Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fine. I will take that as an admission that you do have an opinion, but that you aren't willing to state your opinion.

My pro-choice position was more theoretical before my wife became pregnant. After the birth, my pro-choice position became etched in stone. And your question made me ponder that in what situation would I have forced my wife to give birth to a child? That's a pretty big deal. That if, for whatever reason my wife had changed her mind (late), that I would go to court and force her to give birth. It really feels scorched Earth to me. I likely would have been against it, but felt it was out of my hands.

I'll leave it up to other people to form their own judgements about why.

Because it isn't any of her darn business what does on in the doctor's room unless it is her and her doctor?

 

[Emily Lake]

My opinion is that my opinion counts only with respect to what I would do. I know from experience that what I thinkI would do under X circumstance isn’t necessarily what I would really do under the same x circumstance.

I get that Toni, but it's still a dodge, and you're still not answering what was asked. You're answering something altogether different.

This will be blunt, but perhaps it will illustrate the disconnect.

Me: What is your personal opinion on whether children should be legally allowed to kill their parents when those parents hit age 70?
You: My opinion is that my opinion only counts with respect to what I would do, and other people might do something different.

Now... if you actually have no opinion, then you wouldn't be consistently arguing only one side of this discussion. But you are consistently arguing only one side of the discussion - you have consistently argued against any kind of gestational limits. So you clearly have an opinion. Anyone can infer that you have an opinion. So why won't you just state your opinion? Why do you feel it necessary to dodge?

I get that other people will have different opinions. I get that other people may make different choices than you would. That's great, and I'm not asking you to give their opinions. I'm asking you what your opinion is.

 

[Emily Lake]

My pro-choice position was more theoretical before my wife became pregnant. After the birth, my pro-choice position became etched in stone. And your question made me ponder that in what situation would I have forced my wife to give birth to a child? That's a pretty big deal. That if, for whatever reason my wife had changed her mind (late), that I would go to court and force her to give birth. It really feels scorched Earth to me. I likely would have been against it, but felt it was out of my hands.

I get that it would feel pretty scorched earth... but I have to imagine that if your wife were to change her mind late in the pregnancy and abort your child that you wanted, that would be pretty scorched earth in and of itself. I honestly don't know how a relationship would survive that fundamental of a disagreement.

Did you consider your child to be a baby in the 7th month, when it was moving and responding to stimuli and music and such? Or did you consider it nothing more than a fetus?

 

[Toni]

I get that Toni, but it's still a dodge, and you're still not answering what was asked. You're answering something altogether different.

This will be blunt, but perhaps it will illustrate the disconnect.

Me: What is your personal opinion on whether children should be legally allowed to kill their parents when those parents hit age 70?
You: My opinion is that my opinion only counts with respect to what I would do, and other people might do something different.

Now... if you actually have no opinion, then you wouldn't be consistently arguing only one side of this discussion. But you are consistently arguing only one side of the discussion - you have consistently argued against any kind of gestational limits. So you clearly have an opinion. Anyone can infer that you have an opinion. So why won't you just state your opinion? Why do you feel it necessary to dodge?

I get that other people will have different opinions. I get that other people may make different choices than you would. That's great, and I'm not asking you to give their opinions. I'm asking you what your opinion is.

My personal opinion is that you really need to find a different t outlet forvwhstevecis bothering you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Aagin the slavers of the world rejoice.

Got a considered, unchallenged or unchallengeable definition of 'mind'?

We can see consciousness.

 

[Toni]

That's still not the claim you made, Toni.

Yes, the roles that women have been allowed to hold have been limited (and still are in most parts of the world). I'm not contesting that.

Your claim was that women haven't been drafted because there are always enough female volunteers. The implication is that if the military were to find itself lacking volunteers for the roles that women are allowed to hold, they would start drafting women.

I think you're wrong. I don't think the reason that women aren't drafted is because enough volunteer. I think the reason that women aren't drafted is because the continuation of a society is absolutely dependent on enough women staying alive.

If there were to be too few females volunteering for the roles that women are allowed to hold... I very strongly suspect that drafted men would be assigned to those roles before a draft of females was ever even considered. Women would likely only be drafted as a last resort.

That's the reason.

Now - whether or not I agree with that reason is a completely different question. Turns out I don't. I believe that equal rights should come with equal responsibility. I don't think women should be excluded from conscription. I think it would make it more complicated though - there'd need to be some way to ensure that at least one parent is excluded from draft so that kids aren't left parentless.

It is the claim I made. It is backed up by the USSC case I referenced/quoted.

Sorry if you are too busy shit posting to understand what I write.

But that’s more a you problem than a me problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I often wish that people would invest as much time and energy, thought, and even money into devoting necessary resources to make abortions less often the best option.

This includes better prenatal and postnatal and pediatric care, better and fully funded early childhood education and day care, equal pay for equal work, affordable housing, affordable education pre-k-university, better support for mental health, better and universal sex education including birth control, and the prevention of STIs, elimination of food deserts and expansion of SNAP benefits, better education about sex, consent, and healthy relationships and respect for our bodies and other people’s bodies and establishing and respecting boundaries.

That wouldn't work. It doesn't make non-Biblical sex dangerous. And that's the true objective.

One state(?) tried making long-acting contraception free for some group, I forget the cutoff. Ended up being negative cost--but it didn't punish sin, it was scrapped.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the author - who is a proponent of more accessible abortion - went out of their way to ignore the many uncounted women who had third trimester abortions in favor of only reporting the handful that supported their view that more accessible abortions would result in fewer third trimester abortions?

Your arguments against the study don't even make sense, Loren.

I completely do not understand.

