won't further squeeze the middle class?

Labor force. Who the hell wants to spend 14 hours a day bent over in 100° weather picking crops? I don't.

And yet once again, it's liberals who push for more illegal immigration, with conservatives more often opposed to it. So because you don't want to spend 14 hours a day picking crops(because of course it all hinges on you being front of the line to do so) that justifies dumping hundreds of thousands of poor people into the poorest communities in the nation. Because of course no native born American EVER made a living farming. And if anyone ever did, it's clear the entire profession would have been based on the willingness of lazy urban dwellers to work the fields. Of course.

In the meantime, despite be technically poor, I'll continue to serve my community as a productive member of our education system; trying to help others live up to the ideals you hold so dear; knowing full well that when they do get into a position similar to yours, they can look back on people like me and tell me that I'm poor because I don't try hard enough.

If whatever you do in the education system actually helps prepare kids for the real world, minus laying a ton of bullshit liberal political BS on them and trying to convince them that they're doomed because of X, Y and Z bogeymen that are really hangups of politically motivated adults, not kids, then my hats off to you. We need more of that and less people trying to pawn all their own crappy hangups off onto kids.

Sometimes it's a labor of love and not everyone measures their success by the size of the pay cheque.

You realize that many of the poor (especially migrant workers, legal or not) are conservatives, right? That the majority of poorest states in our country are largely conservative. Just wondering if you're aware of that. To say that only liberals have that mind set or enforce it is ridiculous.

You misunderstand what I mean by poor. It actually has very little to do with the amount of money someone makes. It's more of a mindset I'm talking about. Someone who lives out in a very rural area, makes by comparison to some yuppy very little money, but is HAPPY, isn't bitter and angry over someone else's silly political hangups, provides for themselves and their family, and doesn't look to the government to rob their wealthier neighbor to provide them with anything isn't 'poor'. There are millions of people like that, that despite whatever amount they earn, know the value of their own individuality, and likely wouldn't trade it for all the promised pie-in-the-sky bullshit in the world from insane politicians.

When I talk about the poor that the left wants more and more of, it's people that don't even know their true potential, that really believe a corrupt government is going to provide for them, and fervently believe in some class-envy zero sum nonsense being both the reason for their plight, and the crutch that never allows them to rise from it. The more of those types- the better for Democrats, not conservatives.

Yes, because all liberals are simply socialists.

I'd certainly say most socialists are liberals.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'd certainly say most socialists are liberals.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Socialism is an economic state. Liberalism is a state of less resistance to change than conservatism that has little or nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. You could have a society where the economy has been socialist for decades and the liberals are the ones who want to change to a capitalist system.

For example, I'm pretty certain that the Communists were extremely conservative, hence their resistance to change towards capitalism and democracy.

You probably mean to say that you think most socialists are liberals *in the US*.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Socialism is an economic state. Liberalism is a state of less resistance to change than conservatism that has little or nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. You could have a society where the economy has been socialist for decades and the liberals are the ones who want to change to a capitalist system.

For example, I'm pretty certain that the Communists were extremely conservative, hence their resistance to change towards capitalism and democracy.

You probably mean to say that you think most socialists are liberals *in the US*.

I think that was implied.

[stupendousman]

What does any of this have to do with abortion, children and irony?

This all seems to be coming out of "left field". Where are the sarcasm tags?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What does any of this have to do with abortion, children and irony?

It has to do with a blatant misunderstanding of everything to the left of one's understanding, including the relationship between a handful of undifferentiated cells that might eventually grow into a human being, children and the definition of "irony".

[ort888]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's MAINLY liberals that believe race, gender and physical disabilities stand in the way of people getting ahead (or wherever they choose to go) in life. Mainly liberals perpetuate this belief, insist on it, get mad at people that don't subscribe to it, and many ultimately will NEVER -while they live- let the belief go. The simple fact is, for many, if there's no strife to get worked up over, then all the need for bullcrap like 'change' goes out the window. And so hold on to those sacred beliefs of rampant inequality and inferiority based on the above criteria- even when it means perpetuating it yourself.

Talk about a sad irony.


Notice how you leave the government out of the above equation, as usual. Many conservatives and libertarians weren't shocked by the markets- many were warning of it long before it happened. Meanwhile, many Democrat politicians were right up to the market collapse insisting everything was just fine.

Once again, you miss the point- conservatives dislike the 'laziness' of believing that a government 'bailout' is going to save anyone from anything bad happening, as opposed to what you as an individual make happen for yourself- so long as you're allowed to by a government that stays the hell out of your way. We've seen that the only thing government really bails out is gigantic financial institutions full of their cronies. They aren't going to bail out your healthcare needs. They aren't going to bail any Joe Average out of their stock market mistakes. They aren't going to keep paying anyone's mortgage they can't afford. They aren't going to provide you with health, wealth, or any of the other pie in the sky nonsense they keep promising in order to keep people pulling a lever. The more people that realize this, and therefore naturally tap into their talents and get on with life without feeling the need for some government crutch, the better for conservatives.

