• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Abortion

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Read my previous posts. I wouldn't interfere with someones choice!


Now this is not what I was getting from your posts at all. So I appreciate the re-set.

So you are actually pro-choice? And you oppose all the legislation and court activity to ban or limit abortions?

Please confirm because I don’t want to assume, since my previous assumption based on your body of responses led me to an entirely different conclusion.


And if the above is accurate, does that mean that you are just arguing here for … wait, what is your argument? That you want to hurry and create space for governments to provide prenatal care, post partum care, childcare and food? Is that what you are thinking of when you post here?

But what does all the “have to have responsibility” part mean, then. Are you asking for social support in judging, shaming and disdaining?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...
Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.
That's not playing with you; Atrib was not challenging the involvement of political agendas. He or she was challenging your premise that women are being forced to have abortions and your premise that women are being persuaded to have abortions for the sake of political agendas. The political agendas concern rather the creation and the tearing down of obstacles to women getting abortions; the abortions themselves have apolitical motivations. Women by-and-large are not "being psychologically persuaded to have one"; they are choosing to have them for personal reasons of their own; and in the cases where a woman is being psychologically persuaded to have one, it's normally for personal reasons of the persuader's own -- typically the woman's sex partner not wanting to become a father. Unless we're talking about knocked-up Congresswomen, politics is the furthest thing from people's minds when they're deciding whether to abort.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political?
What do you mean “becomes”?
When the granting and revocation of rights is a function of government, it’s political from day 1.
That's not what was in dispute.

The fact that right wing fascism has become the mechanism whereby religious fanatics are now able to revoke rights that were previously guaranteed, is not an indicator of a newly politicized fight over rights, it’s a complete abandonment of democratic principles.
In an actual democracy, people are granted domain over their own biological functions.
You have a strange notion of democracy. In an actual democracy the common people know what they want and they get it good and hard. DrZ was just telling us about the 60,000 Roma forcibly sterilized on the orders of the popularly elected Social Democratic Party of Sweden. If you know an example of an actual democracy where people actually are granted domain over their own biological functions, share.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I'm not pro-choice of course, but I would accept there to be allowed the option of choice. Various reasons really, viewing from my faith. The USA for example, is not a Christian nation; laws passed, based on Christianity will be conflicting with alternative views of other groups, naturally, which could make things a lot worse.
Those sentences really don't go together. What more do you think there is to being "pro-choice" than "I would accept there to be allowed the option of choice. The USA for example, is not a Christian nation; laws passed, based on Christianity will be conflicting with alternative views of other groups, naturally, which could make things a lot worse." What characteristics do you lack that preclude the term "pro-choice" from correctly applying to you?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
We all have different ideas on what we individually consider as a life-form or human being. What can be done about the differences of views? ... the approach would be to simply give advice, just as it is with preaching the Gospel, for those who are willing to listen. The obvious pre-emptive approach through advice would be something like "prevention is better than cure" .
For someone who clearly likes to think of himself as kind, pleasant, and decent, you don’t half espouse some truly vile and evil ideas.

I don’t think you’re even capable of noticing this fact.
Pot, kettle, black.

What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting ... out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.
Learner has his own views, and when those views relate to how he chooses to use the typing fingers of his own body, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.[/B]

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..
Don't mind bilby. He lives in Australia, and Australia as everyone knows is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having double standards, one for themselves and one for other people, and people in Australia are used to taking for granted that there are no rights and "free speech" means not getting charged when they listen to some politician yammering.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
What can be done about the differences of views?

Who wants anything thing to “be done” about differing views? Only right wing religio-fascists.

Only right wing fascists feel the need to “do something about” those whose views differ from their own. And that “something” is to impose their views on others.
Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.

The US Constitution has guaranteed that if you don’t like abortion you don’t have to have one, and if you want an abortion you can have one.
That's not how it works. You might as well claim the US Constitution has guaranteed that if you want a gun the taxpayers have to buy you one.

The fascist religious establishment is not just trying to protect their right to refuse an abortion, they’re trying to impose their superstitions upon everyone else and revoke rights that have been constitutionally guaranteed for over a half century. This is not a symmetrically opposed set of “views”.
An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to have the taxpayers buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,876
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Unless we're talking about knocked-up Congresswomen, politics is the furthest thing from people's minds when they're deciding whether to abort.

:rimshot:

Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.

No, I don’t recall any leftyreligiowhatevers trying to revoke the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of half the population, at least with any threat of success.

Everyone has “differing views”. It’s a matter of degrees. I have heard about people whose views are/were that it’s their god-given duty to murder “abortion doctors”. That’s a bit too differing for my own views to accept, for whatever reason. I think that if we lived in a society where 70-80% of the citizenry thought abortion should be prohibited, there would be little controversy.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to have the taxpayers buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else.

That’s not an accurate statement.
The accurate statement is:

An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to not have religious views cherry pick what health care they are able to access.

And that means if medical care is being funded for needy people by taxpayers (via Medicaid, for instance) then they demand that ALL reasonable,non-experimental medical care is covered. And moreover, when people use private insurance or even their own money, that they are not prevented by religious laws from acquiring that medical care.

Recall that when abortions were being provided by Planned Parenthood in these states, they were not requiring federal dollars. They raised a lot of their own money. But they did expect that what Medicaid pays for, they should pay for everywhere.


And for the cold hard pragmatists, paying for an abortion is a SHITLOAD CHEAPER than paying for a pregnancy and delivery, which medicaid does often cover, so one would assume that the Libertarians would be 100% for taxpayer funded abortions so that no one has to pay extra for a delivery that no one wanted in the first place. This is analogous to the people who hated the affordable care act and were ignorant of the fact that in its absence people went to emergency rooms for 10x the price - on the taxpayer’s dime.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,740
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..
Yeah, my opinion is that people should be free to act on their own opinions with regards to their own bodies and their own private lives.

You bet your life I am fucking passionate about this; And you can shove your ‘charming’ up your hairy arse.

I would much rather that people expressed noble sentiments in crude language, than that they expressed evil sentiments in polite terms, and pretended that politeness is somehow an indication that their motives are no longer evil.

Seeking to strip people of their right to self-determination, in favour of compelling them to conform to your opinions, is the most vile thing I can easily imagine, and massively outweighs using a few profanities for emphasis as an indication of evil.

I sincerely hope that I have shocked you; Rest assured that my foul language is not even a fraction as shocking or as unpleasant as your sweetly expressed desire to control other people’s lives.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,740
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
We all have different ideas on what we individually consider as a life-form or human being. What can be done about the differences of views? ... the approach would be to simply give advice, just as it is with preaching the Gospel, for those who are willing to listen. The obvious pre-emptive approach through advice would be something like "prevention is better than cure" .
For someone who clearly likes to think of himself as kind, pleasant, and decent, you don’t half espouse some truly vile and evil ideas.

I don’t think you’re even capable of noticing this fact.
Pot, kettle, black.

What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting ... out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.
Learner has his own views, and when those views relate to how he chooses to use the typing fingers of his own body, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.
I refer you to the paradox of tolerance.

Intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolerated, if we are to enjoy a free society.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,740
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
... your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.[/B]

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..
Don't mind bilby. He lives in Australia, and Australia as everyone knows is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having double standards, one for themselves and one for other people, and people in Australia are used to taking for granted that there are no rights and "free speech" means not getting charged when they listen to some politician yammering.
“… iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.”
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.

No, I don’t recall any leftyreligiowhatevers trying to revoke the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of half the population, at least with any threat of success.
Half?!? Abortion is half the population's right; free speech is the whole population's right. If you don't recall any attempt to revoke it, that's either because you have your head in the sand or else because you are on board with the assault. For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.

 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
No, I don’t recall any leftyreligiowhatevers trying to revoke the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of half the population, at least with any threat of success.
Half?!? Abortion is half the population's right; free speech is the whole population's right. If you don't recall any attempt to revoke it, that's either because you have your head in the sand or else because you are on board with the assault. For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.


The right to abortion does not rest on abortion alone, it is a matter of bodily autonomy, which all of us have.

It is not an issue for half he population, it is an issue for the entire population if the argument that your body’s organs can be used for the benefit of another against your will becomes law.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.

