Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 4034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 599
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #210 on: May 29, 2019, 10:53:10 PM »
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 11:15:53 PM by XeRocks81 »

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4774
Re: Abortion
« Reply #211 on: May 30, 2019, 05:04:03 AM »
"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.

Honest question Stadler: would you be against removing life support from somebody who is clinically brain-dead, with no chance of recovery? I ask because I come from the direction of not valuing human life, per say, but human personhood. To me, the body is just the vessel that contains the thing that is actually valued and worthy of protection, as the individual is made of their thoughts, their memories and such. I'm just interested to know where you come from.

Quote
I don't suppose I've given you anything you haven't thought of before re: abortion, but I do think that it's important to be able to have the discussion, and there are too many people on this topic that are not interested in even ACKNOWLEDGING that there is another side, let alone discussing it.  When you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details.     

Sure, but both you, I, El Barto, Bosk1 etc come from the position of privilege of not having the rights that we hold dependent on the outcome of that debate. The abortion laws will not, under any circumstances, lead to a scenario where I or you would be forced to undergo a huge physiological change and medical stress for 9 months before being legally committed to look after a baby for the next 18 years in the absence of scenarios such as adoption.

I don't think its unreasonable for people to be unyielding when it comes to rights pertaining to bodily autonomy, nor to be resistant to the idea of policies governing those rights being decided by people who have very diminished stakes compared to the people being legislated against. Black civil rights movement was also unyielding in their demands, rather than allowing the discussion of exactly the form of the rights that the African American population should be granted, and that was ultimately what won them those rights. "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1170
Re: Abortion
« Reply #212 on: May 30, 2019, 06:25:10 AM »
I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong. I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.

"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.  I have serious issues with death.   If that makes me nasty, pedantic, judgmental, or hypocritical, so be it.  But I'm not in favor of the death penalty, either, and it takes some serious philosophical gymnastics to bring "war" into the discussion in any meaningful way.   

When those who invoke 'God' to justify their anti-abortion stance are the same ones who claim divine guidance when signing off on wars whose only purpose is personal profit, it's barely a walk along the balance beam. My comment about hypocrisy was absolutely not directed at you (as I'm presuming you know), I was referring to the likes of Mike Pence and Will Ainsworth (Alabama's Lieutenant Govenor and all-round gem of a human).   

Your lengthy comments about the 'nuance of debate' ("when you can demonize someone's IDEA by demonizing them, you're three quarters of the way to winning the battle...when you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details") I agree with 100%, and my only question to you on that theme is why you didn't feel moved to write it on the first page of this thread when someone flatly suggested this was a thread about murder. Given the implication of that claim (that women who have had abortions are murderers), it seems to me that women (a group I think are far more qualified to speak about the practicalities of this theme than we are) would be less keen to share their thoughts and experiences in this thread. It's not, to use your good phrase, an "invite to discuss details". I mention that only because I know you don't like it when people suggest you only call out a "lack of nuance" when it's the left who do it, and I'm wondering (genuinely) if you think there might be any truth in the 'accusation'. You say you're starting to lose interest in this discussion because you think "moralising" and "judgementalism" are starting to creep into it, but it seems to me that the only genuinely inappropriate comment (for discussion purposes I mean) in this thread is the one you don't seem to have had any problem with.

To your actual position on abortion, there's really not much I can say in reply to it. You used the important word: sanctity. Against this, I can't argue. If a person truly feels life to be holy then I think it's a good enough reason to be against abortion. I don't agree with it, but I can't fault it as a consistent position, and all I'd do is ask a person to make sure their other ideas cohere with one another (you know that for me the worst 'sin' in this world is hypocrisy). "Necessary evil" is a term I'm uncomfortable hearing from those who claim to be Christians, yet it tends to be the one used when referring to some of the other life-or-death ethical 'dilemmas' like war and the death penalty.

