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

Roe v Wade is on deck

I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
 
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
I haven't found that to be true myself.

"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.

Similarly,
"Pro-Life" people don't really believe in life. Only certain lives.

As a rule, I find almost all of them hypocritical socio-political extremists.

At least the ones who are noisy on the internet or are running for political office and that sort of thing. Hypocrisy abounds.
Tom
 
The terms pro-choice and pro-life aren't ideal. An alternative for the pro-life point of view is relatively straight forward - pro-birth, or pro forced-birth if I was feeling ungenerous. An alternative for pro-choice isn't as easy - pro-abortion doesn't really do it, and something like anti forced birth is a bit of a mouthful...
 
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
I haven't found that to be true myself.

"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
 
I agree that’s an interesting difference between the camps. Pro-choicers know what they are arguing against. Pro-Lifers ususally do not, they are arguing against a caricature, and they like it that way; they have zero interest in hearing the reason for opposition.
I haven't found that to be true myself.

"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.

Similarly,
"Pro-Life" people don't really believe in life. Only certain lives.
Really? What choices do the pro-choice people NOT believe in?

I’m quite surprised by this claim and wondering what you mean.
 
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom
 
I suspect that the timing for this decision may have had something to do with the election coming a half year later, giving the GOP candidates time to work on softening the negative impact on their image. In November, the abortion issue may not be the hottest one in the election, and there will be ample time stoke anger against the arrogant "woke" Democrats, who will be dealing with simultaneous inflation and a recession. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter when OPEC caused a huge spike in oil prices and cars formed lines at gas stations. Interest rate hikes may cool down the job market. I already have one Facebook friend who is so outraged at the cost of filling his diesel-guzzling truck that he vows not to vote for Democrats in November.
Except this isn’t about abortion, it never has been. This is about regulating sex and states are already pushing legislation to ban birth control. This isn’t giving anyone cover. There is still time to write rebuttals and once this comes out, we’ll realize the most important elections of our time was every single election from 2000 to 2016.
It’s not about regulating sex. It’s about regulating and controlling women.
[removed]

[removed for consistency] It isn't about sex. It is about controlling women, who happen to be usually defined as those people who biologically develop uteruses. That some people happen to also develop male genitalia in no way saves them from the social stigma.
I meant what I wrote above: it’s about controlling women, particularly those who are or who will become of reproductive age. Of course the right wingers who are passionately anti-abortion —or are so publicly—are only willing to acknowledge that cis-women exist.

As for trans men and women: no one should be deceived or complacent: they just gave not yet gotten around to transgendered people yet, full force, although there are forays in some states. This will escalate. Or gay/lesbian people. But it’s coming.
 
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
Or who are actively seeking to deceive.
Or desperately needing their depraved world view to seem like it's no worse than others.
 
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom

YOU presented two sides, not me. Saying things you don't like, commenting on "both sides are the same" mentality, etc., are not identifiers of an us v. them extremist world view.

Certain people LOVE complaining about some political nastiness or stupidity and saying, "on both sides!" as if there's really no difference in behavior among people of very different ways of thinking, which of course are many and varied, but in the US and some other places, there is almost always some level of divide between left and right, or liberal and conservative. There's a reason for this and that reason lies in human heads.

Left and right ideologies are not like sports teams where everyone plays by the same rules and there's just two different team colors on two identical ends of the field. In ideology and world view, it's not an arbitrary distinction. There's a reason there's more criminal indictments and convictions among Republicans than Democrats, and it's not even close. There's a reason that authoritarian religions meld so well with conservative parties but not with liberal parties. There's a reason that you find a hell of a lot more authoritarian personalities on the right wing end of the spectrum and relatively few on the left. There's a reason so many accused or convicted abusers find it so easy to get on a Republican ticket for political office but virtually none can find themselves a Democrat party candidate, and when there are, people within the party actually speak out. They don't ignore it, excuse it, downplay it, or lie about it just because it's their side.

And there's a reason that right wingers will go and try to find all the examples of Dems or liberals doing any of these things and believe that whatever small number they find would compare to the mountain of Republican wrongdoing and misdeed they're ignoring.

There's a reason for this. As my signature says, the worst of human thought and behavior pools to the right. It doesn't mean anyone is dumb or unaware or any of those things that do indeed pool to the right. It just means that some people who are not dumb or unaware choose to not examine their beliefs honestly or objectively and instead choose to dig in deeper and continue to take an impersonal world even more personally.