No, I don’t recall any leftyreligiowhatevers trying to revoke the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of half the population, at least with any threat of success.
Half?!? Abortion is half the population's right; free speech is the whole population's right. If you don't recall any attempt to revoke it, that's either because you have your head in the sand or else because you are on board with the assault. For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.

as as usual, the 'aha!' moment of a right winger is completely defeated by the fact that the "counter example" is a steaming pile of horse shit.

free speech means the government won't arrest you for speech, or pass laws punishing you for speech.
it doesn't mean you're totally free from any consequence of your speech, even if you're an employee of an organization in part or fully funded by a state agency.

banning abortion directly violates several constitutional amendments.
firing some jackass from a prominent position at a school for being a jackass in public violates... oh that's right, zero constitutional amendments.

also, MA is an at-will employment state, so that person could be fired for literally any reason.
i thought you people supported the at-will concept, and the right to fire anyone for any reason?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.
as as usual, the 'aha!' moment of a right winger is completely defeated by the fact that the "counter example" is a steaming pile of <expletive deleted>.
Being a lot further right than you does not make a person a "right winger"; it makes him a "99 percenter".

free speech means the government won't arrest you for speech, or pass laws punishing you for speech.
... or do a variety of other things beyond a 3rd-grade understanding of civics.

it doesn't mean you're totally free from any consequence of your speech, even if you're an employee of an organization in part or fully funded by a state agency.

banning abortion directly violates several constitutional amendments.
firing some jackass from a prominent position at a school for being a jackass in public violates... oh that's right, zero constitutional amendments.
Um, can you point out where an amendment says the state can't ban abortion? Banning abortion has been held to violate constitutional amendments. Well, dude, that cuts both ways: the academic freedom of college professors has been held to be protected by the First Amendment. Constitutional jurisprudence, like most jurisprudence, lives primarily in case-law. Your feeling that free speech shouldn't mean people can get away with blasphemy against the progressive stack is not a superior legal argument to Tigers!' feeling that unenumerated rights shouldn't include privacy.

also, MA is an at-will employment state, so that person could be fired for literally any reason.
i thought you people supported the at-will concept, and the right to fire anyone for any reason?
Who you calling "you people"? In any event, even if I were the 19th-century laissez-faire absolutist you fantasize those to your right are, a public university is not a capitalist enterprise so at-will does not apply. The state has an obligation of "viewpoint neutrality".
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
“… iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.”
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.
as as usual, the 'aha!' moment of a right winger is completely defeated by the fact that the "counter example" is a steaming pile of <expletive deleted>.
Being a lot further right than you does not make a person a "right winger"; it makes him a "99 percenter".
well basically everyone on this forum is right of me so that's a metric that is effectively meaningless if you're comparing to me personally.

but regardless, your posting history on this forum classifies you easily and distinctly as a far right ideologue, at least as far as US culture and politics is concerned.
if you don't like that fact, stop being a right winger.
free speech means the government won't arrest you for speech, or pass laws punishing you for speech.
... or do a variety of other things beyond a 3rd-grade understanding of civics.
none of which include 'stop you from being fired for being a dipshit'
it doesn't mean you're totally free from any consequence of your speech, even if you're an employee of an organization in part or fully funded by a state agency.

banning abortion directly violates several constitutional amendments.
firing some jackass from a prominent position at a school for being a jackass in public violates... oh that's right, zero constitutional amendments.
Um, can you point out where an amendment says the state can't ban abortion?
yes, i can.
Well, dude, that cuts both ways: the academic freedom of college professors has been held to be protected by the First Amendment.
no it hasn't, not in this context.

it's been held that academic freedom applies in a professional context excepting when their expression substantially impairs the rights of others or, in the case of faculty members, those views demonstrate that they are professionally ignorant, incompetent, or dishonest with regard to their discipline or fields of expertise.

case law refers to issues of conduct within the university, but is incredibly nebulous when it comes to issues of "a professor said/did something stupid and the university responded with a change to their employment status"

i've been pouring over any website i can find with references to academic freedom case law and i can't find a single compelling example of a court case which would imply that "a dipshit saying something incredibly stupid can't be fired, because of the 1st amendment"

edit to add:
oh ALSO she wasn't fired - she was removed as dean, and offered another position on the faculty, which she declined to take.
there is absolutely nothing in academic freedom, or the 1st amendment, prohibiting you from being removed from a given position.
Constitutional jurisprudence, like most jurisprudence, lives primarily in case-law. Your feeling that free speech shouldn't mean people can get away with blasphemy against the progressive stack is not a superior legal argument to Tigers!' feeling that unenumerated rights shouldn't include privacy.
and the delusion that any time anyone who bloviates about some right wing nuttery and gets called out for it constitutes a violation of the 1st amendment doesn't have any relevance to either my take or tiger's.

also, MA is an at-will employment state, so that person could be fired for literally any reason.
i thought you people supported the at-will concept, and the right to fire anyone for any reason?
Who you calling "you people"? In any event, even if I were the 19th-century laissez-faire absolutist you fantasize those to your right are, a public university is not a capitalist enterprise so at-will does not apply. The state has an obligation of "viewpoint neutrality".
i spent some time searching and can find no evidence whatsoever that state universities in MA are excepted from the at-will employment policy, obviously except in the case of tenure.
if you can show that at-will employment law doesn't apply to state employees i'd be truly interested in seeing that.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to have the taxpayers buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else.
That’s not an accurate statement.
The accurate statement is:

An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to not have religious views cherry pick what health care they are able to access.
Puh-tay-toe, puh-tot-oh.

And that means if medical care is being funded for needy people by taxpayers (via Medicaid, for instance) then they demand that ALL reasonable,non-experimental medical care is covered.
I.e., they think the constitution guarantees them the right to stop the public from buying itself a social safety net unless it agrees to buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else. If the fans of private schools claimed vouchers were a constitutional right, but then clarified that they were only saying they had the constitutional right to ban the government from establishing public schools unless it also gave them vouchers, you would have no difficulty recognizing that they were trying to impose their views upon everyone else.

Recall that when abortions were being provided by Planned Parenthood in these states, they were not requiring federal dollars.
Of course they weren't -- that would be illegal under the Hyde Amendment. The point is, an awful lot of "pro-choice" folks want that law repealed. The asymmetry Elixir is asserting is mostly illusory.

And for the cold hard pragmatists, paying for an abortion is ... CHEAPER than paying for a pregnancy and delivery, which medicaid does often cover, so one would assume that the Libertarians would be 100% for taxpayer funded abortions so that no one has to pay extra for a delivery that no one wanted in the first place.
True; but libertarianism is a goofy religious ideology so why should we care what they would be 100% for?

As for cold hard pragmatist liberal me, telling a person "You don't like abortion, don't have one." comes off as adding insult to injury when you're making him pay for other people's abortions. And adding insult to injury is how you rile somebody up from couch-potato to activist. If we could get peaceful coexistence from the anti-abortionists for just the delta between the cost of pregnancy and delivery and the cost of abortion, that would be a bargain-basement price.

But actually there's no need to pay that in real money when we could forestall the injury and the insult for free, by creative accounting. You know that box you can check off on your tax form to direct some money to pay for presidential elections? Seems to me that's a meme that could use some exponential growth. The IRS could add an optional form to the 1040 that just has a list of controversial federal expenditures, and any taxpayer who feels the urge can check off up to N of the items, and the feds will guarantee that none of that person's tax money will be spent on the checked items. Federal elections, abortions, aircraft carriers, farm price supports, foreign aid, etc. The longer the list of taxpayer-optional expenditures, the better the scheme works, provided N grows sublinearly. Computers could be programmed to shift funds around to keep the promise without actually affecting government priorities, for a trivial cost in data-structure storage. (Of course stuff that everybody hates like servicing the national debt and paying Congressthings' salaries would have to be left off the list. :devil: )
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,704
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think it should be made clear here that abortion is the whole population's right.