I was too flippant when I described the philosophical aspect of this as basic. It of course isn't, it's a very complex issue. To be honest I think it's the one question about which I left university with no clear opinion. Having no religious beliefs to shape my thoughts, no appropriate level of understanding of the biology of the issue, no direct experience of the situation, no appropriate (for the theme) definition of what a 'human' is, no clear idea of the value of a 'human', and having grown up in an era and culture (Thatcher's Britain) which shamed and silenced women who found themselves in this situation, I've tended to think it's not a question for me (but I recognise it's an important one that needs thinking about from medical and legal standpoints). I far prefer reading opinions on this question than writing one, which is why I'm grateful to Harmony for sharing her experience and thoughts, I recognise she probably felt she was walking into a hostile environment, and I wish other women would feel comfortable doing what she did. I don't know about anyone else here but I have learnt more from Harmony's few posts than in every other post here combined, and it would have been a shame if she'd decided not to write them because she was told at the door that this was a thread about "murder".
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 07:13:02 AM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #213 on: May 30, 2019, 07:01:50 AM »
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women.

Okay, but one could also say, "from one perspective, it actually looks like some have no regard for human life."  I do not agree with either perspective, and giving too much credence to either sweeping, extremely over the top statement does not help the conversation, as I said before.


And I see that your home state is fixing to close the last Planned Parenthood in Missouri. Friday, I believe. At that point there will be no places left in Missouri where an abortion can be obtained. If you can't help but notice that family planning services are disappearing at the same time as abortion services does that make you asinine for seeing an anti-woman connection?

Not necessarily, but it's not one with which I agree. While there are certainly some misogynistic creepbags who want to hate on women, there are in the very small minority.  I don't think attributing the worst people on the far right, or far left for that matter, helps.  It's like when the right complains about those on the extreme left who think third trimester abortions should be legal no matter the reason; those people do not represent the largely-held beliefs of the pro-choice movement.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #214 on: May 30, 2019, 08:10:13 AM »
"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.

Honest question Stadler: would you be against removing life support from somebody who is clinically brain-dead, with no chance of recovery? I ask because I come from the direction of not valuing human life, per say, but human personhood. To me, the body is just the vessel that contains the thing that is actually valued and worthy of protection, as the individual is made of their thoughts, their memories and such. I'm just interested to know where you come from.

With the caveat that this has hit close to home twice in my life - once with an uncle that was simply ravaged by cancer and in what my non-medical brain can only call a "morphine induced nothingness", and once with the younger brother of one of my closest friends, roommates and college/law school colleague who was brain dead following a drunk-driving accident in which he was a passenger in the car - and so I'm not going to pretend that I'm a completely rational actor here completely free of hypocrisy, I would be against it if it was "Oh, well, I knew so-and-so, and this is what they would have wanted".    If they have a living will - which I have, my wife has, my parents have, my parents-in-law have, my oldest step-son has (by fiat of the U.S. Army), my brother has (by fiat of his employer; he's a cop) and which only my two daughters and youngest step-son don't have as of yet - then I follow the living will.  It's not my call to override that because of my feelings.   Terry Schiavo; both parties claimed to know "what she would have wanted".  As the two outcomes were mutually exclusive, one was CLEARLY delusional (and I mean that in the literal sense, not the colloquial sense). 

Quote
Sure, but both you, I, El Barto, Bosk1 etc come from the position of privilege of not having the rights that we hold dependent on the outcome of that debate. The abortion laws will not, under any circumstances, lead to a scenario where I or you would be forced to undergo a huge physiological change and medical stress for 9 months before being legally committed to look after a baby for the next 18 years in the absence of scenarios such as adoption.

Well, I've addressed that already, but I will log the usual objection to the use of "privilege" in this instance.  I've told the story before - I believe El Barto knows it, and David, my Manc friend, as well.   I've already mentioned, earlier in this thread, why this is not a question of privilege.  Sit in that chair.  Look in your wife's desperate, pleading eyes, and say "Sorry, babe, I'm a privileged white straight male; can't help you, hon!"   


