|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 10 2017 11:00 farvacola wrote:That'd be called denying a petition for certiorari 
if the likely outcome were a 4-4 split, seems unlikely that there would enough judges agreeing to grant certiorari, anyways.
|
On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe.
You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it.
|
On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery?
There are more positions and opinions on the issue than you could reasonably put on a poll.
My opinion is not quite the full choice option, but it's the closest to what I believe is correct, which is why I picked that.
|
On February 10 2017 11:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:12 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2017 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:
kwiz, he directly said "We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged, and it was." is there any ambiguity whatsoever? Apparently so, since he clarified his comments and said that the process was fair, that he was addressing the fact that there was a perception that it wasn't, and that the chair should be "transparent and objective" even if s/he doesn't actually do anything to tip the scales. You are so reasonable in so many ways that it blows my mind how tightly you have hung on to the idea that Bernie had a totally fair shot at the nomination. I didn't vote for him (was over by Oregon anyway), but this idea that he and Clinton were on a totally level playing field (even disregarding superdelegates) is insane. Him specifically saying there is an interpretation, then affirming that interpretation are 2 distinct thoughts. Are you saying he meant to say "Bernie people thought this. And they sure did think that"? He was a combative, populist, unrealistic and somewhat uninformed candidate. He openly said he would change things in a way that would actually even be bad for the democratic party establishment. It shouldn't be a surprise they worked against him, but dude, they totally did.
Perez meant that (1) most Democratic party officials, and in particular the DNC chair (DWS), preferred HRC to Sanders (something that nobody is denying and that is easily understandable), and that (2) many Sanders voters felt that the process was unfair, notably due to a lack of transparency over some of its aspects. In response to these issues, he is saying that (a) he will be unbiased and (b) the process will be transparent. He didn't mean that (3) this personal preference was acted upon by DNC officials to actually make the process unfair. The idea that Perez actually revealed the existence of a conspiracy against Sanders only to realize what he'd done and walk it back later on, instead of simply not expressing himself clearly and clarifying later what he meant (which is what he's been saying for a while), seems pretty ridiculous to me, but if that's what you want to believe we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
On February 10 2017 11:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it.
If people are going to break the law anyways, then the law might not be the solution. We normally have reasons for passing laws or changing the constitution. Like that time we made booze illegal and is totally backfired.
I am pointing out the reality if the law you are proposing. If your goal is unsafe abortions and putting desperate women in prison for choices that make you uncomfortable, outlaw abortion. Because these are the things that happen in countries where abortion is illegal.
|
It appears Chaffetz's popularity might have taken a hit. I think it might have been that push to take away healthcare. Or to sell of national parks.
|
On February 10 2017 11:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:37 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it. If people are going to break the law anyways, then the law might not be the solution. We normally have reasons for passing laws or changing the constitution. Like that time we made booze illegal and is totally backfired. I am pointing out the reality if the law you are proposing. If your goal is unsafe abortions and putting desperate women in prison for choices that make you uncomfortable, outlaw abortion. Because these are the things that happen in countries where abortion is illegal.
I'm not going to operate from such a utilitarian perspective when dealing with the unborn, and even that based on a cynical assumption about how all women are simply going to follow the path you outline for them. Still didn't answer my question, and it leads me to believe you don't really even care.
|
On February 10 2017 11:59 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:50 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:37 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across.
[quote]
Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it. If people are going to break the law anyways, then the law might not be the solution. We normally have reasons for passing laws or changing the constitution. Like that time we made booze illegal and is totally backfired. I am pointing out the reality if the law you are proposing. If your goal is unsafe abortions and putting desperate women in prison for choices that make you uncomfortable, outlaw abortion. Because these are the things that happen in countries where abortion is illegal. I'm not going to operate from such a utilitarian perspective when dealing with the unborn, and even that based on a cynical assumption about how all women are simply going to follow the path you outline for them. Still didn't answer my question, and it leads me to believe you don't really even care.
Utilitarian perspective is the perspective of crafting laws. Law impact real people. They are not theoretical. The reason I didn't answer you question is because it doesn't matter when crafting abortion laws. Intent doesn't matter, impact matters. You are talking about imposing your or my morality into law while ignoring the real social impact of the legislation. To do that would be irresponsible, especially since I cannot get pregnant.