It's just that half the population is not in a position to exercise their rights. Yet.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to have the taxpayers buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else.
That’s not an accurate statement.
The accurate statement is:

An awful lot of the folks who call themselves "pro-choice" seem think they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to not have religious views cherry pick what health care they are able to access.
Puh-tay-toe, puh-tot-oh.
No. It is specifically different because the pro-choice issue is first and foremost access. It is separate from taxpayer funding altogether and strikes at the unconstitutional efforts to prevent people from getting abortions even if they pay cash.

That is not puh-tay-toe, puh-tot-oh. Your statement is not correct.
And that means if medical care is being funded for needy people by taxpayers (via Medicaid, for instance) then they demand that ALL reasonable,non-experimental medical care is covered.
I.e., they think the constitution guarantees them the right to stop the public from buying itself a social safety net unless it agrees to buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else. If the fans of private schools claimed vouchers were a constitutional right, but then clarified that they were only saying they had the constitutional right to ban the government from establishing public schools unless it also gave them vouchers, you would have no difficulty recognizing that they were trying to impose their views upon everyone else.

Again, no.
It is saying that if a procedure is medically useful, approved and wanted, no laws should be carving out of public programs things that one person just doesn’t like to make it inaccessible to those using medical care. If the procedure is legal, and needed, it is covered like any other procedure that is legal, needed, and covered.

We cannot have Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that blood transfusions must not be covered by public funds because they object to having people’s souls defiled, nor racists saying that birth and delivery will not be covered for interracial pregnancies.

This is utterly unlike school vouchers, since every one of those voucher-supporting parents has access to everything that the public school parents has access to. Private schools seek to both add and subtract subjects that matter to them. But no one is carving out and eliminating certain classes from public school unless they are constutionally prohibited from public funding - like religion. (Not religious history, mind you, but religious indoctrination)

Not at all puh-tay-toe, puh-tot-oh.

My kids went to both private (elementary) and public (secondary) schools. The private schools sought to add to the curriculum in ways that they thought improved education. Incidentally, these parents and these private school administrators support these same things in public schools, but these things are achieved by successfully throwing money at it, and many people claim, “you can’t solve issues by throwing money at it!” despite private schools doing exactly that and succeeding. But that’s another debate for another thread.


The medical care issue revolves around people who are unrelated wanting to get in between you and your doctor and decide your care. They want to delete things from the medical practice availability on their whim, not on any constitutional grounds.



Recall that when abortions were being provided by Planned Parenthood in these states, they were not requiring federal dollars.
Of course they weren't -- that would be illegal under the Hyde Amendment. The point is, an awful lot of "pro-choice" folks want that law repealed. The asymmetry Elixir is asserting is mostly illusory.
Yes they (we, I) want that law repealed because there is no constitutional reason to carve out those procedures from the rest of publicly covered medicine.

But that is not saying “we want abortions to be paid by taxpayers” any more than “we want births to be paid by taxpayers”. In other words, it is not a special add-on, it is part of the whole medical practice. So what makes your statement inaccurate is that it tries to portray the intent of removing the ban on one kind of normal medicine as some sort of special request.

It is not a special request. It is an intent to remove a special request by those opposed to this medical procedure on their own personal grounds.

And for the cold hard pragmatists, paying for an abortion is ... CHEAPER than paying for a pregnancy and delivery, which medicaid does often cover, so one would assume that the Libertarians would be 100% for taxpayer funded abortions so that no one has to pay extra for a delivery that no one wanted in the first place.
True; but libertarianism is a goofy religious ideology so why should we care what they would be 100% for?
Good point. Only to the extent that if they are informed enough to vote for their actual platform, they could help get these things in place, and that makes them part of the constituency that actually supports having abortion care be part of regular medicine and included in any funding that regular medicine receives.

As for cold hard pragmatist liberal me, telling a person "You don't like abortion, don't have one." comes off as adding insult to injury when you're making him pay for other people's abortions.
I don’t understand how you can make sense of carving one specific medical procedure out from all other medical procedures that you pay for and then get insulted about it. You don’t even know the reason for the abortion that you’re refusing to pay for. You don’t know if it’s to save someone from death.

Honestly, "You don't like abortion, don't have one," is truly not intended as an insult. So it is interesting that it comes across as one. Pro-choice people think that’s actually an incredibly important statement - no one is in favor of forcing abortions on anyone - we want to make that clear.. Crystal clear. Precedent clear.

Are you also insulted if someone says, “if you don’t like novocaine at the dentist, don’t use it.” Are you also insulted if someone says, “if you don’t like blood transfusions, don’t have them.” ?

Can you suggest a way to convey that

the intent is to use the public safety net of medicaid for procedures that are needed by needy people, and no one will force you to have one that you don’t want, and we get that some of you oppose the social safety net altogether and want people to individually negotiate whether they can afford to have their broken leg set, but as long as we DO have a social safety net of Medicaid, it must be applied without prejudice to one particular religious or ideological group’s feelings​

Without having it insult you?

But actually there's no need to pay that in real money when we could forestall the injury and the insult for free, by creative accounting. You know that box you can check off on your tax form to direct some money to pay for presidential elections? Seems to me that's a meme that could use some exponential growth. The IRS could add an optional form to the 1040 that just has a list of controversial federal expenditures, and any taxpayer who feels the urge can check off up to N of the items, and the feds will guarantee that none of that person's tax money will be spent on the checked items. Federal elections, abortions, aircraft carriers, farm price supports, foreign aid, etc. The longer the list of taxpayer-optional expenditures, the better the scheme works, provided N grows sublinearly. Computers could be programmed to shift funds around to keep the promise without actually affecting government priorities, for a trivial cost in data-structure storage. (Of course stuff that everybody hates like servicing the national debt and paying Congressthings' salaries would have to be left off the list. :devil: )

These are the same people who cut off funding for Planned Parenthood to give cervical exams for cancer because it freed up PP to spend their private money for abortions. “Money is fungible!” Stop the publicly funded cervical exams because abortions happen in the same building!

You think that would fly? I don’t.

And no, I do not this this plan is in any way reasonable or workable even if the money is fungible crowd would agree. You turn constitutionally guaranteed rights into a circus that can be starved. Imagine if we did this with women’s rights to vote. People who are “insulted” by the constitution’s guarantees can undermine it.

Nope. Not a fan. 0/10 would not recommend.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,876
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.
Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.

No, I don’t recall any leftyreligiowhatevers trying to revoke the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of half the population, at least with any threat of success.
Half?!? Abortion is half the population's right; free speech is the whole population's right. If you don't recall any attempt to revoke it, that's either because you have your head in the sand or else because you are on board with the assault. For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.


WTF? You want to equate the firing of one individual woman with the revocation of Constitutionally codified rights of all women?
If her firing was truly unconstitutional she could sue, win and live happily ever after. To no consequence. Her "views" are not under attack from the left, one phrase seems to have been.
You're scraping the bottom of the "both sides" barrel, dude.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
As for cold hard pragmatist liberal me, telling a person "You don't like abortion, don't have one." comes off as adding insult to injury when you're making him pay for other people's abortions.
Doesn't the military pay for abortions?
And adding insult to injury is how you rile somebody up from couch-potato to activist.
Not really. The reaction to Roe v Wade wasn't particularly substantial. The movement has grown because it has been used as a wedge issue over time. As we've seen with the "Pro-life" movement, it has little to do with life. The anti-abortion legislation is never passed with supportive funding or even consideration of support for women, it is just a ban.
If we could get peaceful coexistence from the anti-abortionists for just the delta between the cost of pregnancy and delivery and the cost of abortion, that would be a bargain-basement price.
Yes, as long we just pretend this is a money issue, we can "solve" the problem via money.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
As for cold hard pragmatist liberal me, telling a person "You don't like abortion, don't have one." comes off as adding insult to injury when you're making him pay for other people's abortions.
Doesn't the military pay for abortions?
Only in cases of rape, incest, or saving the woman's life, same as federal law for civilians. It's a serious problem for a lot of servicewomen who are stationed places where having to go off base for an abortion is difficult.

And adding insult to injury is how you rile somebody up from couch-potato to activist.
Not really. The reaction to Roe v Wade wasn't particularly substantial. The movement has grown because it has been used as a wedge issue over time. As we've seen with the "Pro-life" movement, it has little to do with life...
Part of the reason it wasn't particularly substantial is because we lost the federal funding fight. Congress fought that one out pretty intensely over the course of the 70s and 80s.