Let me be clear, though, that there is no bias here, no judgement.  If a woman in the same seat, with the same conflict, made a different decision, my "feelings" on the matter are 100%, completely irrelevant, as are yours, Bart's, Dave's, Jaffa's, Harmony's, etc. etc.   

Quote
I don't think its unreasonable for people to be unyielding when it comes to rights pertaining to bodily autonomy, nor to be resistant to the idea of policies governing those rights being decided by people who have very diminished stakes compared to the people being legislated against. Black civil rights movement was also unyielding in their demands, rather than allowing the discussion of exactly the form of the rights that the African American population should be granted, and that was ultimately what won them those rights. "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

I don't - generally - believe in "unyielding" in the context of democracy.  Who gets to decide what are "unyielding" subjects?   You're not swaying me, you're actually giving me fuel for the fire; that you beleive this is context for an "unyielding" position is exactly my point; this isn't about opression, this isn't the "oppressor denying freedom".  There IS a legitimate, valid, logically sound opposition opinion that has absolutely ZERO to do with the identity politics "power balance" idea.    Not every topic, not every issue necessarily involves a "victim".
 
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 08:16:33 AM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #215 on: May 30, 2019, 08:17:55 AM »
Yet if you're standing in the street looking at a 4 ton garbage truck barreling straight at you, you'd be a fool to not start from the point of view that he's fixing to run your ass down.

Sure, but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.  A truck suddenly barrelling toward you is an emergent phenomenon.  You've had no time to prepare for it or think it through, so your reaction is going to be based on nothing but the most basic instincts tied to surviving and recognizing threats.  On the other hand, Alabama's law is not an emergent phenomenon.  It didn't come out of a clear blue sky.  Abortion is an issue that has been debated ad nauseum for decades, and the Alabama law is a representation of something that one side of the debate has been clamoring for all along. 

More to the point, even in the truck example, wouldn't your instinct be to get out of the way and try to deescalate the conflict?  I get that in the heat of the moment, you might think that the driver was trying to kill you.  But would you go into full combat mode in that heat of the moment?  Maybe pull out a pistol and shoot out his tires to see if you can get him to die in a crash?

No, I was looking at the garbage truck reaction as a well thought out and deliberate reaction. But if you'd prefer a slower moving object we can substitute in an near Earth, Earth-killing asteroid and whether or not to begin from the standpoint that it's going to kill us or write the whole thing off as fake science.

Quote
In other words, it's one thing to think 'this seems like a war on women' as a passing thought, but it's another thing entirely to start drawing battle lines and demonizing your enemies.
From their perspective it's not a passing thought. It's seeing years of evidence to support their conclusion. When you look at the totality of what's happening it's kind of an obvious thing to assume. A 12 year old girl gets knocked up by cousin Jethro and the same people who will call it a gift from God and force her to carry it to term will be the first ones to leave her high and dry 9 months later.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #216 on: May 30, 2019, 08:21:43 AM »
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women.

Okay, but one could also say, "from one perspective, it actually looks like some have no regard for human life."  I do not agree with either perspective, and giving too much credence to either sweeping, extremely over the top statement does not help the conversation, as I said before.
I'm not sure how you could look at the pro-choice side and not see it as a preference for one life over another, rather than a disregard for life in general. From their side their are two lives at play, assuming they actually do care about the "host body" to begin with.

Quote
Not necessarily, but it's not one with which I agree. While there are certainly some misogynistic creepbags who want to hate on women, there are in the very small minority.  I don't think attributing the worst people on the far right, or far left for that matter, helps.  It's like when the right complains about those on the extreme left who think third trimester abortions should be legal no matter the reason; those people do not represent the largely-held beliefs of the pro-choice movement.
I'd certainly agree with that. I'd also put the politicians voting for these in the "creepbag" category, and they're the ones that matter.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #217 on: May 30, 2019, 08:27:19 AM »
No, no, I'm with you.   I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.  I'm not arguing whether there should be "abortion laws" or not, I'm talking more about the nature of the arguments (on both sides).    Though, for the record, I don't at all consider "a bunch of politicians" to be at the same level as "9 political appointees in black robes".   I do put stock in the latter, since that's their inherent job, to help us parse through that which is unknowable.
Well, now that remains to be seen, doesn't it?   ;)