There's a very simple flaw that some of you are being utterly blind about: the fliers were distributed to a lot more women than had abortions. This opens up a large possibility of false responses. Your sample is not women who had third trimester abortions, it is a whole bunch of women, a small number of whom are known to have third trimester abortions. We see lies on social media all the time, why do you think this case is somehow immune to that?

I find the whole thing fishy, and the fact that multiple people on here seem to have missed this very damning bit makes me strongly suspect that that was the intention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They write down the DIAGNOSIS for why they do things.

Are you coming around to my perspective, and advocating that a MEDICAL REASON must be present and documented for a third trimester abortion?

There are three possibilities here:

1) You're arguing for the status quo. Doesn't make much sense.

2) You are arguing a false objective. You've been deceived by the punishment crowd before, it wouldn't shock me if you fell for another deception.

3) This is a gotcha. Put the burden of proof on the doctor to prove X was true rather than recognize that it's a judgment call, perfection is not expected. Better to perform a few abortions where she would have lived without it than not perform some abortions where she wouldn't have lived without it. We already see a major thumb on the scale in favor of letting her die, this could be about making it even harder to act on imperfect knowledge.

None of these are reasons to actually change any requirements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Glad to see you coming around to my perspective on this.

Doctors seem to disagree with your very confident opinion, however.

The Awakening of the Newborn Human Infant and the Emergence of Consciousness - PMC

Consciousness develops gradually in the womb and after birth, rather than being an all or none phenomenon. A newborn infant is aroused and wakes up at birth, due to the enormous sensory stimulation and stress that it undergoes during the transition ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I wonder what they are measuring. Because, the last I knew there was no organized brain activity until the 7th month. Before that it's static, not a signal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, you see, the problem is that it's way more expensive to spend enough money to make having a kid viable as an option backed by fiscal support, and it's way less expensive to try and make abortion the not-best option via a demand backed by a threat, and I will die defending this hill I stand on that the goal is to railroad people into kids they can't afford so as to keep the population POOR.

If we look at it from that angle, everything makes sense and falls perfectly into place. How can the powerful and the wealthy keep the masses poor and under their thumb if they spend all that money financing people in a way that prevents the thing that was supposed to keep them poor?

The problem with this is it doesn't explain the opposition to the HPV vaccine. That does nothing to keep the masses poor, it's purely about sex being dangerous.

 

[Toni]

That wouldn't work. It doesn't make non-Biblical sex dangerous. And that's the true objective.

One state(?) tried making long-acting contraception free for some group, I forget the cutoff. Ended up being negative cost--but it didn't punish sin, it was scrapped.

You are very outdated


Medicaid provides birth control free to all clients. Planned Parenthood provides free/llow cost birth control. Under the ACA, most health insurance carriers provide no cost birth control .

 

[laughing dog]

So what? Your argument made a claim to sentience. Do you believe that location impacts sentience?

Sentience is not binary but a scale.

No, I condone killing in self defense. .,..]

Special pleading duly noted. A developed healthy 30 week old fetus is just as innocent and deserving of life as any other 30 week old fetus (baby in the womb) or baby (fetus born). Yet you are willing to sacrifice that fetus in certain situations.[

 

[laughing dog]

I completely do not understand.

There's a very simple flaw that some of you are being utterly blind about: the fliers were distributed to a lot more women than had abortions. This opens up a large possibility of false responses. Your sample is not women who had third trimester abortions, it is a whole bunch of women, a small number of whom are known to have third trimester abortions. We see lies on social media all the time, why do you think this case is somehow immune to that?

The study says it verified that the respondent had a third trimester abortion. Clearly you did not read the 6 page study with comprehension.

 

[Toni]

The study says it verified that the respondent had a third trimester abortion. Clearly you did not read the 6 page study with comprehension.

Loren does not believe women.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem with this is it doesn't explain the opposition to the HPV vaccine. That does nothing to keep the masses poor, it's purely about sex being dangerous.

It's not impossible for the masses to be despised while they are kept poor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I get that it would feel pretty scorched earth... but I have to imagine that if your wife were to change her mind late in the pregnancy and abort your child that you wanted, that would be pretty scorched earth in and of itself. I honestly don't know how a relationship would survive that fundamental of a disagreement.

Am I being mistaken in reading you think the husband has the right to force the birth of a child after an arbitrary threshold?

 

[Elixir]

Am I being mistaken in reading you think the husband has the right to force the birth of a child after an arbitrary threshold?

It’s not arbitrary! It’s some shade of purple as determined by qualified legislators medical professionals.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Am I being mistaken in reading you think the husband has the right to force the birth of a child after an arbitrary threshold?

OMG, how could you insinuate such a thing?! Meanwhile, it's totally fine if I insinuate you're OK with baby murder.

 

[Toni]

I get that Toni, but it's still a dodge, and you're still not answering what was asked. You're answering something altogether different.

This will be blunt, but perhaps it will illustrate the disconnect.

Me: What is your personal opinion on whether children should be legally allowed to kill their parents when those parents hit age 70?
You: My opinion is that my opinion only counts with respect to what I would do, and other people might do something different.

Now... if you actually have no opinion, then you wouldn't be consistently arguing only one side of this discussion. But you are consistently arguing only one side of the discussion - you have consistently argued against any kind of gestational limits. So you clearly have an opinion. Anyone can infer that you have an opinion. So why won't you just state your opinion? Why do you feel it necessary to dodge?

I get that other people will have different opinions. I get that other people may make different choices than you would. That's great, and I'm not asking you to give their opinions. I'm asking you what your opinion is.

My stance is that I am not responding to your ugly disgusting hypotheticals.

Play your sick games with someone else.