Once more, I submit most liberal beliefs are exactly the opposite. There's the need for more poor people so you can have government 'fix' poverty. More sick and unhealthy people and you can stomp your feet for government healthcare. More people that hate capitalism means fewer people who know how to survive in the capitalist system, but then you can push for more socialism.




The IRS itself has proven you wrong every single time you've made this claim. It's no mystery that the higher income brackets pay the lion's share of the taxes. You can keep repeating over and over the opposite, but that doesn't make it so.


So you really think that the government trying to run a gigantic healthcare ponzi scheme, and cap and tax, and a myriad of other ill effects of bigger government won't further squeeze the middle class?




And yet once again, it's liberals who push for more illegal immigration, with conservatives more often opposed to it. So because you don't want to spend 14 hours a day picking crops(because of course it all hinges on you being front of the line to do so) that justifies dumping hundreds of thousands of poor people into the poorest communities in the nation. Because of course no native born American EVER made a living farming. And if anyone ever did, it's clear the entire profession would have been based on the willingness of lazy urban dwellers to work the fields. Of course.


If whatever you do in the education system actually helps prepare kids for the real world, minus laying a ton of bullshit liberal political BS on them and trying to convince them that they're doomed because of X, Y and Z bogeymen that are really hangups of politically motivated adults, not kids, then my hats off to you. We need more of that and less people trying to pawn all their own crappy hangups off onto kids.


You misunderstand what I mean by poor. It actually has very little to do with the amount of money someone makes. It's more of a mindset I'm talking about. Someone who lives out in a very rural area, makes by comparison to some yuppy very little money, but is HAPPY, isn't bitter and angry over someone else's silly political hangups, provides for themselves and their family, and doesn't look to the government to rob their wealthier neighbor to provide them with anything isn't 'poor'. There are millions of people like that, that despite whatever amount they earn, know the value of their own individuality, and likely wouldn't trade it for all the promised pie-in-the-sky bullshit in the world from insane politicians.

When I talk about the poor that the left wants more and more of, it's people that don't even know their true potential, that really believe a corrupt government is going to provide for them, and fervently believe in some class-envy zero sum nonsense being both the reason for their plight, and the crutch that never allows them to rise from it. The more of those types- the better for Democrats, not conservatives.


I'd certainly say most socialists are liberals.

Nice rant. With thinking like that it's no wonder you feel like you do. In your mind Democrats and liberals are mustache-twirling, tophat-wearing villains who are tying the world to the railroad tracks. It's an interesting glimpse into your world. It's like you feel some sort of burning need to demonize the other side to reenforce your own pre-existing beliefs.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It has to do with a blatant misunderstanding of everything to the left of one's understanding, including the relationship between a handful of undifferentiated cells that might eventually grow into a human being, children and the definition of "irony".

Oh. I thought it was about the blatant misunderstanding of everything to the right of one's understanding, including the relationship between a handful cells that makes up human life that might eventually grow into an adult if not killed, and the definition of "irony."

Nevermind.

Btw. My definition of "life" is the one that is consistent, that is based on science. Not an arbitrary one based on the location of the human "cells" in question.

Someone on temporary life support is nothing but a collection of cells who may or may not be allowed to grow into an older human as well, but we can't rationally make the argument that because of were those cells happen to be located (hooked to temporary life support) we can just allow it to be killed. We base it normally on three things.

1. Active brain waves.
2. A beating heart.
3. Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support.

That's the scientific determination that I believe we use for "life" in most all other conditions. There's simply no logical reason why it should be any other way for the most helpless of human life.

Not scientifically
Not justifiable via traditional moral values.
Not supported by the majority of Americans.
Not supported by the Constitution (The SC making stuff up doesn't count).

Right now the laws are way out of wack on every level. You don't have to change them based on the baby Jesus speaking to you in a dream. Science and logical reasoning are more than enough.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Someone on temporary life support is nothing but a collection of cells who may or may not be allowed to grow into an older human as well, but we can't rationally make the argument that because of were those cells happen to be located (hooked to temporary life support) we can just allow it to be killed. We base it normally on three things.

1. Active brain waves.
2. A beating heart.
3. Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support.

That's the scientific determination that I believe we use for "life" in most all other conditions. There's simply no logical reason why it should be any other way for the most helpless of human life.

And if you equate the mother's womb with "temporary life support," then in fact what you are describing is a perfect "scientific" determination of life that justifies the acceptance of abortions that are not performed in the later stages of pregnancy, which is what most people are concerned about. The specific definition of "late term abortion" has been a topic of debate, but the underlying premise has always been the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb (viability). Your position that there is no "logical reason" to determine that a cluster of cells in the womb is not alive is undermined by your own argument and is, on its own face, absurd. By your own argument, the laws are not "way out of whack on every level," because the Supreme Court has specifically allowed states to impose greater restrictions on late-term abortions, based on the issue of viability.

Now that's "sad irony."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's MAINLY liberals that believe race, gender and physical disabilities stand in the way of people getting ahead (or wherever they choose to go) in life.