Also, I'd say an equally, if not more important inherent job is for them to recognize when something is unknowable and leave it up to the individual. Isn't that pretty much the gist of why we have no government endorsement of religion? Pronouncing the unknowable to be the purview of elected officials runs contrary to the basic tenets of this country, I should say.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #218 on: May 30, 2019, 08:29:27 AM »
Yep, the last two posts were well-said.  I am in favor of legalized abortion, but this idea that pro-life people are waging a war against women is asinine, just like it is also asinine to suggest that pro-choice people have no regard for human life.  That kind of rhetoric does nothing but widen the gap between the two sides and only hurts the overall discussion.
I wouldn't call it asinine simply because from one perspective it absolutely looks like a war on women.

Okay, but one could also say, "from one perspective, it actually looks like some have no regard for human life."  I do not agree with either perspective, and giving too much credence to either sweeping, extremely over the top statement does not help the conversation, as I said before.
I'm not sure how you could look at the pro-choice side and not see it as a preference for one life over another, rather than a disregard for life in general. From their side their are two lives at play, assuming they actually do care about the "host body" to begin with.

I am assuming you mean the general "you" since I said above that I do not agree with that perspective, but merely offering the opposite extreme example of the one you gave earlier.

  I'd also put the politicians voting for these in the "creepbag" category, and they're the ones that matter.

Okay, but that is assuming that every politician who voted in favor of these new laws is a misogynistic creepbag, and I am not sure it is fair to assume that about each and every one of them.  Do I disagree with them on this matter?  Absolutely, but I am not about to call them all "women haters" because of it.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #219 on: May 30, 2019, 08:33:28 AM »
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #220 on: May 30, 2019, 08:54:24 AM »
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #221 on: May 30, 2019, 10:30:45 AM »
I've seen comments in this thread that abortion is wrong. I havent seen an argument to convince me why. That's not to say one doesn't exist. It's a request to provide one.

"Wrong" in what sense?  I think it's the wrong thing to do, simply because it's the death of a life, plain and simple.  I have serious issues with death.   If that makes me nasty, pedantic, judgmental, or hypocritical, so be it.  But I'm not in favor of the death penalty, either, and it takes some serious philosophical gymnastics to bring "war" into the discussion in any meaningful way.   

When those who invoke 'God' to justify their anti-abortion stance are the same ones who claim divine guidance when signing off on wars whose only purpose is personal profit, it's barely a walk along the balance beam. My comment about hypocrisy was absolutely not directed at you (as I'm presuming you know), I was referring to the likes of Mike Pence and Will Ainsworth (Alabama's Lieutenant Govenor and all-round gem of a human).   

Your lengthy comments about the 'nuance of debate' ("when you can demonize someone's IDEA by demonizing them, you're three quarters of the way to winning the battle...when you have a pie chart that adds up to 100% "none of your business" that's not an invite to discuss details") I agree with 100%, and my only question to you on that theme is why you didn't feel moved to write it on the first page of this thread when someone flatly suggested this was a thread about murder. Given the implication of that claim (that women who have had abortions are murderers), it seems to me that women (a group I think are far more qualified to speak about the practicalities of this theme than we are) would be less keen to share their thoughts and experiences in this thread. It's not, to use your good phrase, an "invite to discuss details". I mention that only because I know you don't like it when people suggest you only call out a "lack of nuance" when it's the left who do it, and I'm wondering (genuinely) if you think there might be any truth in the 'accusation'. You say you're starting to lose interest in this discussion because you think "moralising" and "judgementalism" are starting to creep into it, but it seems to me that the only genuinely inappropriate comment (for discussion purposes I mean) in this thread is the one you don't seem to have had any problem with.