If we could get peaceful coexistence from the anti-abortionists for just the delta between the cost of pregnancy and delivery and the cost of abortion, that would be a bargain-basement price.
Yes, as long we just pretend this is a money issue, we can "solve" the problem via money.
It isn't pretending -- for twenty or thirty years the country treated it as a money issue, and worked out a compromise that for the most part both sides could live with. From a 2022 perspective, those look like good times.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,068
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.
And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.
Thank you for your analysis of my (our) motives.
Is there another analysis you’d like to offer, or was that an acknowledgment that atrib is correct?
Your sarcasm meter does need a tune up.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
We are learning from the masters - Prochoice. With your unlimited demand for abortion at any time, in any circumstances.
And we see the mask slip. The "help" that Tigers was talking about is not offered because the Pro-life advocates feel a calling to serve humanity, but is a reaction to the idea that the Pro-choice people dare to counsel women that they have a choice when it comes to their own bodies, often served up with a generous helping of judgement and resentment on the side. The same judgement and resentment that comes through loud and clear in this post.
*sarcasm*
*more sarcasm*
*SARCASM!!!*
Think we've got a circular sarcasm loop here.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
As for cold hard pragmatist liberal me, telling a person "You don't like abortion, don't have one." comes off as adding insult to injury when you're making him pay for other people's abortions.
Doesn't the military pay for abortions?
Only in cases of rape, incest, or saving the woman's life, same as federal law for civilians. It's a serious problem for a lot of servicewomen who are stationed places where having to go off base for an abortion is difficult.

And adding insult to injury is how you rile somebody up from couch-potato to activist.
Not really. The reaction to Roe v Wade wasn't particularly substantial. The movement has grown because it has been used as a wedge issue over time. As we've seen with the "Pro-life" movement, it has little to do with life...
Part of the reason it wasn't particularly substantial is because we lost the federal funding fight. Congress fought that one out pretty intensely over the course of the 70s and 80s.

If we could get peaceful coexistence from the anti-abortionists for just the delta between the cost of pregnancy and delivery and the cost of abortion, that would be a bargain-basement price.
Yes, as long we just pretend this is a money issue, we can "solve" the problem via money.
It isn't pretending -- for twenty or thirty years the country treated it as a money issue, and worked out a compromise that for the most part both sides could live with. From a 2022 perspective, those look like good times.
I think you mean that the SCOTUS balance made it impossible to overturn. The right-wing tried.
  • Casey v Planned Parenthood was 1992, so that decision was less than 20 years after Roe. Casey was arguing about legislation passed in PA in 1982, which is 9 years after Roe.
  • City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health was ruled in 1982 regarding laws passed in the 70s.
... so, this 20 to 30 year period is a fictional era that never existed.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Not really. The reaction to Roe v Wade wasn't particularly substantial. The movement has grown because it has been used as a wedge issue over time. As we've seen with the "Pro-life" movement, it has little to do with life...
...
Yes, as long we just pretend this is a money issue, we can "solve" the problem via money.
It isn't pretending -- for twenty or thirty years the country treated it as a money issue, and worked out a compromise that for the most part both sides could live with. From a 2022 perspective, those look like good times.
I think you mean that the SCOTUS balance made it impossible to overturn. The right-wing tried.
  • Casey v Planned Parenthood was 1992, so that decision was less than 20 years after Roe. Casey was arguing about legislation passed in PA in 1982, which is 9 years after Roe.
  • City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health was ruled in 1982 regarding laws passed in the 70s.
... so, this 20 to 30 year period is a fictional era that never existed.
That makes your "Not really. The reaction to Roe v Wade wasn't particularly substantial." claim equally fictional. I think you're conflating the reaction of the hard-core activists with the reaction of the great mass of anti-abortion voters, who weren't voting single-issue on it until the activists figured out how to turn it into a wedge issue.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Oh, come off it. The world is overflowing with left wing religio-fascists who equally want something to be done about differing views.
No, I don’t recall any leftyreligiowhatevers trying to revoke the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of half the population, at least with any threat of success.
Half?!? Abortion is half the population's right; free speech is the whole population's right. If you don't recall any attempt to revoke it, that's either because you have your head in the sand or else because you are on board with the assault. For example, a government university fired a professor for saying everyone's life matters.

... You want to equate the firing of one individual woman with the revocation of Constitutionally codified rights of all women?
If her firing was truly unconstitutional she could sue, win and live happily ever after. To no consequence. Her "views" are not under attack from the left, one phrase seems to have been.
You're scraping the bottom of the "both sides" barrel, dude.
That was just one example; and the point is, if the threat level is low it's not for lack of trying. It's only low because there's been a 5-4 SCOTUS majority in favor of free speech standing in their way -- same as there used to be in support of Roe v Wade*. We know what leftyreligiowhatevers who equally want something to be done about differing views actually do about those differing views when they have the power to -- we can watch what they do in countries where there's no First Amendment to stop them. Britain, Australia, Canada, and France have all prosecuted people for blasphemy against progressivism. And we know exactly how the left in America feel about the First Amendment -- they collectively went on a years-long bender of ripping their hair out screaming about how democracy was over just because five SCOTUS justices said the government shouldn't have been allowed to suppress Hillary: The Movie.

(* Until the Republicans cheated Garland out of a seat and then put judges who lied about stare decisis onto the court.)
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Think we've got a circular sarcasm loop here.
This isn't an argument, this is just non-contradiction. Or in other words...

Doug: Dude!
Joe: Dude!
Doug: Dude!
Joe: Dude!
Doug: Dude! ... Dude.
Joe: I guess you have a point.
I have no idea how ironic this post was supposed to be relative to the amount it is.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,876
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
In an actual democracy, people are granted domain over their own biological functions.
You have a strange notion of democracy. In an actual democracy the common people know what they want and they get it good and hard. DrZ was just telling us about the 60,000 Roma forcibly sterilized on the orders of the popularly elected Social Democratic Party of Sweden.

Almost every society has deprived someone of domain over their bodies. Criminals, if not black people, Asians or Roma. That’s not what concerns me in this thread. We are at an inflection point where rights are being rescinded on a wholesale level against the will of a huge majority of US citizens. But you knew that, so I wonder what your point is if you had one.
No, we never had a perfect Union but it was more free before the GOP sold out to Russia.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Puh-tay-toe, puh-tot-oh.
No. It is specifically different because the pro-choice issue is first and foremost access. It is separate from taxpayer funding altogether and strikes at the unconstitutional efforts to prevent people from getting abortions even if they pay cash.

That is not puh-tay-toe, puh-tot-oh. Your statement is not correct.
You say that -- and then you immediately refute yourself by saying this:

And that means if medical care is being funded for needy people by taxpayers (via Medicaid, for instance) then they demand that ALL reasonable,non-experimental medical care is covered.
I.e., they think the constitution guarantees them the right to stop the public from buying itself a social safety net unless it agrees to buy them an abortion. That's imposing their views upon everyone else. If the fans of private schools claimed vouchers were a constitutional right, but then clarified that they were only saying they had the constitutional right to ban the government from establishing public schools unless it also gave them vouchers, you would have no difficulty recognizing that they were trying to impose their views upon everyone else.

Again, no.
It is saying that if a procedure is medically useful, approved and wanted, no laws should be carving out of public programs things that one person just doesn’t like to make it inaccessible to those using medical care. If the procedure is legal, and needed, it is covered like any other procedure that is legal, needed, and covered.
That's not "Again, no." That's "Again, yes." You're claiming a right to stop the public from buying itself a social safety net unless it agrees to buy abortions. You are in effect using people who need blood transfusions as a human shield against denial of public funding of abortion.

We cannot have Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that blood transfusions must not be covered by public funds because they object to having people’s souls defiled,
True; but blood transfusions are for saving people's lives. Only the anti-abortion movement's lunatic fringe don't make an exception for saving the mother's life.

nor racists saying that birth and delivery will not be covered for interracial pregnancies.
True; but that's because the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. A rule that says the government will pay for Protestant abortions but not Catholic abortions would be equally illegal; but a rule treating abortions differently from transfusions is no more subject to "strict scrutiny" than treating banks differently from steel mills.