No, you have it wrong. Race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is not what keeps a person from being successful, it's the social environment they live in. A gay man or woman is not going to become career military no matter how hard they try. It is not because the individual is inferior in any way or that people (well, other than Christians) tell them they're inferior, it is because discrimination against homosexuals prevents them from having a successful career in the military.

Racial and gender discrimination is very real in most aspects of our society. It doesn't mean it's impossible for non whites or women to be successful, I just said it makes it more difficult. Yes there are exceptions.

I don't know why I find it disturbing that you believe the world is perfect and without bias.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And so hold on to those sacred beliefs of rampant inequality and inferiority based on the above criteria- even when it means perpetuating it yourself.

Except I don't. My concern isn't with the individual or perpetuating any belief in that person being unequal or inferior. My concern is with why should they have to overcome more hurdles than you do to achieve the same goal.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Meanwhile, many Democrat politicians were right up to the market collapse insisting everything was just fine.

All the meantime the Republicans are taking advantage of it, pointing fingers and complaining while stuffing their pockets with others misfortunes? How long did the Republicans control the Congress during that period? Which party was largely responsible for the deregulation of the industry that enabled the Democrats to take advantage of people? I think it's equally silly that you can simply blame the worlds problems on a single group when both are just as responsible.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Once again, you miss the point- conservatives dislike the 'laziness' of believing that a government 'bailout' is going to save anyone from anything bad happening, as opposed to what you as an individual make happen for yourself- so long as you're allowed to by a government that stays the hell out of your way.

I agree with you on this point nearly 100%. The only problem is that when the government is removed completely, people are unfairly taken advantage of.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

We've seen that the only thing government really bails out is gigantic financial institutions full of their cronies. They aren't going to bail out your healthcare needs. They aren't going to bail any Joe Average out of their stock market mistakes. They aren't going to keep paying anyone's mortgage they can't afford. They aren't going to provide you with health, wealth, or any of the other pie in the sky nonsense they keep promising in order to keep people pulling a lever. The more people that realize this, and therefore naturally tap into their talents and get on with life without feeling the need for some government crutch, the better for conservatives.

I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Once more, I submit most liberal beliefs are exactly the opposite. There's the need for more poor people so you can have government 'fix' poverty. More sick and unhealthy people and you can stomp your feet for government healthcare. More people that hate capitalism means fewer people who know how to survive in the capitalist system, but then you can push for more socialism.

This is where you and I disagree completely.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The IRS itself has proven you wrong every single time you've made this claim. It's no mystery that the higher income brackets pay the lion's share of the taxes. You can keep repeating over and over the opposite, but that doesn't make it so.

I didn't say anything that was opposite to what you're claiming. Yes, they pay the lion's share of the taxes, but they control 70% of the wealth. The ratio of income to amount of taxes paid is significantly less for a wealthy person because their yearly expenses are not dependent on a pay cheque from an employer; ergo they control most of the wealth but pay the least amount in income tax relative to their net income.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So you really think that the government trying to run a gigantic healthcare ponzi scheme, and cap and tax, and a myriad of other ill effects of bigger government won't further squeeze the middle class?

No, I think they will. There are several threads on here where I discuss my dissatisfaction with all of those at some point. I started out in favor of the healthcare bill, but it has not turned out the way I wanted it. As it exists today, I'm very much against it. There are aspects of cap and tax that both like and dislike. Yes, I'm well aware all of these things squeeze the middle class. However, I think this is more to do with tax reform.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So because you don't want to spend 14 hours a day picking crops(because of course it all hinges on you being front of the line to do so) that justifies dumping hundreds of thousands of poor people into the poorest communities in the nation.

No. Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Because of course no native born American EVER made a living farming. And if anyone ever did, it's clear the entire profession would have been based on the willingness of lazy urban dwellers to work the fields. Of course.

My uncle is a farmer. He owns several orchards near Sonora, CA; he's one of the major suppliers of almonds to Blue Diamond (he also does walnuts and pecans.) He hires on interns and college students when he can (because they're cheap), but almost his entire workforce is composed of seasonal migrant workers. Any farmer that owns and operates such large properties will tell you that they use migrant workers because there isn't a single American who wants to do that kind of job, for that long, for that kind of pay.

Farmers in the past and present made/make a good living on cheap labor. Our country had an entire civil war over it. Consumers do not want to pay $20 for a can of peanuts. Peanuts are cheap because they're cheap to produce; it's cheap to produce because the labor is cheap.

That is why Conservative farmers and farming related corporations will often lobby for Progressive reform on immigration laws.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

When I talk about the poor that the left wants more and more of, it's people that don't even know their true potential, that really believe a corrupt government is going to provide for them, and fervently believe in some class-envy zero sum nonsense being both the reason for their plight, and the crutch that never allows them to rise from it. The more of those types- the better for Democrats, not conservatives.