Honestly, as honest as I can be, I frankly missed it.  I went back to refresh on the early days of the thread, and I lost the forest for the trees.  Not sure it matters what the tree was, but the conversation shifted rather quickly and it overwhelmed where my head was at.   But - again, in the interest of honesty - some of it may have been because I'm a lawyer.   If it's the comment I think you mean, the word in question has a very specific - sometimes case-by-case (meaning state-by-state) meaning, as well as a more colloquial, ominous meaning.    Certainly the colloquial meaning does nothing to further this discussion or debate, that's without argument.   But in some cases, that word directly applies, in the most egregious of circumstances, depending on where your line is.  I can't change that, even if it clouds the bigger, more relevant discussion. 

I think that's the best I can do on that subject.   

Quote
To your actual position on abortion, there's really not much I can say in reply to it. You used the important word: sanctity. Against this, I can't argue. If a person truly feels life to be holy then I think it's a good enough reason to be against abortion. I don't agree with it, but I can't fault it as a consistent position, and all I'd do is ask a person to make sure their other ideas cohere with one another (you know that for me the worst 'sin' in this world is hypocrisy). "Necessary evil" is a term I'm uncomfortable hearing from those who claim to be Christians, yet it tends to be the one used when referring to some of the other life-or-death ethical 'dilemmas' like war and the death penalty.

I was too flippant when I described the philosophical aspect of this as basic. It of course isn't, it's a very complex issue. To be honest I think it's the one question about which I left university with no clear opinion. Having no religious beliefs to shape my thoughts, no appropriate level of understanding of the biology of the issue, no direct experience of the situation, no appropriate (for the theme) definition of what a 'human' is, no clear idea of the value of a 'human', and having grown up in an era and culture (Thatcher's Britain) which shamed and silenced women who found themselves in this situation, I've tended to think it's not a question for me (but I recognise it's an important one that needs thinking about from medical and legal standpoints). I far prefer reading opinions on this question than writing one, which is why I'm grateful to Harmony for sharing her experience and thoughts, I recognise she probably felt she was walking into a hostile environment, and I wish other women would feel comfortable doing what she did. I don't know about anyone else here but I have learnt more from Harmony's few posts than in every other post here combined, and it would have been a shame if she'd decided not to write them because she was told at the door that this was a thread about "murder".

And this is part of the above; the conversation went in that direction, and I too am sensitive to that as well.  Might not seem it, but I am.  I've had abortion touch my life; I know it's gravity, and it's impacts (if not addressed appropriately).  The notion of "abortion as birth control" is as trite as any of the other bumper-sticker slogans around this subject.  Yeah, technically speaking that might be what it is, but it's not a fair synopsis.

I walk this balance a lot, Dave, and if we ever share beers, I can almost promise you I would love to have this conversation with you as to how you do it/handle it.   I don't know what the right answer is.   We can't continue to just push unpleasant subjects under the rug.  I'm deeply sorry (and not a little embarrassed, the way you're embarrassed when Trump doesn't know Nepal is a country, or Jake Tapper doesn't realize that being in Alaska doesn't mean you're "out of the country") that someone might feel this is a hostile environment.  But I shouldn't - NO ONE should - have to "agree" with someone in order to make it a safe place, and the person feeling victimized should understand that as well as anyone, even if it might be a struggle to incorporate that into the "day-to-day".  And my end of the bargain is that I have an obligation to be empathetic or considerate.  These are simply lines that we should be walking, ,as humans, every day, but seem to be lost in the Twitterati, where everything is snark, and we're not out to "communicate", we're out to "destroy" or "pwn!" or whatever it is. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #222 on: May 30, 2019, 11:10:03 AM »
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct.

Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #223 on: May 30, 2019, 02:09:14 PM »
Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

Trump claims he had nothing to do with that.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

All who believe that say "I."

*crickets*

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #224 on: May 30, 2019, 02:36:08 PM »
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct.

Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

No, but one needs to be able to move off that assumption when either the facts at hand don't fully support it, or the discussions require more facility.   Trump is a bad example because he's as predictable as an AC/DC record; here, I think there's little evidence of any "war on women", or equally malicious intent regarding the debate positions.  We're clearly talking about abortion rights in a context that is about the actual idea of abortion and not some broader concept of gender. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #225 on: May 30, 2019, 02:37:22 PM »
Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

Trump claims he had nothing to do with that.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

All who believe that say "I."

*crickets*

To his... credit?, he did admit to not liking the guy.    Give him a minor, lower-case, underhanded prop for not playing the game.   

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #226 on: May 30, 2019, 03:06:41 PM »
Definitely general "you." Sorry, I meant to specify.


All good. :tup :tup

And I wouldn't call them woman haters, either. I'm simply justifying the belief by some that they're fighting a war against women. A pacifist might vote to bomb some country of brown people for reasons unrelated to hatred of those people. I'd still call him a warmonger, though.

Understand, but some always assume the worst motives possible regardless; that doesn't make their belief correct.

Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

No, but one needs to be able to move off that assumption when either the facts at hand don't fully support it, or the discussions require more facility.   
Agreed. What I've learned from my stepbrother the commie and ex-girlfriend the nationalist is that once you dig into that rabbit hole everything you see only supports your preconceptions. It's a stunting of one's willingness to learn and evolve. When you decide that a bunch of old white guys in Alabama have it in for you everything they do is seen through that light, and are generally seen as working further towards that end. They're actually a lot like conspiracy theorists.

Now, having said that, when you see the tanks rolling across the desert it makes little difference if they're in town to kill you or just to steel your oil. War is war and you don't spend your time second guessing your enemy's motivations. In the case of what we're seeing now we have states passing laws to insure that every woman who gets knocked up carrier her "child" to term, despite the fact that these same states notoriously won't give a shit about about her and hers once the head crowns. These are places where education, healthcare, and social services are absolutely bottom of the barrel, and the remedy to all that life throws at you is prayer, hard work, and character. We can quibble over whether or not this constitutes a war, but in a woman's final analysis the states of Alabama and Tennessee are only looking to perpetuate her burden, and she certainly seems to be onto something as I see it. As the saying goes, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28814
Re: Abortion
« Reply #227 on: May 30, 2019, 03:09:52 PM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #228 on: May 30, 2019, 03:17:35 PM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7872
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Abortion
« Reply #229 on: May 30, 2019, 03:20:24 PM »
I have generally liked to consider myself around the middle of the political spectrum, slightly right on some issues slightly left on others. The more I read/follow the news/political pundits, the more I find myself leaning more and more to the right. Part of that is due to counterbalancing the far left leaning nature of the area I live. But whenever I read/listen to the "conservative" columnists and editorials on the abortion issue, the more I find myself at complete odds with them. It seems like the only major issue where I am vehemently opposed to their arguments, and the only one where I am solidly on the side of the left.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28814
Re: Abortion
« Reply #230 on: May 30, 2019, 03:22:35 PM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

Well not just the idea of WANTING to be alive. That's its own fallacy. I mean the idea that any life is better than no life. Just that, I believe, is not necessarily true but is at the crux of the pro-life argument. Everyone deserves to be born. What happens after isn't important in the slightest.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 704
  • Gender: Female
Re: Abortion
« Reply #231 on: May 30, 2019, 04:03:51 PM »
The word 'war' is loaded these days.  Is it really a 'war' on Christmas when someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?  Of course not.

That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy and to instead insert a government just small enough to fit easily inside of my uterus.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4641
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #232 on: May 30, 2019, 07:51:57 PM »
That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy

Just to be clear, how literally do you mean this?  Is it your position that everyone who supports abortion bans does so specifically because their explicit conscious goal is to strip women of their bodily autonomy? 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 599
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #233 on: May 30, 2019, 07:56:19 PM »
That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy

Just to be clear, how literally do you mean this?  Is it your position that everyone who supports abortion bans does so specifically because their explicit conscious goal is to strip women of their bodily autonomy?