This is utterly unlike school vouchers, since every one of those voucher-supporting parents has access to everything that the public school parents has access to. Private schools seek to both add and subtract subjects that matter to them.
You are special-pleading up the wazoo. Private schooling is educationally "useful, approved and wanted". Every one of those abortion-wanting Medicaid-eligible women has access to transfusions and the rest of the services Medicaid pays for; you seek to add a service that matters to you. And I'd like to add it too, but that doesn't make it objectively different from vouchers. Everybody wants to add and subtract government budget items.

But no one is carving out and eliminating certain classes from public school unless they are constutionally prohibited from public funding - like religion. (Not religious history, mind you, but religious indoctrination)
What planet do you live on? People carve out and eliminate certain classes from public school all the bleeding time. Most infamously, music and art classes. Or, to use myself as an example, I went to public school for most of K-thru-13, but private school for junior high. That was when I took Latin. It used to be considered a mainstay of education, but not one of the public schools I attended offered it.

The medical care issue revolves around people who are unrelated wanting to get in between you and your doctor and decide your care. They want to delete things from the medical practice availability on their whim, not on any constitutional grounds.
And the folks who took Latin out of the curriculum were getting between a student and his Latin teacher on their whim, not on any constitutional grounds. The Constitution doesn't offer any special consideration for the student-teacher relationship that authorizes teachers to bill the government for anything and everything they think a student would benefit from. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't offer any special consideration for the doctor-patient relationship that authorizes doctors to bill the government for anything and everything they think a patient would benefit from. It's up to the people's representatives to vote on what they'll pay for and what they won't, subject to constitutional limits such as nondiscrimination and not establishing a state religion.

Of course they weren't -- that would be illegal under the Hyde Amendment. The point is, an awful lot of "pro-choice" folks want that law repealed. The asymmetry Elixir is asserting is mostly illusory.
Yes they (we, I) want that law repealed because there is no constitutional reason to carve out those procedures from the rest of publicly covered medicine.

But that is not saying “we want abortions to be paid by taxpayers” any more than “we want births to be paid by taxpayers”.
Yeah, I got that -- that is 100% saying “we want abortions to be paid by taxpayers”. You also 100% want births to be paid by taxpayers. 100% is not any more than 100%. How do you figure that supports your case?

In other words, it is not a special add-on, it is part of the whole medical practice. So what makes your statement inaccurate is that it tries to portray the intent of removing the ban on one kind of normal medicine as some sort of special request.

It is not a special request. It is an intent to remove a special request by those opposed to this medical procedure on their own personal grounds.
I.e., you choose to define "whole medical practice" to be a category that includes abortion. Others choose to define the boundaries of "whole medical practice" differently. It's a special add-on in their categorization but not in yours. But outside of particle physics and evolutionary biology, categories are not an objective feature of the natural world. They are subjective mental constructs. You can no more provide empirical evidence for or against including abortion in "whole medical practice" than for or against including Pluto in the category "planets".

As for cold hard pragmatist liberal me, telling a person "You don't like abortion, don't have one." comes off as adding insult to injury when you're making him pay for other people's abortions.
I don’t understand how you can make sense of carving one specific medical procedure out from all other medical procedures that you pay for and then get insulted about it. You don’t even know the reason for the abortion that you’re refusing to pay for. You don’t know if it’s to save someone from death.
It's not me feeling insulted -- I like abortion. As for the fans of the Hyde Amendment, they know something of the reason for the abortion they're refusing to pay for -- they know it isn't to save someone from death since the Hyde Amendment specifically allows the feds to pay for those.

Honestly, "You don't like abortion, don't have one," is truly not intended as an insult.
Of course it isn't. Insults usually aren't intended as insults. Part of what makes them so insulting is how little the speaker puts himself in the recipient's shoes.

So it is interesting that it comes across as one. Pro-choice people think that’s actually an incredibly important statement - no one is in favor of forcing abortions on anyone - we want to make that clear.. Crystal clear. Precedent clear.
Yes, exactly -- but you seem to have dropped some context. Reread what I wrote. It isn't "You don't like abortion, don't have one," per se that's insulting; it's specifically saying it when you're trying to make him pay for other people's abortions that makes it an insult. You say it, sincerely believing "no one is in favor of forcing abortions on anyone", all the while being in favor of forcing the unwilling taxpayer to help carry out an abortion. The taxpayer won't get a choice about it, and you don't want him to get a choice about it. From his point of view you're trying to make him complicit in your sin against God -- that's the injury. And then you're telling him he doesn't count as "anyone" -- you'd force an abortion on him while claiming you aren't forcing abortions on anyone. That's an insult. You are de facto telling him he's a lower life-form you don't have to consider the impact on. That's an insult. You are de facto telling him what he pays for and thereby is a participant in is none of his business, thereby treating him as a beast of burden rather than a fellow citizen. That's an insult. And you're de facto telling him "You don't like abortion, don't have one" is a good reason for him to think an abortion he has to pay for is an abortion he isn't a part of. That's insulting his intelligence.

Are you also insulted if someone says, “if you don’t like novocaine at the dentist, don’t use it.” Are you also insulted if someone says, “if you don’t like blood transfusions, don’t have them.” ?
Those are bad analogies. If you truly want to avoid insulting the other party you need to put yourself in his shoes. From an anti-abortion point of view, a good analogy would be you saying to Thoreau "If you don't like the war in Mexico, don't join the Army.". Do you think Thoreau would have thought that was a valid argument?

Can you suggest a way to convey that

the intent is to use the public safety net of medicaid for procedures that are needed by needy people, and no one will force you to have one that you don’t want, and we get that some of you oppose the social safety net altogether and want people to individually negotiate whether they can afford to have their broken leg set, but as long as we DO have a social safety net of Medicaid, it must be applied without prejudice to one particular religious or ideological group’s feelings​

Without having it insult you?
Why do you keep making this is about me? I'm pro-abortion.

If you want to avoid insulting Joe Redstate Sixpack, saying most of that is piece of cake. You just say to him, "Sorry, you have to go along with our wishes on this because we won the vote. There are other controversies where others have to go along with your wishes because you won the vote. Sometimes that stinks for you; sometimes that stinks for me; but democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have ever been tried."

But that doesn't communicate the part about "it must be applied without prejudice to one particular religious or ideological group’s feelings". That's a part you don't get to say without it being an insult, because requiring abortions to be covered is applying it with prejudice to one particular ideological group’s feelings: yours. "People should pay for other people's abortions" is an ideological position, every bit as much as "Abortion is a sin." There is no non-insulting way to say "My unscientific opinion trumps your unscientific opinion because yours is just an ideology." You might as well try to non-insultingly explain to a Catholic how the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is that Protestantism isn't a cult.

If your contention is that your view doesn't count as an ideology because a medically unnecessary abortion is the same thing as a medically necessary setting of a broken leg, that is an unscientific opinion.

These are the same people who cut off funding for Planned Parenthood to give cervical exams for cancer because it freed up PP to spend their private money for abortions. “Money is fungible!” Stop the publicly funded cervical exams because abortions happen in the same building!

You think that would fly? I don’t.
What would fly with the activists is a different question from what would fly with the bulk of voters. You think the average American even understands the concept of "fungible"?

And no, I do not this this plan is in any way reasonable or workable even if the money is fungible crowd would agree. You turn constitutionally guaranteed rights into a circus that can be starved. Imagine if we did this with women’s rights to vote. People who are “insulted” by the constitution’s guarantees can undermine it.
I can point out the place in the Constitution that guarantees women the vote. Can you point out the place in the Constitution that guarantees women free abortions courtesy of the taxpayers? They look to me like just another government service the people can vote up or vote down.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Those are bad analogies. If you truly want to avoid insulting the other party you need to put yourself in his shoes. From an anti-abortion point of view, a good analogy would be you saying to Thoreau "If you don't like the war in Mexico, don't join the Army.". Do you think Thoreau would have thought that was a valid argument?
This is very odd statement as the pro-choice movement is effectively allowing people to decide what is right for them... within their own shoes. The fact that anti-abortion legislation doesn't provide support for women they want to be forced to give birth to children really suggests the shoe shifting needs to be by them.