Part of the problem I see is that the well-meaning Democrats that put in programs to help a target demographic, get overrun by the lobbyists and politicians looking to make a name for themselves or a quick buck. The projects quickly balloon out of control, requiring more spending and support, with tons of people that don't need the program taking advantage of it. Wellfare is the perfect example. The intention was to be a stop gap measure just to get people back on their feet. Now we have people who live off of it for no reason other than it's free money.

As a political move, I might agree with your assessment. As for Democrats in general, I disagree.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And if you equate the mother's womb with "temporary life support," then in fact what you are describing is a perfect "scientific" determination of life that justifies the acceptance of abortions that are not performed in the later stages of pregnancy, which is what most people are concerned about.

Actually, the scientifically observable and non-arbitrary phenomena I describe happen fairly early in a pregnancy. I believe all are in place well before the end of the first trimester. That would limit most all abortions except for the ones that happen in the first month or two, which incidentally is about where most people in the US believe the "line" should be drawn at the very least. Currently, the law does not enforce such a limit due to the Supreme Court overstepping it's bounds and legislating this new standard.

I'm not saying that these non-arbitrary observations are what I think is "right". I think all abortion is wrong. But that's my personal belief. Given the fact that we can use the same scientific, observable non-arbitrary standard for "life" at the time of death, and the fact that the Constitution is silent in regards to when life begins, it would seem to be the best and most reasonable standard to take.

The specific definition of "late term abortion" has been a topic of debate, but the underlying premise has always been the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb (viability).

I think that's a bogus standard. No more credible than the idea that a person does not have a right to live if they can not survive short-term without life-support due to an injury or illness.

Your position that there is no "logical reason" to determine that a cluster of cells in the womb is not alive is undermined by your own argument and is, on its own face, absurd.

You make no sense.

We are ALL a "cluster of cells". My argument is that we've had a non-arbitrary, scientifically observable standard for what constitutes "life" for the clusters of cells that makes a human for quite some time - well before Roe V. Wade. One that has been accepted by law and by the people. There is no real non-arbitrary reason for creating a new standard that:

A. Isn't supported by science.
B. Isn't supported by the people
C. Isn't supported by what is in the Constitution.

By your own argument, the laws are not "way out of whack on every level," because the Supreme Court has specifically allowed states to impose greater restrictions on late-term abortions, based on the issue of viability.

Now that's "sad irony."

Any woman in the United States who wants to get an abortion after the human life inside her meets all the criteria we use to determine "life" at the time of death can get one without fear of legal consequences. That's no real "limit".

[Wiskedjak]

The average 1-2 month old fetus can survive outside of the womb without life-support?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The average 1-2 month old fetus can survive outside of the womb without life-support?

The average 2 year old can survive without outside support?

If self-sufficiency is the criteria, you should be able to abort 2 year olds as well...

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, the scientifically observable and non-arbitrary phenomena I describe happen fairly early in a pregnancy. I believe all are in place well before the end of the first trimester.

Except for your "3. Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support." That's what I'm talking about. The justification the Supreme Court has used to protect access to abortion services yet allow states to limit late-term abortions follows your reasoning perfectly. By your own set of criteria, fetuses which are not late-term by the definition of being not viable are not "alive." Therefore your argument that the laws are "way out of whack" as a result of overreaching by SCOTUS is not valid. While there is a tremendous gray area in terms of viability from pregnancy to pregnancy, usually it is not possible for a pregnancy to be viable before the 21st week, well into the 2nd trimester and approaching the 3rd. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, in the 3rd trimester.

The irony here is that your argument undermines your ideological position and you appear to not even know it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The average 1-2 month old fetus can survive outside of the womb without life-support?

No more than a man having a heart transplant can survive without life-support. Both will die without temporary assistance. I'm pretty sure if a Doctor got hungry in the middle of a heart transplant, and decided his patient was inconveniencing him and he just turned off all the machines, went to lunch and let him die, that the argument could not be made that the "cluster of cells" on the table wasn't really living since it required temporary assistance, and therefore what the Doctor did was not murder.

We can't do that because we aren't dealing with an arbitrary standard. We are dealing with one that has been decided based on scientific and logical merits. The same is not the case regarding abortion law.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Except for your "3. Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support." That's what I'm talking about.

Most all healthy "clusters" of human cells that start as an embryo will be able to live on their own with just short term life support.

The justification the Supreme Court has used to protect access to abortion services yet allow states to limit late-term abortions follows your reasoning perfectly.

I've already explained - there are no real limits. Please explain to me what would happen if a woman sought out a late term abortion - abortions that happy all the time.

By your own set of criteria, fetuses which are not late-term by the definition of being not viable are not "alive."

"Viability" as you and the courts define it isn't the standard I've given. Is a man who has been in an accident and requires a breathing machine for a month before his lungs are healthy enough to function on their own not a human being? Can he live without the temporary life support? Of course not. Can he live if he's given just a bit longer to grow stronger and healthier? Of course. The same is true of most every normal, healthy pre-born human. The court does not respect this non-arbitrary standard - the same standard we use when determining rights and the status of "life" or "death" later in the human life cycle.