Iím not certain how much the intentions of each individual matters. The end result is the same.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 704
  • Gender: Female
Re: Abortion
« Reply #234 on: May 30, 2019, 08:06:53 PM »
That said, there is most definitely a concerted movement in this country to strip its women of their bodily autonomy

Just to be clear, how literally do you mean this?  Is it your position that everyone who supports abortion bans does so specifically because their explicit conscious goal is to strip women of their bodily autonomy?

As I said there is a concerted movement in this country with the explicit goal to make safe abortion procedures 100% illegal for women and the medical providers who serve them.  This movement is not interested compromise.  They want all abortion illegal.  Including for rape and incest victims - see Alabama.  They make no secret of this goal.  They hope to overturn Roe v. Wade and are in the process of moving through the court system toward SCOTUS.  And of course, should their oft stated goals come to pass, it will obviously lead to a loss of bodily autonomy for those women who seek abortions.

And it will NOT eliminate abortion at all.  It will send abortion underground.  And desperate women will die just like Gerri Santoro did.


And XeRocks81 said it first and more succinctly.




Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #235 on: May 30, 2019, 08:36:50 PM »
Certainly not. But it doesn't make them asinine, either. Isn't this where we came in? The Trump administration might have had a particularly good reason for wanting to obscure McCain's name on his own ship the other day. Is it unreasonable to begin from the POV that he's a self-absorbed child? Is it asinine to do so?

Trump claims he had nothing to do with that.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

All who believe that say "I."

*crickets*

To his... credit?, he did admit to not liking the guy.    Give him a minor, lower-case, underhanded prop for not playing the game.

Er. no.  If he didn't like McCain, and it was clear he didn't, then keep your mouth shut about him.  To continue trying to demean him after he is dead just shows what a classless piece of you-know-what Trump is.  He gets no props for any of this nonsense.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #236 on: May 31, 2019, 08:47:25 AM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.

I don't say this to argue with you, but to help you flesh this out a little:   That's a core element of my PERSONAL (not political, not legal) view on abortion, though I caveat that with the proviso of "to a third party".  I am the only one to decide that my life is not worth living, either because of my pain, my limited mobility, the lack of that special girl, whatever.   

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28814
Re: Abortion
« Reply #237 on: May 31, 2019, 08:53:34 AM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.

I don't say this to argue with you, but to help you flesh this out a little:   That's a core element of my PERSONAL (not political, not legal) view on abortion, though I caveat that with the proviso of "to a third party".  I am the only one to decide that my life is not worth living, either because of my pain, my limited mobility, the lack of that special girl, whatever.

I agree with the last half of that. Which is why I don't think suicide should be illegal (what an odd thing to make illegal anyway). But in general, with anti-abortion laws, or anti-suicide laws etc., there's the belief that any quality of life is superior to no life. I don't see that being necessarily true. And I think that basic assumption needs to be questioned or at least discussed before much more can be done. If life, of unknown quality, is NOT necessarily superior to a lack of life....well...it definitely opens a lot of other horrible doors, but it changes the argument a lot.

Regards to the whole "I'm the only one who can make that decision" I agree in cases where that person CAN make that decision. In cases where they can't, however, the fallback position is that any life is better than no life.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #238 on: May 31, 2019, 08:58:30 AM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #239 on: May 31, 2019, 09:07:41 AM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.

I don't say this to argue with you, but to help you flesh this out a little:   That's a core element of my PERSONAL (not political, not legal) view on abortion, though I caveat that with the proviso of "to a third party".  I am the only one to decide that my life is not worth living, either because of my pain, my limited mobility, the lack of that special girl, whatever.

I agree with the last half of that. Which is why I don't think suicide should be illegal (what an odd thing to make illegal anyway). But in general, with anti-abortion laws, or anti-suicide laws etc., there's the belief that any quality of life is superior to no life. I don't see that being necessarily true. And I think that basic assumption needs to be questioned or at least discussed before much more can be done. If life, of unknown quality, is NOT necessarily superior to a lack of life....well...it definitely opens a lot of other horrible doors, but it changes the argument a lot.

