The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:00 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2313
Taskiss wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
Do I think ...

I think you over-think it, at least in what I believe are most cases where folks are objecting to abortion. It's about the babies that are being killed and how they're considered less human somehow as justification for killing them. The criteria for being "less than human" is being expanded to the point where I believe that folks are finding that they can't sit it out on the sidelines anymore.

I won't impose a solution on anyone, folks can take more responsibility and raise the kids themselves, they can put kids up for adoption, heck, if they want they can drop the kid off at the nearest firehouse. I don't care. I just feel obligated to do more than I've done in the past to get it turned around where babies have rights.

Safe havens won't last long if they start seeing extensive use. Someone has to pay for all those kids, and if the cost becomes high the same personal responsibility line will be used to eliminate them. You chose to have sex, now it's your responsibility to raise the kid.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:24 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4700
Location: Cincinnati OH
Taskiss wrote:
Elite much? :lol: Polls are meaningless, the only thing that matters is votes, and we each get only one. Really burns you, doesn’t it? All those deplorable...having as much say as you in determining the future.

Technocracy is just another way to disenfranchise the folks that have to live in the same world with the arrogant idiots that feel they’re better than the rest. I can’t say I’m surprised that the “we’re all equal” argument carries so little weight with you.

Get ready for change. Your arrogance blinded you two years ago and it’ll continue doing so because you only see what you want.


tl;dr "I don't understand polls. Gerrymandering is okay as long as we win! Libtards are angry, it must be right! I have no qualifications, but damnit I know whats right and we're the best so we're going to win!"


What's REALLY funny here is that you're contradicting yourself in a single statement. Because the ONLY reason the GOP controls the Senate and the Presidency is the fact that every person's vote is NOT equal. People in Republican leaning states are vastly over represented in both the electoral college and the Senate.

The reason you're dismissing the polls is because they're telling a story you don't want to hear. That the majority of Americans favor abortion rights, favor all these policies, but because the structure of the federal gov't, you get more voting power.

But whatever. Go you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3845
Location: 63368
TheRiov wrote:
The reason you're dismissing the polls is...

2016

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:52 am 
Offline
Not the ranger you're looking for
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 320
Location: Here
Taskiss wrote:
I think you over-think it, at least in what I believe are most cases where folks are objecting to abortion. It's about the babies that are being killed and how they're considered less human somehow as justification for killing them. The criteria for being "less than human" is being expanded to the point where I believe that folks are finding that they can't sit it out on the sidelines anymore.

I won't impose a solution on anyone, folks can take more responsibility and raise the kids themselves, they can put kids up for adoption, heck, if they want they can drop the kid off at the nearest firehouse. I don't care. I just feel obligated to do more than I've done in the past to get it turned around where babies have rights.


For me, this sums it up in a nutshell.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:47 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7494
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
I do not like abortion. As a general idea I think it is a bad idea and the Hippocratic oath forbids using a knowledge of medicine to perform an abortion. Specifically, it forbids a pessary being inserted to cause an abortion.

However, it isn't my body growing that baby, and the law of the land allows women to receive abortions if they so choose.

I believe it is a good idea to allow people to choose what happens with their own bodies. But I would also choose to not have diabetes, obesity, and kidney disease if that were possible.

I also don't believe we can put the cork back in the bottle at this point. If the law of the land is changed and abortions are once again outlawed, women will still find ways for it to happen and unethical people will happily take their money, and sometimes their lives or future fertility in botched operations.

I was careful, I never planted a baby in anyone's womb except for my wife. Some of you can say this, some of you may not be able to say this. Making babies is a two person operation way too many guys have walked away from the responsibility of caring for their children.

This is one of those topics where we are not going to agree, like most of the things addressed here. You aren't going to change anyone's mind on this forum. Keep arguing all you want to, but realize your efforts are wasted here.

If you can't tell by now, I'm reluctantly pro-choice. I just wish we taught kids enough that no one ever had to make that choice.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Last edited by Micheal on Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3845
Location: 63368
Micheal, won’t be too much longer till you and I have to guard our end of the field, would be better than bad to say a beating heart and brainwaves means it’s no other can make our call but us.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9257
Location: Ohio
Taskiss wrote:
Micheal, won’t be too much longer till you and I have to guard our end of the field, would be better than bad to say a beating heart and brainwaves means it’s no other can make our call but us.

I think you were going for a Malcolm Reynolds impersonation here?