In it's place, it's put forth an arbitrary standard that regardless of the health or ability for the human life to continue on it's natural life cycle, it can be snuffed out due to arbitrary issues of convenience. This despite the fact that it is not supported by the people, traditional values or anything provided to us by our founding fathers.

At best this is a matter for states to decide, and I'd hope if given the chance they'd at the very least decide to abide by a consistent, scientific definition of what constitutes "life".

Therefore your argument that the laws are "way out of whack" as a result of overreaching by SCOTUS is not valid. While there is a tremendous gray area in terms of viability from pregnancy to pregnancy, usually it is not possible for a pregnancy to be viable before the 21st week, well into the 2nd trimester and approaching the 3rd. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, in the 3rd trimester.

The irony here is that your argument undermines your ideological position and you appear to not even know it.

Quit debating the argument in you've pre-formed in your head. It's not the one I'm making.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: if you knew that a fetus was going to grow to be a powerful Liberal, would it be okay to abort it?

[Shaddim]

not all liberals are pro-choice, you assume a great deal.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

At best this is a matter for states to decide, and I'd hope if given the chance they'd at the very least decide to abide by a consistent, scientific definition of what constitutes "life".

As I have said before, the scientific definition of "life" is quite useless here. It's technically possible to keep human cells biologically alive independent of their former host, but nobody would suggest those cells be accorded the rights and protections of a real person. Sperm and ova are living cells, but nobody suggests that life exists before conception.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

not all liberals are pro-choice, you assume a great deal.

In fact, a great deal of the best conservatives were liberal prior to parenthood.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I have said before, the scientific definition of "life" is quite useless here. It's technically possible to keep human cells biologically alive independent of their former host, but nobody would suggest those cells be accorded the rights and protections of a real person.

I'm talking about the scientific definition of what provides "human cells" the right to keep living and continuing on it's natural life cycle. We have a legal standard we've used for this in regards to the end of our life cycle for quite some time, and it's not based on where you happen to be located. It's based on a non-arbitrary, scientifically determinable standard.

Using this standard, even full grown adults who are "biologically alive" can be determined to be "dead" as a person. There's no real reason for this consistent standard not to be used that I can determine, other than it lacks convenience for some.

Sperm and ova are living cells, but nobody suggests that life exists before conception.

Sperm and ova do not meet the three point criteria I laid out that we currently use to determine "life" at the end of our cycles. There is a standard that we can use which is consistent, would likely be supported by the majority, and doesn't (if determined by the states) actually violate the Constitution as our current laws do.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

nobody suggests that life exists before conception.

Not yet, at least. Slippery slope, and all. Then again, those groups that are opposed to birth control *might* believe that life exists before conception.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most all healthy "clusters" of human cells that start as an embryo will be able to live on their own with just short term life support.

Yes, but by definition, a fetus that is not viable will not survive long-term outside the womb, regardless of whatever intensive care measures are taken after birth. Although it varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, the threshold for viability is around week 24.

I've already explained - there are no real limits. Please explain to me what would happen if a woman sought out a late term abortion - abortions that happy all the time.

It depends on the state. See: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente.../spib_PLTA.pdf There are disputes about some of these state laws because of lack of exemptions for the health of the mother and that sort of thing, but the viability standard is fairly consistent with SCOTUS decisions.

"Viability" as you and the courts define it isn't the standard I've given.

Yes, it is. One of your conditions for life that requires protection was: "Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support." That is essentially the definition of viability, and that is at the core of the standard that the Supreme Court has used to rule that there should be no restrictions on abortions of fetuses prior to a certain stage of development.

[The Final Dakar]

stupendousman is the new abe. I do wonder what he was doing the first 5 years that he barely set foot in the PL.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, but by definition, a fetus that is not viable will not survive long-term outside the womb, regardless of whatever intensive care measures are taken after birth.

You are arguing in circles.

I've explained several times that "outside the womb" is the criteria that exists now, and I've explained several times the difference in my position.

Sometime before the first twelve weeks or so (well before "viability"), this living thing with an active brain and heartbeat that will be able to grow and continue on it's normal life cycle if just left alone after a short period of time (the same standard we use to determine the legal end of "life" cycles) can be killed simply for convenience.

The current standard and laws are arbitrary, not consistent, not supported by the majority of Americans and goes against the Constitution.

Yes, it is. One of your conditions for life that requires protection was: "Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support."

A mother normally provides up to nine months of temporary life support herself once the first two criteria are met, and then at some point (viability - the current standard, which goes unenforced) the human life can be taken off that life support and either continue it's life cycle on it's own or use some other temporary means of life support for a short period of time. Currently, the Supreme Court allows this life to be terminated despite it being able to meet the same three criteria we use in determining whether a human is alive or dead at the end of our life cycle.