I mean seriously, you seriously want to tell a pregnant woman who doesn't want to have the child, that they really need to see this from a pro-lifer's perspective? There is only the pregnant woman's perspective when it comes to pregnancy. Everyone else is on the sidelines. The pro-lifer wants people to believe they have the right to interfere to save the fetus. The pro-choicer believes we don't have that right to interfere. Yet, it is only the pregnant woman that is actually pregnant. The only one directly and at times brutally impacted by this argument.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...
Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.
That's not playing with you; Atrib was not challenging the involvement of political agendas. He or she was challenging your premise that women are being forced to have abortions and your premise that women are being persuaded to have abortions for the sake of political agendas. The political agendas concern rather the creation and the tearing down of obstacles to women getting abortions; the abortions themselves have apolitical motivations. Women by-and-large are not "being psychologically persuaded to have one"; they are choosing to have them for personal reasons of their own; and in the cases where a woman is being psychologically persuaded to have one, it's normally for personal reasons of the persuader's own -- typically the woman's sex partner not wanting to become a father. Unless we're talking about knocked-up Congresswomen, politics is the furthest thing from people's minds when they're deciding whether to abort.

Fair point.. Noted.

I'll just say Bomb#20: I've known for a while, even back then, not long after joining the forum. You've challenged both sides of the debate's individual arguments, especially when they're sounding far from the context. Highlighting misunderstandings between oppositions, (like the above), this says to me, you're about the integrity of the conversation. Your participation and Fair play is much appreciated!
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,144
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...
Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.
That's not playing with you; Atrib was not challenging the involvement of political agendas. He or she was challenging your premise that women are being forced to have abortions and your premise that women are being persuaded to have abortions for the sake of political agendas. The political agendas concern rather the creation and the tearing down of obstacles to women getting abortions; the abortions themselves have apolitical motivations. Women by-and-large are not "being psychologically persuaded to have one"; they are choosing to have them for personal reasons of their own; and in the cases where a woman is being psychologically persuaded to have one, it's normally for personal reasons of the persuader's own -- typically the woman's sex partner not wanting to become a father. Unless we're talking about knocked-up Congresswomen, politics is the furthest thing from people's minds when they're deciding whether to abort.

Fair point.. Noted.

I'll just say Bomb#20: I've known for a while, even back then, not long after joining the forum. You've challenged both sides of the debate's individual arguments, especially when they're sounding far from the context. Highlighting misunderstandings between oppositions, (like the above), this says to me, you're about the integrity of the conversation. Your participation and Fair play is much appreciated!

You claimed that women were being forced to have abortions, and were being persuaded to have abortions to serve some political agenda.
Learner:
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

I asked you to name some of these women, who had either been forced or persuaded to have abortions, and what the political agenda was.
Atrib:
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...

You ignored my questions, likely because you had made up those allegations, and had no evidence to support them.

Misunderstanding my ass! When you make up shit you will get called out. There is nothing unfair about people calling you out on shit you made up. Check your facts before you post if you don't want it to happen again.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...
Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.
That's not playing with you; Atrib was not challenging the involvement of political agendas. He or she was challenging your premise that women are being forced to have abortions and your premise that women are being persuaded to have abortions for the sake of political agendas. The political agendas concern rather the creation and the tearing down of obstacles to women getting abortions; the abortions themselves have apolitical motivations. Women by-and-large are not "being psychologically persuaded to have one"; they are choosing to have them for personal reasons of their own; and in the cases where a woman is being psychologically persuaded to have one, it's normally for personal reasons of the persuader's own -- typically the woman's sex partner not wanting to become a father. Unless we're talking about knocked-up Congresswomen, politics is the furthest thing from people's minds when they're deciding whether to abort.

Fair point.. Noted.

I'll just say Bomb#20: I've known for a while, even back then, not long after joining the forum. You've challenged both sides of the debate's individual arguments, especially when they're sounding far from the context. Highlighting misunderstandings between oppositions, (like the above), this says to me, you're about the integrity of the conversation. Your participation and Fair play is much appreciated!

You claimed that women were being forced to have abortions, and were being persuaded to have abortions to serve some political agenda.

No... you misunderstood? I said, I wouldn't be for any woman being forced to have abortions 'against their will' against their final decision!

(There is another aspect to this, (perhaps already mentioned somewhere on the thread), this is regarding very young teenagers or a child even who is the potential mother. The legal disputes as to whether the parents of the young teenagers have 'consenting rights.' That's an interesting one.)

Anyway, poitical agendas exist i.e., Pro-Abortionists Movements etc.. for example. The agenda naturally is to succeed, like getting laws passed in favour of Pro-choice rights. Politically pushing narratives requires proganda - good or bad... it's NORMAL. This obviously goes for both sides of the dispute!

Persuasion, I simply mean when one hears from the pro-choice propaganda. Lets say, for example, using narratives like some of our forum friends use here, often over exaggerated....

"Pro-lifers "don't" care about the woman, they only care about 'it' being born." " The woman is "enslaved", shackled, held prisoner, bringing a child into the world" (when she'll give up the unwanted child for adoption).

Learner:
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

I asked you to name some of these women, who had either been forced or persuaded to have abortions, and what the political agenda was.
Atrib:
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...

You ignored my questions, likely because you had made up those allegations, and had no evidence to support them.
See the above...

I'd say fair enough if my previous post wasn't aptly clear enough.

Misunderstanding my ass! When you make up shit you will get called out. There is nothing unfair about people calling you out on shit you made up.
Sure, IF it were the case I was making things up.

Check your facts before you post if you don't want it to happen again.

I agree with checking facts before posting. Making things up? Get your facts right before posting.
 
Last edited:

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
No... you misunderstood? I said, I wouldn't be for any woman being forced to have abortions 'against their will' against their final decision!
Right - and since no one said this (women should be forced to have abortions) and no one is saying this and no group is advocating for it and no laws are being drafted to create the situation,

then your statement

ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

is one or several of:

  • a deliberate false accusation to poison opinion
  • a deliberate false accusation as red herring to distract from your lack of argument
  • bearing false witness
  • Cultish delusion

Perhaps there is some other answer for why you would pose the question; that somehow explains that you know it is utterly untrue while still posing it multiple times. Enlighten us.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The fact that right wing fascism has become the mechanism whereby religious fanatics are now able to revoke rights that were previously guaranteed, is not an indicator of a newly politicized fight over rights, it’s a complete abandonment of democratic principles. In an actual democracy, people are granted domain over their own biological functions.
You have a strange notion of democracy. In an actual democracy the common people know what they want and they get it good and hard. DrZ was just telling us about the 60,000 Roma forcibly sterilized on the orders of the popularly elected Social Democratic Party of Sweden.

Almost every society has deprived someone of domain over their bodies. Criminals, if not black people, Asians or Roma. That’s not what concerns me in this thread. We are at an inflection point where rights are being rescinded on a wholesale level against the will of a huge majority of US citizens. But you knew that, so I wonder what your point is if you had one.
No, I didn't know that. It looked like what concerned you was calling our political opponents fascists because you're mad at them for being better than us at political maneuvering and better than us at keeping their eyes on the ball. First you claim their victory is undemocratic because you arbitrarily define "actual democracy" to include a right you and I care about even though there isn't a democracy in the world that takes that right seriously. Now you're saying you're not concerned about that right except when the majority wants it, and their victory is undemocratic because the minority is getting its way on a dispute. But the minority isn't getting its way because of anything fascist the religious fanatics did -- they followed the procedural rules, the decisions were made by vote, and we lost because we couldn't get our act together. The pro-abortion-rights legislators passed up at least three opportunities to put Roe v Wade into federal law; they went along with the confirmation of justices they must have known were probably lying about their views on stare decisis; and there was this one lady who could have retired instead of dying in the saddle and thereby gotten replaced by a like mind. And it's not as though there's anything new about America revoking previously guaranteed rights. Equal protection was rescinded pretty much the minute the Democrats figured out black workers were competing with their white working class electoral base. Any number of economic rights were rescinded during the Depression. You call what's happening with abortion "rights are being rescinded on a wholesale level" -- oh please. That's about as retail as it gets. You want to see some "rights are being rescinded on a wholesale level", look at what FDR and Congress did to the Japanese-Americans during the war. But I guess that wasn't fascist because 59% of Americans were for it.