People were morally opposed to drinking(along with some very real xenophobia toward Germans, Irish and Italians), but that didn't make prohibition anything but a complete disaster.
|
On February 10 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:59 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:50 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:37 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it. If people are going to break the law anyways, then the law might not be the solution. We normally have reasons for passing laws or changing the constitution. Like that time we made booze illegal and is totally backfired. I am pointing out the reality if the law you are proposing. If your goal is unsafe abortions and putting desperate women in prison for choices that make you uncomfortable, outlaw abortion. Because these are the things that happen in countries where abortion is illegal. I'm not going to operate from such a utilitarian perspective when dealing with the unborn, and even that based on a cynical assumption about how all women are simply going to follow the path you outline for them. Still didn't answer my question, and it leads me to believe you don't really even care. Utilitarian perspective is the perspective of crafting laws. Law impact real people. They are not theoretical. The reason I didn't answer you question is because it doesn't matter when crafting abortion laws. Intent doesn't matter, impact matters. You are talking about imposing your or my morality into law while ignoring the real social impact of the legislation. To do that would be irresponsible, especially since I cannot get pregnant. People were morally opposed to drinking(along with some very real xenophobia toward Germans, Irish and Italians), but that didn't make prohibition anything but a complete disaster.
How do you evaluate the net harm done by restricting abortion (mom health by seeking illegal abortion means) versus the fetuses that are carried to term (because of the restriction) without morality?
|
On February 10 2017 12:16 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:59 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:50 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:37 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it. If people are going to break the law anyways, then the law might not be the solution. We normally have reasons for passing laws or changing the constitution. Like that time we made booze illegal and is totally backfired. I am pointing out the reality if the law you are proposing. If your goal is unsafe abortions and putting desperate women in prison for choices that make you uncomfortable, outlaw abortion. Because these are the things that happen in countries where abortion is illegal. I'm not going to operate from such a utilitarian perspective when dealing with the unborn, and even that based on a cynical assumption about how all women are simply going to follow the path you outline for them. Still didn't answer my question, and it leads me to believe you don't really even care. Utilitarian perspective is the perspective of crafting laws. Law impact real people. They are not theoretical. The reason I didn't answer you question is because it doesn't matter when crafting abortion laws. Intent doesn't matter, impact matters. You are talking about imposing your or my morality into law while ignoring the real social impact of the legislation. To do that would be irresponsible, especially since I cannot get pregnant. People were morally opposed to drinking(along with some very real xenophobia toward Germans, Irish and Italians), but that didn't make prohibition anything but a complete disaster. How do you evaluate the net harm done by restricting abortion (mom health by seeking illegal abortion means) versus the fetuses that are carried to term (because of the restriction) without morality?
Morality is completely subjective, based on someones own moral compass. Impact and outcomes are not, those are just reality. If you make abortion illegal for moral reasons, its not about saving the baby. Illegal abortions will take place, more than before. It just increases the chances of the mother being victimized and creates a black market for something that was previously legal.
If someone wants to make abortion illegal for moral reasons, its about them. Because nothing good comes of it. Women didn't get coat hanger abortions because it was the best way to get an abortion. It was just the only way.
|
On February 10 2017 12:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 12:16 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:59 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:50 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:37 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith.
The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. You are making an assumption that mom will find an illegal means of aborting, and then inferring that there is no need to have laws regulating abortion because they will be broken anyways. Also you still didn't answer the question, does it have rights or no? Just be honest about it. If people are going to break the law anyways, then the law might not be the solution. We normally have reasons for passing laws or changing the constitution. Like that time we made booze illegal and is totally backfired. I am pointing out the reality if the law you are proposing. If your goal is unsafe abortions and putting desperate women in prison for choices that make you uncomfortable, outlaw abortion. Because these are the things that happen in countries where abortion is illegal. I'm not going to operate from such a utilitarian perspective when dealing with the unborn, and even that based on a cynical assumption about how all women are simply going to follow the path you outline for them. Still didn't answer my question, and it leads me to believe you don't really even care. Utilitarian perspective is the perspective of crafting laws. Law impact real people. They are not theoretical. The reason I didn't answer you question is because it doesn't matter when crafting abortion laws. Intent doesn't matter, impact matters. You are talking about imposing your or my morality into law while ignoring the real social impact of the legislation. To do that would be irresponsible, especially since I cannot get pregnant. People were morally opposed to drinking(along with some very real xenophobia toward Germans, Irish and Italians), but that didn't make prohibition anything but a complete disaster. How do you evaluate the net harm done by restricting abortion (mom health by seeking illegal abortion means) versus the fetuses that are carried to term (because of the restriction) without morality? Morality is completely subjective, based on someones own moral compass. Impact and outcomes are not, those are just reality. If you make abortion illegal for mortal reasons, its not about saving the baby. Illegal abortions will take place, more than before. It just increases the chances of the mother being victimized and creates a black market for something that was previously legal. If someone wants to make abortion illegal for moral reasons, its about them. Because nothing good comes of it. Women didn't get coat hanger abortions because it was the best way to get an abortion. It was just the only way.