As I've explained, unlike the unborn, someone who has a brain injury and requires only temporary help from third parties and life support can't be legally left to die or murdered. Both require temporary action from third parties in order to get over their inability to function on their own, but only the person who is injured currently gets protection from those who might find it more convenient for them to be dead despite the fact that in both:

A. Their condition is temporary
B. They both have active brain waves
C. Both have beating hearts
(the criteria used to determine protection for the "cluster of cells" who has had a brain injury).

That is essentially the definition of viability, and that is at the core of the standard that the Supreme Court has used to rule that there should be no restrictions on abortions of fetuses prior to a certain stage of development.

...which is arbitrarily different from the one used at the end of our life cycles, and is essentially inequitable protection based entirely on the location of the life in question.

[olePigeon]

stupdendousman has an interesting set of double standards. When he's confronted by scientific evidence that is contrary to his faith, the science doesn't mean anything, nor does any mountain of evidence sway his position. However, when he's trying to defend his position on something, he'll ironically rely on the scientific definition.

You can't simultaneously claim that science doesn't matter, then try and back up your argument with science. Doesn't really work that way.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

stupdendousman has an interesting set of double standards. When he's confronted by scientific evidence that is contrary to his faith, the science doesn't mean anything, nor does any mountain of evidence sway his position. However, when he's trying to defend his position on something, he'll ironically rely on the scientific definition.

You can't simultaneously claim that science doesn't matter, then try and back up your argument with science. Doesn't really work that way.

Please feel free to back up your accusation with evidence because I'm pretty sure I have NEVER said or even expressed that science "doesn't matter" about anything and have never dismissed it and replaced it with something faith based for no reason.

I have stated that currently accepted but unproven scientific theories provide the best evidence-based explanations in regards to certain mysteries of life, but that since there are huge holes in man's understanding of the evidence and ability to prove what it means, I'm still open to other possibilities. That's not even close to what you are claiming and it is pretty consistent with my stand here.

I'm just as open to the possibility that the standard we currently use in scientifically determining "death" at the end our life cycles might be able to be improved on in some way.

I have also never used my "faith" as a rationale as to what should be forced on anyone else. I don't think I've ever even talked about what my "faith" is here for that matter, but I could be mistaken on that.

Try again.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are arguing in circles.

I've explained several times that "outside the womb" is the criteria that exists now, and I've explained several times the difference in my position.

I appear to be arguing in circles because I feel like I keep having to explain to you what the definition of viability actually is. From the rest of your post, I understand that you believe that the Supreme Court allows a pregnancy to be terminated if the fetus has prospects for long-term survival outside the womb if assisted by a 3rd party. If that is the case, then the pregnancy is viable and the reality is that the Supreme Court has said that states have the authority to ban abortions in these situations (with exceptions for if the mother's health is at risk, etc.). The Supreme Court's decision appears to be consistent with your view, your misunderstanding of the issue of viability aside.

I also understand from your post that you believe your standard of "Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support" is met even in cases where the pregnancy has not yet reached viability because, if left alone, the embryo or fetus will eventually reach that stage given the "temporary life support" afforded by the mother's womb. I think that is a circular argument that doesn't really resonate with reality; it inevitably leads one to the conclusion that we shouldn't even practice birth control because, of course, if given the opportunity then the healthy biological components required to create an embryo might just do that, just as a healthy but non-viable embryo or fetus, if given the opportunity, might reach viability. I think that your analogy to brain-damaged people in intensive care is not a valuable one -- those are people who have previously-acknowledged rights independent of their condition. In the case of unborn people, the issue is when they gain personal rights in the first place. You are using an equal-protection argument to argue that unborn people have rights to protect -- logically, that just doesn't work. And you are simply incorrect that the standard of viability is "arbitrary" -- the standard itself is an evidence-based scientific judgment, regardless of whether you think it's the right standard to use.

I certainly think that you are free to believe that abortion is morally unjustifiable. However, the argument you are making here is wrong independently of that view.

[ort888]

I consider anyone who doesn't go full "Dugger" a murderer.

It's so sad that people find it so inconvenient to create all those lives. Those souls want to exist and the only thing stopping them from living long fulfilling lives is the selfishness of their potential parents.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

stupendousman is the new abe. I do wonder what he was doing the first 5 years that he barely set foot in the PL.

For a while I thought that stupendousman was abe, but then I ran across an old thread that they both actually posted in. Just think of the lost opportunities for mayhem we would have had if they had posted together more frequently.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I have stated that currently accepted but unproven scientific theories provide the best evidence-based explanations in regards to certain mysteries of life, but that since there are huge holes in man's understanding of the evidence and ability to prove what it means, I'm still open to other possibilities. That's not even close to what you are claiming and it is pretty consistent with my stand here.

You argue that evolution is mythology and that intelligent design is just as valid. That only underlines your complete ignorance as it pertains to the scientific method and science in general. If you don't even understand the basic principals of what constitutes a scientific theory, you really shouldn't be arguing the merits or interpretations thereof.

[besson3c]

So who is Abe now then?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I appear to be arguing in circles because I feel like I keep having to explain to you what the definition of viability actually is.