Are you trying to say that someone is going to come and pull your life support because you are old?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3845
Location: 63368
Hopwin wrote:
I think you were going for a Malcolm Reynolds impersonation here?

Well, that's how both my father and grandfather talked, so I'm thinking Mal is impersonating them. Only guess I'd guess would be something in the way German translates to English might explain things... but anyway, I seem to be turning into them so I'm not really surprised. I know no German at all but I was raised around it.
Hopwin wrote:
Are you trying to say that someone is going to come and pull your life support because you are old?

I don't want anyone to come in thinking someone's rights are less for any reason, but the weakest are the ones usually getting dealt the short straw first, so yes, someone at some point will weigh my usefullness against my operating costs... and there are those that feel they're good with that, look at some previous posts. Nationalize healthcare and do it the way the VA does it and I'd guarantee it would happen.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:24 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5048
Individuals don't matter when weighed against the society.

The fact that the society is nothing but a collection of individuals doesn't matter because the reasoning is only an excuse to justify and thus gain support for actions that these people would be gutted in the street without the moral pass - at least until they can seize enough power to intimidate and kill off anyone else.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:22 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9257
Location: Ohio
Taskiss wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
I think you were going for a Malcolm Reynolds impersonation here?

Well, that's how both my father and grandfather talked, so I'm thinking Mal is impersonating them. Only guess I'd guess would be something in the way German translates to English might explain things... but anyway, I seem to be turning into them so I'm not really surprised. I know no German at all but I was raised around it.

You are coming across as the Futurama hyper-chicken lawyer...
Image
Maybe revert back to your old persona?
Quote:
I don't want anyone to come in thinking someone's rights are less for any reason, but the weakest are the ones usually getting dealt the short straw first, so yes, someone at some point will weigh my usefulness against my operating costs... and there are those that feel they're good with that, look at some previous posts. Nationalize healthcare and do it the way the VA does it and I'd guarantee it would happen.

So the VA is euthanizing veterans?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3845
Location: 63368
Hopwin wrote:
You are coming across as the Futurama hyper-chicken lawyer...
Image
Maybe revert back to your old persona?
eh, if the wind happens to blow back in that direction I just might. stay tuned!
Quote:
I don't want anyone to come in thinking someone's rights are less for any reason, but the weakest are the ones usually getting dealt the short straw first, so yes, someone at some point will weigh my usefulness against my operating costs... and there are those that feel they're good with that, look at some previous posts. Nationalize healthcare and do it the way the VA does it and I'd guarantee it would happen.

Hopwin wrote:
So the VA is euthanizing veterans?
No, that would suggest the deaths were humane.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:23 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3059
TheRiov wrote:
If the Right's real concern were avoiding aborted fetuses, then free birth control, better sex education, getting rid of (proven ineffective) abstinence only sex ed, etc would be the top of their agendas; you know, policies that ACTUALLY reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Why can't we have both? See, I still don't think you have any understanding of the right's view on this issue. If you did, you would understand that you just stated conservatives should ignore legal murder in bargain for reducing some of these murders. You can have birth control (but pay for it your damned self) and better sex ed without the need to permit murder for the sake of convenience. This isn't like providing clean needles to addicts to reduce hepatitis - at least the addicts have some level of choice in continuing to use. If you understood the right's perspective on this, you would understand how reprehensible your statement is. That we should continue to stomach the murder of the most vulnerable population is beyond intolerable.

TheRiov wrote:
But that isn't what is done. Stated or un-, the Right wants to push their sexual mores on the rest of the country, and one way they seem to want to do that is make sex so consequence-laden that its no one would risk it.

Oh let's not pretend one side is pushing their sexual mores on everyone. But yes, when it comes to a baby's life being on the line, it absolutely should be consequence-laden insofar as you both bear that child to birth. It's not like the right is saying people should have to live with syphilis because they got laid outside of wedlock. If someone truly wants to divorce themselves of most of the consequences of sex, then pretty much all insurances will pay 100% for vasectomies or tubals.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:04 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3059
RangerDave wrote:
Do I think most pro-life people actually analogize their position to broadly applicable legal and moral doctrines? No, but I absolutely do think most of them are motivated more by the belief that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions than by a belief that people need to be punished for their sins. Or to put it another way, I think most pro-life people view carrying a child to term more as a responsibility than a punishment.