Regards to the whole "I'm the only one who can make that decision" I agree in cases where that person CAN make that decision. In cases where they can't, however, the fallback position is that any life is better than no life.

Well, again for clarity, the legal system isn't the moral law of the land.  It's the bar that sets the limit of the bare minimum.

This is a critical point that I would venture 95% of Americans never realize: the law is chock full of "default settings" that aren't intended to be the standard by which we all live, but rather the standard below which we should never fall.  It's not and never was intended to be the goal.  The intent is that we as individuals exert our free will and move our OWN bar to the level we want.   Probate has laws, but each person is encouraged to create their own will to allocate their estate how they see fit.   I will get pushback, but that was the lens that I always viewed the ACA.  NOT the gold standard for the world, but the bare minimum, that we should strive to improve on if we wanted more.    I deal with this LITERALLY every day, with the Uniform Commercial Code, the law of the land for contracts.   I have had a fruitful career as an attorney negotiating contracts, because in the almost 25 years I have been an attorney I have literally never once not ever signed a contract that used the "Uniform Commercial Code" as the basis for the agreement.  Becuase we - me and my contracting partner - ALWAYS understood we could do better for ourselves.  BUT, in the strange chance that the contract terms were voided, the UCC would provide the default.

The same here.   What's the alternative?  The default be "death"?   "Eh, we're not sure if he's better alive or dead; fuckin' whack him"?   

And lest I get the "PRIVILEGE" rejection again, I believe that at the age of consent in your state, you get three things in the mail:   an application for a drivers license, an application to vote, and a living will document to be completed and returned.  You don't return it, you accept the default consequences, legally and morally.   

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28814
Re: Abortion
« Reply #240 on: May 31, 2019, 09:10:22 AM »
I'm not saying I have an answer to that philosophical question, just that right now it has an assumed answer. And you, more than most, should appreciate the idea of having the conversation and not rejecting it based on assumed answers.

Right now the assumed answer (for many) simply shuts down the convo. I'd assume (see what I did there?) that you would be against such a thing.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22469
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #241 on: May 31, 2019, 09:14:42 AM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #242 on: May 31, 2019, 09:20:12 AM »
I usually avoid abortion discussions because I can see both sides perspectives and can't really back up my own to a convincing degree.

That said, I realized that one philosophical (sorry Stadler) and moral (REALLY sorry Stadler) assumption being made by pro-lifers is that any life is preferred to no life. I do not see why that is true.
Yep. I made this point a few months ago. There's an assumption that everybody wants to be born that I think is faulty.

But that's up to YOU to decide, not someone else for you.   
So you're defending the people who would make that decision for me?

I'm not sure what you're asking.   I'm saying that the assumption only holds - as a sort of default, a fail-safe, if you will - when we don't know what the owner of that life things.

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking, but I don't think I'm defending the people who would make that decision for you, because I don't think anyone CAN make that decision for you.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17680
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #243 on: May 31, 2019, 09:21:23 AM »
I'm not saying I have an answer to that philosophical question, just that right now it has an assumed answer. And you, more than most, should appreciate the idea of having the conversation and not rejecting it based on assumed answers.

Right now the assumed answer (for many) simply shuts down the convo. I'd assume (see what I did there?) that you would be against such a thing.

I am.  I am against anything that shuts down the conversation.  But the answer isn't to remove the assumption, but to better understand what the assumption is or is intended to be. 

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28814
Re: Abortion
« Reply #244 on: May 31, 2019, 09:26:10 AM »
I think what Barto's getting at, which is also part of my point, is that the people (in government banning abortions to this extent) ARE making the decision to keep you (the fetus) alive. That's as much a decision as deciding to terminate the pregnancy. It also is seen as the safe decision because, again, life is assumed to be preferable to no life.
fanticide.bandcamp.com