I know what it is. It isn't my standard, which is why going back to it again and again isn't actually debating my point. My standard goes above and beyond "viability" the same as our standard for life at the end of human cycles do. A man on a breathing machine isn't "viable" either if you remove him from that which keeps his heart beating and his brain working temporarily. If there's no real medical hope for him ever being able to achieve a beating heart and active brainwaves in the future, you can legally allow him to die or cause his death. Currently we allow doctors to allow to die or kill life that has a beating heart and active brainwaves that could live with any active life support in the future.

From the rest of your post, I understand that you believe that the Supreme Court allows a pregnancy to be terminated if the fetus has prospects for long-term survival outside the womb if assisted by a 3rd party. If that is the case, then the pregnancy is viable and the reality is that the Supreme Court has said that states have the authority to ban abortions in these situations (with exceptions for if the mother's health is at risk, etc.).

...which is no ban at all. Since when do we allow the killing of human life because it might slightly inconvenience our health, and even then don't really enforce it because it's not really possible to enforce since the defintion is so nebulous. If having a baby would give a woman a headache, then it's legal to snuff out that life by the phony SC definition. If the man on the breathing machine temporarily causes me stress and anxiety because I'd rather just be rid of the burden, I can hardly allow him to die or kill him because his continued existence interferes with my "health". We have an inconsistent, arbitrary and unconstitutional double standard here in how we protect the right to live.

The Supreme Court's decision appears to be consistent with your view, your misunderstanding of the issue of viability aside.

A. The Supreme Court's rulings aren't consistent with my view. Their definition of "viabilty" is not the threshold I've given.

B. Even with their threshold, their decision does not force equal treatment under the law for similar actions against human life.

...your misunderstanding of my position aside.

[quote]I also understand from your post that you believe your standard of "Whether or not the group of cells in question would ever be able to eventually live without it's temporary life support" is met even in cases where the pregnancy has not yet reached viability because, if left alone, the embryo or fetus will eventually reach that stage given the "temporary life support" afforded by the mother's womb. I think that is a circular argument that doesn't really resonate with reality; it inevitably leads one to the conclusion that we shouldn't even practice birth control because, of course, if given the opportunity then the healthy biological components required to create an embryo might just do that, just as a healthy but non-viable embryo or fetus, if given the opportunity, might reach viability.

Brain waves
Beating heart
Ability to live without assistance after a reasonable amount of time.

That's the standard we use for "death". It's the same standard we should use for life. It requires no "circular argument". It's a specific set of circumstances that exists after the living "cluster of cells" has already been created. It's a specific and non-arbitrary standard which is accepted and verifiable.

I think that your analogy to brain-damaged people in intensive care is not a valuable one -- those are people who have previously-acknowledged rights independent of their condition.

...because the court arbitrarily did not give those rights to those in question. That's the debate. I've shown that one example gets those rights, and the other does not despite the fact that both exhibit the exact same set of determining circumstances in regards to their "right to life".

In the case of unborn people, the issue is when they gain personal rights in the first place.

The gist of the whole debate. They aren't given personal rights due to inconsistent and arbitrary standards.

You are using an equal-protection argument to argue that unborn people have rights to protect -- logically, that just doesn't work. And you are simply incorrect that the standard of viability is "arbitrary" -- the standard itself is an evidence-based scientific judgment, regardless of whether you think it's the right standard to use.

"Viability" as a definable state of existence is not arbitrary in itself. You are correct in that it can be determined via evidence-based scientific judgement, the same as the 3 point criteria I gave can be. Using it as a threshold for rights when others are given an entirely different threshold is what is arbitrary.

I certainly think that you are free to believe that abortion is morally unjustifiable. However, the argument you are making here is wrong independently of that view.

It has nothing to do with morals. We are applying arbitrary, inconsistent rules regarding life and death based on issues of convenience and it's been done by an entity which has no real right to rule in the matter Constitutionally. Unless you consider doing that "morally unjustifiable", you are inventing your own arguments to debate against again....

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I know what it is. It isn't my standard, which is why going back to it again and again isn't actually debating my point.

I was trying to understand why you feel that there is a difference between your standard and viability as applied to unborn fetuses. I think we've made progress: I've shown that you are incorrect in believing that the Supreme Court has protected the abortion of fetuses which are deemed medically to be viable -- that is, their prospects for long-term survival outside the womb (whether or not this requires intensive care) are good. This is not an "SC definition" of "viable." This is a medical definition. The SC has not banned these late-term abortions, but they have agreed with your previously-expressed view that "at best this is a matter for states to decide." Hardly an activist position.

With that sideshow out of the way, we get to the crux of the debate. It appears that you also feel that non-viable fetuses deserve protection because they do not require outside assistance to "live," that is, exist inside the womb. Your analogy is that adults who require temporary assistance to perform essential functions are not permitted to be simply killed out of convenience. Thus if a fetus has brain waves and a heartbeat, it is in the same condition. I think this fails as an argument because your analogy is incorrect. There is no medical reason to believe that a fetus with a heartbeat and brain waves will necessarily survive to viability, whereas the adult on life support has already met that criteria: he/she has already been born. Thus there is no need to make a positive evaluation in support of the adult's personal rights (there is only a negative evaluation), whereas the unborn fetus demands a positive evaluation. This means that there is no logical reason why the criteria for determining each case needs to be the same.