No, we never had a perfect Union but it was more free before the GOP sold out to Russia.
Oh for the love of god. The GOP didn't sell out to Russia. The GOP sold out to Joe Sixpack. And that gave us Kavanaugh et al. because Joe Sixpack sold out to Trump. And Joe Sixpack sold out to Trump because Trump is better than both parties' conventional leadership and especially better than the Democrats' activist base at keeping to themselves how much they all despise Joe Sixpack.

What we are seeing is not "right-wing fascism". What we are seeing is the Democrats as usual being their own worst enemy.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,144
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...
Come on now, your playing with me. You didn't know that the fight for rights becomes political? Agendas usually become apparent when there are conflicting sides.
That's not playing with you; Atrib was not challenging the involvement of political agendas. He or she was challenging your premise that women are being forced to have abortions and your premise that women are being persuaded to have abortions for the sake of political agendas. The political agendas concern rather the creation and the tearing down of obstacles to women getting abortions; the abortions themselves have apolitical motivations. Women by-and-large are not "being psychologically persuaded to have one"; they are choosing to have them for personal reasons of their own; and in the cases where a woman is being psychologically persuaded to have one, it's normally for personal reasons of the persuader's own -- typically the woman's sex partner not wanting to become a father. Unless we're talking about knocked-up Congresswomen, politics is the furthest thing from people's minds when they're deciding whether to abort.

Fair point.. Noted.

I'll just say Bomb#20: I've known for a while, even back then, not long after joining the forum. You've challenged both sides of the debate's individual arguments, especially when they're sounding far from the context. Highlighting misunderstandings between oppositions, (like the above), this says to me, you're about the integrity of the conversation. Your participation and Fair play is much appreciated!

You claimed that women were being forced to have abortions, and were being persuaded to have abortions to serve some political agenda.

No... you misunderstood? I said, I wouldn't be for any woman being forced to have abortions 'against their will' against their final decision!
When you say you are against women being forced to have abortions, you imply that there are actual women being forced to have abortions, because it would be foolish to be speaking up against imaginary things. If that was not your intent, your statement is either a red herring, intended to divert our attention from the real issues, or it is deliberate untruth intended to propagate lies. Your post was either incredibly misinformed, or it was deceptive. So which is it?


Anyway, poitical agendas exist i.e., Pro-Abortionists Movements etc.. for example. The agenda naturally is to succeed, like getting laws passed in favour of Pro-choice rights. Politically pushing narratives requires proganda - good or bad... it's NORMAL. This obviously goes for both sides of the dispute!
The agenda of the Pro-choice movement is to protect a woman's right to choose, not to force women into having abortions. There is no Pro-abortionist movement. Again, this wording is deliberately misleading, because it implies that people who support a woman's right to have an abortion are actively campaigning for women to have abortions, or persuading women to have abortions, neither of which are true. And, it tells us that your earlier claim that women are being forced to have abortions or are being persuaded to have abortions is something you actually believe, and not something that I misunderstood. That is what I get from the broader context of your posts.


Persuasion, I simply mean when one hears from the pro-choice propaganda. Lets say, for example, using narratives like some of our forum friends use here, often over exaggerated....

"Pro-lifers "don't" care about the woman, they only care about 'it' being born." " The woman is "enslaved", shackled, held prisoner, bringing a child into the world" (when she'll give up the unwanted child for adoption).

This is a fact in the United States. The states which want to ban the right of a woman to have abortions have no social security net or plan to support the women they are trying to force into having babies. As for the UK, you have admitted that you have neither the inclination nor the resources to support women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term. In general, it is a fact that the pro-life crowd is NOT interested in supporting the woman or her baby after the baby is born, they are only interested in persuading or even forcing the woman to carry the fetus to term. The narrative is true.



Learner:
ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

I asked you to name some of these women, who had either been forced or persuaded to have abortions, and what the political agenda was.
Atrib:
Who is being forced to have abortions against their will? Who is being persuaded to have abortions for some political agenda? What political agenda?...

You ignored my questions, likely because you had made up those allegations, and had no evidence to support them.
See the above...

I'd say fair enough if my previous post wasn't aptly clear enough.
Your post was quite clear. Either you were misinformed, or you were trying to be deliberately misleading.


Misunderstanding my ass! When you make up shit you will get called out. There is nothing unfair about people calling you out on shit you made up.
Sure, IF it were the case I was making things up.

Check your facts before you post if you don't want it to happen again.

I agree with checking facts before posting. Making things up? Get your facts right before posting.
Which facts have I got wrong? Please point them out to me.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Those are bad analogies. If you truly want to avoid insulting the other party you need to put yourself in his shoes. From an anti-abortion point of view, a good analogy would be you saying to Thoreau "If you don't like the war in Mexico, don't join the Army.". Do you think Thoreau would have thought that was a valid argument?
This is very odd statement as the pro-choice movement is effectively allowing people to decide what is right for them... within their own shoes. The fact that anti-abortion legislation doesn't provide support for women they want to be forced to give birth to children really suggests the shoe shifting needs to be by them.
You seem to have lost the context. I'm not making some abstract theoretical comment about who "needs to" put themselves in somebody else's shoes. Of course the anti-abortionists ought to put themselves in other people's shoes; but I'm not talking to anti-abortionists about how to improve their strategy. Why would I want them to improve their strategy? I'm talking to our side about how to improve our strategy. Unintentionally insulting anti-abortionists is a good way to stir up the hornets' nest and make them more likely to vote single-issue and more likely to flip from couch-potato to activist. So let's just not insult them. And when you're trying to avoid insulting somebody, you need to put yourself in his shoes and think about how what you're about to say will sound in his ears -- and if it will sound abusive to him, you need to think of something less inflammatory to say.

I mean seriously, you seriously want to tell a pregnant woman who doesn't want to have the child, that they really need to see this from a pro-lifer's perspective?
I believe Rhea is not pregnant. I was pointing out to her the implications of abortion rights activists' political rhetoric, not telling her what women should be thinking about at those times in their lives when politics is not generally what they're focusing on.

There is only the pregnant woman's perspective when it comes to pregnancy. Everyone else is on the sidelines.
No, everyone else is not on the sidelines; everyone else is just lower down on the progressive stack. Every person who is helping a pregnant woman deal with the consequences of her pregnancy, from the doctors and nurses to the taxpayers footing the bill, has a perspective that matters too. Those perspectives matter to them, anyway. If their perspectives don't matter to you then that just means you're violating the Categorical Imperative by treating them all as a mere means to an end; or, if you prefer, it means you're maximizing your ingroup's happiness at the expense of your outgroup rather than maximizing total happiness. "We're in charge of deciding who has the only perspective." is a staple of progressives' moral reasoning; that characteristic arrogance is part of why so many people are so resistant to putting progressives in charge.

The pro-lifer wants people to believe they have the right to interfere to save the fetus. The pro-choicer believes we don't have that right to interfere.
Right. So there's a conflict of moral judgments. If it's settled by force, at the moment things aren't looking so good for our side. So it needs to be settled by rational persuasion. When has anyone ever been persuaded of anything by being told he doesn't matter?

Yet, it is only the pregnant woman that is actually pregnant. The only one directly and at times brutally impacted by this argument.
So? If whoever was most brutally affected by a decision had the only perspective that matters, and if everyone else ought to be treated as an irrelevant sideline, then our government would need to shut down all social spending on the American people and divert all possible resources to foreign aid. Zimbabweans need U.S. tax money more than we do.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,876
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
they went along with the confirmation of justices they must have known were probably lying about their views on stare decisis
Guess I shouldn't complain about that. It's just politicians and judges lying their corrupt faces off. Democratic as hell.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
You seem to have lost the context. I'm not making some abstract theoretical comment about who "needs to" put themselves in somebody else's shoes. Of course the anti-abortionists ought to put themselves in other people's shoes; but I'm not talking to anti-abortionists about how to improve their strategy. Why would I want them to improve their strategy? I'm talking to our side about how to improve our strategy. Unintentionally insulting anti-abortionists is a good way to stir up the hornets' nest and make them more likely to vote single-issue and more likely to flip from couch-potato to activist. So let's just not insult them. And when you're trying to avoid insulting somebody, you need to put yourself in his shoes and think about how what you're about to say will sound in his ears -- and if it will sound abusive to him, you need to think of something less inflammatory to say.
Bomb, I agree with your approach on this.