I could go on and on, but I have better things to do today than to educate you on right wing / left wing world view and psychology, and how it all gives rise to society wide movements, attitudes, and beliefs, and to the crises and events that we're seeing in the world and have seen throughout history.

Also, people with a right wing world view and way of thinking can sometimes be pro choice or even atheist.
 
And to add to that "both sides" bullshit, it's not a matter of polarization being because "both sides" fall prey to extremist media, hate and fear mongering, ignorance, ideology bubbles and whatever else factors into causing extremists to attack the Capitol of our country. All people are guilty of a whole buffet of stupidities, but not all people equally. Capacity is not the same as tendency.

We're polarized because one side allows for and attracts those tendencies and can easily be led by the nose if their prejudices, fears, and religious/national identity are tapped by con artists. It takes education, flexibility, and self reflection to overcome those tendencies.
 
Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.
You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom
What does that even mean?

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but not to actually have one?
 
Amy Coney Barrett’s focus on ‘safe haven’ laws during Supreme Court abortion arguments draws attention, scrutiny
She noted that all states have such laws enabling people to “terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after abortion.” These measures, she said, appear to remove the “burdens of parenting” emphasized in Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the 1992 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the pivotal ruling.

“Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy,” Barrett said. “Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”
 
Get back to me when people can’t “find” their mothers 30 years later through DNA testing of 3rd parties. Then she can claim to have “removed the burden.”

edited to add, and when she can remove all the worry in the intervening years that any day, that “finding” can happen.

I know people who have found their birth parents because a sibling of that parent took a DNA test. And they narrowed in on the parent and made contact.

Several of the cases were happy meetings. One, was absolutely not.

But my point is that adoption does NOT “remove the burden of parenthood.”
 
"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
... Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
He said "Only certain choices", not "Only certain pregnancy choices." Most people who call themselves "pro-choice" are anti-choice about a lot of stuff. Give some examples? Well, you're anti-choice about the gig economy. And aren't you anti-choice about people broadcasting their political opinions without permission of the FEC?
 
"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
... Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
He said "Only certain choices", not "Only certain pregnancy choices." Most people who call themselves "pro-choice" are anti-choice about a lot of stuff. Give some examples? Well, you're anti-choice about the gig economy. And aren't you anti-choice about people broadcasting their political opinions without permission of the FEC?

Everyone knows what the "choice" in question involves a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is really up to TomC to clarify what he meant. Similarly, everyone knows what the "life" in pro-life means. It's about the life of the fetus, not the mother or human live in general. Out of context, these labels could mean many different things, but we know what the intended context is.
 
"Pro-Choice" people don't really believe in choice. Only certain choices.
... Give some examples.

I've never met a single individual who calls themself pro-choice that doesn't support the choice to keep the baby for term and/or adoption. So let's hear your 'certain choice'.
He said "Only certain choices", not "Only certain pregnancy choices." Most people who call themselves "pro-choice" are anti-choice about a lot of stuff. Give some examples? Well, you're anti-choice about the gig economy. And aren't you anti-choice about people broadcasting their political opinions without permission of the FEC?

Everyone knows what the "choice" in question involves a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is really up to TomC to clarify what he meant. Similarly, everyone knows what the "life" in pro-life means. It's about the life of the fetus, not the mother or human live in general. Out of context, these labels could mean many different things, but we know what the intended context is.
We do; but that rarely seems to stop the pro-pregnancy-choice from hassling the pro-fetal-life over calling themselves "pro-life" even though they favor gun rights and the death penalty and whatnot. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...
 
So, generally when I see people stumping for the power of people to make choices, usually that power is to "choice of informed consent".

One can always make a choice to revoke consent to the use of their organs. The information here is generally simple.

One cannot make a choice of informed consent for someone else to the use of their organs.

Really, folks who are pro-choice ARE in fact for a very general form of rights to choice, namely speaking the right to informed consent of the use of their own bodies but also a right to informed consent in general.

So yes, pro choice generally references a specific choice but it doesn't need to: the most general form intended by the turn of phrase, "choice of informed consent" does not really touch on other choices.

Pro-life does not really get that luxury. If all they are is pro-fetal-life, then they are not pro-life, they are pro-birth.
 
Back
Top Bottom