I've shown that one example gets those rights, and the other does not despite the fact that both exhibit the exact same set of determining circumstances in regards to their "right to life".

No, what you have shown is that one example does not have those rights taken away and that other does not have those rights applied given similar circumstances.

It has nothing to do with morals. We are applying arbitrary, inconsistent rules regarding life and death based on issues of convenience and it's been done by an entity which has no real right to rule in the matter Constitutionally.

Oh, look, another irony: stupendousman using an equal protection argument to say that current laws regarding abortion are unconstitutional while claiming that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to find in the contrary.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You argue that evolution is mythology

I asked you to provide evidence, not to continue to make false, unsupported claims.

Twice now you've failed. You are free to clear the record on your libelous misdeeds at any time by quoting where I've ever said that science doesn't matter at all or that evolution (the theory I specifically stated was currently the best evidence-based reasoning that exists) is "mythology".

Failure to do so paints you as either careless to an intellectually dishonest extent or a liar.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I was trying to understand why you feel that there is a difference between your standard and viability as applied to unborn fetuses. I think we've made progress: I've shown that you are incorrect in believing that the Supreme Court has protected the abortion of fetuses which are deemed medically to be viable -- that is, their prospects for long-term survival outside the womb (whether or not this requires intensive care) are good.

You've shown no such thing. I've explained how their "protection" provides absolutely no protection at all. A woman can kill off a "cluster of cells" that meets all the normal criteria we use in regards to the legal definition of "life" simply because it might cause her a headache or stress.

That's no real protection at all, and is what the Supreme Court has set up. They've provided an arbitrary threshold, then taken no real effort to provide any real protection after that threshold has been reached because they created a phony and again arbitrary rationale for how that threshold can be ignored. This is in addition to the fact that they really had no Constitutional authority to act against the laws that where already legislated anyways.

This is not an "SC definition" of "viable." This is a medical definition.

The SC has arbitrarily chosen that threshold when we already had a non-arbitrary, scientifically determined set of criteria accepted by Americans for what constitutes "life".

The SC has not banned these late-term abortions, but they have agreed with your previously-expressed view that "at best this is a matter for states to decide."

...based on the arbitrary threshold they've set up which is inequitable with when we determine "life" at the end of it's cycle.

I'm not saying that the SC hasn't provided ANY limits. The limits they have provided and the threshold they have arbitrarily chosen to use though are not consistent with how science and society had already decided life should be defined scientifically and what protections it should be afforded.

They legislated rules that have no bearing on any standards that had already existed AND STILL EXISTS, didn't have the support of the American people, didn't have really anything much to do with our Framer's intent or the actual content of the Constitution. That's a pretty clear example of bad "law".

With that sideshow out of the way, we get to the crux of the debate. It appears that you also feel that non-viable fetuses deserve protection because they do not require outside assistance to "live," that is, exist inside the womb. Your analogy is that adults who require temporary assistance to perform essential functions are not permitted to be simply killed out of convenience. Thus if a fetus has brain waves and a heartbeat, it is in the same condition. I think this fails as an argument because your analogy is incorrect. There is no medical reason to believe that a fetus with a heartbeat and brain waves will necessarily survive to viability...

Actually, there is. Statistically, the odds are massively in favor of the fact that the unborn will be able to do just that. It can be proven scientifically that the majority of unborn with a heartbeat and brain waves WILL be able to continue their natural life cycles. Now, if evidence appears that the unborn has some kind of deformity or condition which would mean it wouldn't be able to survive long-term, then you'd have a situation similar to when we can legally "pull the plug" at the end of the life cycle.

...whereas the adult on life support has already met that criteria: he/she has already been born. Thus there is no need to make a positive evaluation in support of the adult's personal rights (there is only a negative evaluation), whereas the unborn fetus demands a positive evaluation. This means that there is no logical reason why the criteria for determining each case needs to be the same.

The unborn are not given rights because the Supreme Court has decided to ignore the scientifically observable criteria already in place to determine life rights. That's the debate - should they have legislated a new, arbitrary standard when one already existed, was already accepted, and would still allow abortions to occur in the very earliest stages.

Had they simply ruled that there was already a legal definition in place (which there was, and still is) and where going to let it stand, they could have made a lot of abortions legal, not overstepped their bounds, and created a standard that most people probably wouldn't see worth fighting. Instead, they overstepped their bounds, created an arbitrary threshold based on age and location, and legislated a standard not accepted by the majority of Americans.

Oh, look, another irony: stupendousman using an equal protection argument to say that current laws regarding abortion are unconstitutional while claiming that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to find in the contrary.

Find in the contrary about what?

Was R v. W about "equal protection"?