(Even when I am emotionally screaming inside, “get your fucking bible out of my vagina!!” (Pun not intended))

It is indeed excruciating to be talking about a subject where “they” are planning to force people like me to physicaly endure permanent body damage and pain, and they expect to be treated with charm and deference. “Oh please, nice man with lovely ideas, if it’s not too much trouble, can you please consider perhaps not tearing my vagina open?”

And yet, you are right. That is EXACTLY what they expect and demand in order to be brought to table to change their course.

It sucks. But you are right.
They want to never be insulted - while they insult.
They want to never be questioned - while they question.
They want to never be condescended to - while they condescend.
They want to never be dismissed - while they dismiss.

And if they don’t get that deferential treatment, they will dig in their heels and intend to make us suffer out of feeling of spite. Perhaps subconsciously, but nevertheless.


So, sadly, infuriatingly, unfairly, you are right.

So what’s the approach then?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Persuasion, I simply mean when one hears from the pro-choice propaganda. Lets say, for example, using narratives like some of our forum friends use here, often over exaggerated....

"Pro-lifers "don't" care about the woman, they only care about 'it' being born." " The woman is "enslaved", shackled, held prisoner, bringing a child into the world" (when she'll give up the unwanted child for adoption).
But we established the admitted reality that the pro-life movement has been woefully inadequate to the pregnant (and post partum) woman's needs? That anti-abortion legislation never seems to have any financial support included for the pregnant woman and only speaks directly to making the procedure illegal.

Admittedly from multiple pro-lifers here, the pro-life movement hasn't sought much in the way of care for pregnant woman. That they have "fallen short".

So why in the world would you think it is propaganda when the pro-choicers notice this and call it out? I mean other than to demonize your opponent who has rightly called out the hypocrisy of the pro-"life" movement?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... And if they don’t get that deferential treatment, they will dig in their heels and intend to make us suffer out of feeling of spite. Perhaps subconsciously, but nevertheless.

So, sadly, infuriatingly, unfairly, you are right.

So what’s the approach then?
I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex. Remember that nobody's a villain in his own mind. If we paint them as villains they won't recognize themselves so it will just come off to them as evidence that we're stupid and/or dishonest. In their minds, they're Abraham Lincoln trying to free the slaves and we're Stephen Douglas saying if you don't approve of slave-owning don't own one. So we need to try to undermine that analogy. We could try to have a rational conversation about why they think life begins at conception, and maybe point out the Bible doesn't say that. But if we make any argument that implies abortion is okay right up to birth it'll sound to them like we're convicting ourselves out of our own mouths of being fanatics. Your "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread looks like a really good way to try to redirect the conversation onto a more constructive path.

And when being patient with them is hard, remember we're going to win in the end. Atheism is on the rise; Christianity is fading away.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
... And if they don’t get that deferential treatment, they will dig in their heels and intend to make us suffer out of feeling of spite. Perhaps subconsciously, but nevertheless.

So, sadly, infuriatingly, unfairly, you are right.

So what’s the approach then?
I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex.
The problem is it is impossible to solve a problem when you ignore the data. What do we need more than anything else as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce abortions? Comprehensive sex education in school. And what do they teach in the heart of Pro-Life territory? Abstinence. Because it works? No. Because it is about trying to lie to themselves that telling kids not to do it will make them not do it. Places that have comprehensive sex ed, accused of "grooming" children. Which is ultimately what this is all about, preventing sex.

Go to one of the pregnancy support clinics? What do they do? They lie to the pregnant woman. Scare them from abortion. Talk about all the support that won't be there. Emotionally manipulate the woman. That sure the heck isn't in the fetus's best interest.

Anti-abortion legislation is usually only that, making abortion illegal, doing nothing at all to support women that can't manage, don't want to manage going through pregnancy and birth (with post pregnancy complications that will happen, and potentially rare dangerous stuff that could happen) and potentially raising a child.

This isn't demonizing anyone, it is recognizing truth. It is putting all of the pieces to the puzzle together that provide us their motive. The movement is anti-sex.
Remember that nobody's a villain in his own mind. If we paint them as villains they won't recognize themselves so it will just come off to them as evidence that we're stupid and/or dishonest. In their minds, they're Abraham Lincoln trying to free the slaves and we're Stephen Douglas saying if you don't approve of slave-owning don't own one. So we need to try to undermine that analogy. We could try to have a rational conversation about why they think life begins at conception, and maybe point out the Bible doesn't say that.
(my emphasis)
:rofl:

Seriously, has that argument EVER worked?
But if we make any argument that implies abortion is okay right up to birth it'll sound to them like we're convicting ourselves out of our own mouths of being fanatics. Your "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread looks like a really good way to try to redirect the conversation onto a more constructive path.
Except this forgets the simple truth that you want to deny, and that is that this has nothing to do with the fetus. And that is why Rhea's plan might work with true pro-lifers, but those people are quite drowned out by the rest of the pro-life movement. And to them, this is about sex.
And when being patient with them is hard, remember we're going to win in the end. Atheism is on the rise; Christianity is fading away.
Have you not been paying attention the past three or four decades? The SCOTUS Is a Christian Dominionistic legal group now with their thumb heavily on the scale of justice.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex. Remember that nobody's a villain in his own mind. If we paint them as villains they won't recognize themselves so it will just come off to them as evidence that we're stupid and/or dishonest. In their minds, they're Abraham Lincoln trying to free the slaves and we're Stephen Douglas saying if you don't approve of slave-owning don't own one. So we need to try to undermine that analogy. We could try to have a rational conversation about why they think life begins at conception, and maybe point out the Bible doesn't say that. But if we make any argument that implies abortion is okay right up to birth it'll sound to them like we're convicting ourselves out of our own mouths of being fanatics. Your "Policies that will reduce abortions - a collaborative look" thread looks like a really good way to try to redirect the conversation onto a more constructive path.

And when being patient with them is hard, remember we're going to win in the end. Atheism is on the rise; Christianity is fading away.
But if you don't recognize the heart of the issue there's no reasonable hope of solving it. And for most of them the heart of the issue is punishing sex they disapprove of.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
But if you don't recognize the heart of the issue there's no reasonable hope of solving it. And for most of them the heart of the issue is punishing sex they disapprove of.

I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex.
The problem is it is impossible to solve a problem when you ignore the data. ...This isn't demonizing anyone, it is recognizing truth. It is putting all of the pieces to the puzzle together that provide us their motive. The movement is anti-sex.
How does making an issue of that help solve the problem? They are what they are. Explaining to them that the people they look down on look down on them too is going to make them want to change in order to earn our approval?

Remember that nobody's a villain in his own mind. If we paint them as villains they won't recognize themselves so it will just come off to them as evidence that we're stupid and/or dishonest. In their minds, they're Abraham Lincoln trying to free the slaves and we're Stephen Douglas saying if you don't approve of slave-owning don't own one. So we need to try to undermine that analogy. We could try to have a rational conversation about why they think life begins at conception, and maybe point out the Bible doesn't say that.
(my emphasis)
:rofl:

Seriously, has that argument EVER worked?
Define "worked". This is America. Elections here are not won and lost over persuading wavering members of the opposition that your side has better arguments, or better values. Elections are won and lost on turnout. People decide not to vote because of rain; they can certainly decide not to vote because of not being angry. Let's not make them angry.

And when being patient with them is hard, remember we're going to win in the end. Atheism is on the rise; Christianity is fading away.
Have you not been paying attention the past three or four decades? The SCOTUS Is a Christian Dominionistic legal group now with their thumb heavily on the scale of justice.
They'll get old. The US population is turning atheist at almost 1% a year. In three or four decades they won't be able to find Christian Dominionistic judges to replace them with.
 
Top Bottom