That's what I'm asking you, and you pretend that every woman who wants an abortion will find an illegal means of doing so. How do you evaluate a potential life that gets carried to term because of law that prevents abortion vs the morbidity of a woman who gets a coat hanger abortion - without morality? You are making a moral judgement, and it is to side with the mom rather than the fetus, unless you believe that every single mom will abort her unborn child so that it literally does not matter if there is a law or not.
Recognizing the morality between bodily autonomy vs right to life is common sense to me (it's somewhere in the middle), and any position that completely neglects one side better have a damn good reason for doing so. Christian conservatives cite the bible, and that doesn't mean shit to me. You cite this cynical world where every women is going use a coat hanger abortion, and no lives are saved. None of this is based in reality, and is dogmatic thinking.
I'm done w/ this topic, you have a radical as f position if you think late term abortions are justified outside of the most extreme cases. Make adoption services readily available, make contraceptives free/cheap, make education regarding sex better, but don't just neglect the rights of a fetus because it makes you uncomfortable.
|
Things need to be flexible.
If the country is way too overpopulated, then giving people the ability to abort is okay.
But if the country is in need of more people, then restricting abortion is okay.
|
I never expressed my view on the topic, which is likely similar to yours. I was simply discussing it from a different perspective, which is impact of change the law.
And one does not find the means for an illegal abortion, those are freely available. It's a question of will and risk.
|
On February 10 2017 12:34 RealityIsKing wrote:
Things need to be flexible.
Hence why abortions should be the domain of a woman and her healthcare provider. Laws by nature don't allow for flexibility. The professional judgment of a physician and the moral judgment of individuals do.
Most moral issues are not black and white. If you believe that abortion is a moral issue (the key being "moral" and not "religious" as there's a meaningful distinction here), then you should recognize that legislators in Washington drawing an arbitrary line in the sand is not the correct way to approach it.
|
On February 10 2017 12:41 TheYango wrote:Hence why abortions should be the domain of a woman and her healthcare provider. Laws by nature don't allow for flexibility. The professional judgment of a physician and the moral judgment of individuals do. Most moral issues are not black and white. If you believe that abortion is a moral issue (the key being "moral" and not "religious" as there's a meaningful distinction here), then you should recognize that legislators in Washington drawing an arbitrary line in the sand is not the correct way to approach it.
Well sometime laws need to be relaxing.
The correct way to deal with things like abortion is that it should be decided by going through the proper channels of the congress, white house, and the senate where everybody weigh in whether or not to restrict abortion in the upcoming year so that everybody is on the same page.
It shouldn't just be the woman and the healthcare provider. In this day and age, anything that you do will have an effect on another person.
|
how does the decision to have an abortion impact "another person" to nearly the same degree as the woman?
|
Canada11417 Posts
Morality as subjective is itself a presupposition, but it isn't so obvious that it is a true one.
The utilitarian argument that any law will be broken, so what's the point, safely avoids making any moral claim (although I think that could still be contested), but essentially cedes justification for creating any criminal law at all. Because the reality is people continue to steal, cheat, murder, kidnap and the like despite there being laws against it. So while, true, we gave up on alcohol bans, we haven't thrown up our hands on a host of other laws that are broken every day. The utilitarian 'they will break the law anyway, so what's the point' is then, an insufficient argument.
|
On February 10 2017 12:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
how does the decision to have an abortion impact "another person" to nearly the same degree as the woman?
A country's industries need to be developed enough in order for the country to increase its population.
|
Of course it isn't sufficient on its own, but is a consideration when the stated goal is to "save babies". How many babies would be saved is a reasonable thing to discuss. But we have to ask the moral question, are we better off with desperate women thawing themselves down flights of stairs to end their pregnancy? Do we want to be a nation that takes away rights from women and brings back the coat hanger abortions?
The hyper focus on the morality if terminating the pregnancy neglects the real world impacts of changing the laws. If abortion were outlawed, there would be mass civil unrest and outrage. Likely riots like almost took place in Poland. The discussion around this issue rarely goes into the real political and social consequences of what people asking for.
The same goes for illegal immigration. People want deportations, but don't consider what that looks like. These political footballs are used doe elections, but there is no discussion around the cost of fulling those campaign promises.
|
On February 10 2017 12:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
how does the decision to have an abortion impact "another person" to nearly the same degree as the woman?
How is such a question even supposed to be evaluated? What if you were aborted when you were a wee fetus, is the "impact" small then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1234
560
40
EPT