Pretty much this, but I think you're half right. I think the larger part of the argument is not taking life (hence, "pro-life"), but that is pretty firmly joined with the responsibility piece you mention here.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3078
Screeling wrote:
Pretty much this, but I think you're half right. I think the larger part of the argument is not taking life (hence, "pro-life"), but that is pretty firmly joined with the responsibility piece you mention here.

Oh for sure. I didn't mean to deny that "saving babies", so to speak, is the primary motivation. I just meant that the additional element that TheRiov sees as a desire to punish is actually more an assignment of responsibility/obligation - i.e., compulsory not punitive.

On a related note, how do you (and/or anyone else more or less on the pro-life side of things here) think about issues of incidental fetal harm - i.e., where the pregnant woman knowingly or negligently does something that will harm the fetus but where that harm is a side effect rather than the goal as it is in abortion? If the the pro-life position on abortion is to some degree based on a principle that the mother has a moral obligation to the fetus arising from assumption of risk through sex, that principle would seem to extend beyond simply "not killing" and include "not harming" or potentially even "affirmatively aiding". For example, from a pro-life / moral obligation perspective, if a pregnant woman has cancer and decides to get chemo even though it will likely kill or severely harm the fetus, should that be entirely her choice or should it be restricted/punished? What if a pregnant woman abuses drugs or alcohol, engages in risky activities like skydiving or working as a firefighter, or simply fails to do basic pre-natal care like taking pre-natal vitamins, eating healthy, etc.? I know this issue tends to get hand-waived away by pro-life activists as a slippery slope scare tactic, but I think it's a legit question. Is there a limiting principle in there that I'm not seeing, or is it purely a balancing of interests test?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5048
The fundamental logic behind the position of responsibility is obvious in other places in society and even law.

If X creates a condition that removes ability from Y and that condition results in harm to Y X can be held accountable.

Does this change if the condition is existence? No.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Abortion
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:21 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3059
RangerDave wrote:
Oh for sure. I didn't mean to deny that "saving babies", so to speak, is the primary motivation. I just meant that the additional element that TheRiov sees as a desire to punish is actually more an assignment of responsibility/obligation - i.e., compulsory not punitive.

Ok, cool. Then yeah, I can diggit.

RangerDave wrote:
On a related note... <snip>

For example, from a pro-life / moral obligation perspective, if a pregnant woman has cancer and decides to get chemo even though it will likely kill or severely harm the fetus, should that be entirely her choice or should it be restricted/punished?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're reframing the abortion question into a life-and-death situation where the mom's death is not imminent, but possible without treatment. I don't see that the answer changes because the principle still applies. I think your later questions were more the core of what you're asking though.

RangerDave wrote:
What if a pregnant woman abuses drugs or alcohol, engages in risky activities like skydiving or working as a firefighter, or simply fails to do basic pre-natal care like taking pre-natal vitamins, eating healthy, etc.?

Drugs/alcohol definitely impact the health and development, but not necessarily the life of the baby. I would see this like a parent taking poor care of their child (at any age) and would advocate for removal of the baby from the mother upon birth, which is pretty much what some states do. There's one state somewhere (Tennessee?) where mothers caught abusing drugs have their children removed and are charged with some kind of reckless endangerment or something. The quandary with your situation is how do we stop mom from doing further harm. The options seem to be 1) intensive counseling, therapy, screening, and then removal of custody; 2) forced induction, assuming it's viable; 3) detain mom in medical-psychiatric facility to prevent further harm; or 4) do nothing until child is born and remove from custody. Choices 2 and 3 seem morally repugnant since it is removing the mother's rights to make her own medical decisions and it always feels wrong even when the courts back the decision. I've had to take part in forcing medication onto a patient because they're getting violent and even then, I don't like how I feel afterward.

Realistically though, society has moved in the direction of giving mom chances to get her act together for the sake of keeping a family together so I think option 1 would be the best with threats of criminal consequences for noncompliance (subject to interprofessional review, i.e. physician + social worker + CPS agent + lawyers, probably).

RangerDave wrote:
I know this issue tends to get hand-waived away by pro-life activists as a slippery slope scare tactic, but I think it's a legit question. Is there a limiting principle in there that I'm not seeing, or is it purely a balancing of interests test?

I've never really heard people ask these scenarios, myself. The limiting principle seems to be taking action when mom's choices are endangering the life and wellbeing of the child, unborn or otherwise. The difficulty comes in defining a standard for "wellbeing" that allows room for the freedom of bad parents to be bad parents as opposed to criminal parents. If I didn't answer your question, let me know. Not trying to dodge any points but may have missed something you were driving at.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group