Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Pro-choice distortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Nazis sincerely believe that the Jewish race is sub-human and should be eliminated for the good of mankind. You sincerely believe that all men are created equal have an inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    How would you comprise between these diametrically opposed ideas?
    So...to make this a proper analogy...we'd have to add a couple things.

    1) Nazis are dominating the war (as pro-choice has dominated this war).
    2) There is no historical reason for believing the war can be brought to a conclusion (as this war has no end in sight).

    With those two additions, if I perpetuate the war, dedicated to "fighting evil," then I am inadvertently condemning generations of Jews to be slaughtered. While I will continue to try to change the Nazi perspective, I may also have to accept that I am not going to change it, and I cannot defeat them. So if my goal is to end the atrocity of Jews dying, given 1) and 2) above, then my "compromise" would likely take the form of finding strategies to separate Jews from Nazi's, so the probability of them being killed is reduced/eliminated. For those I cannot separate, I would need to find strategies to make letting them live more attractive than killing them.

    And to predict your response - I realize you cannot separate the "fetus" the the "pro-choicer." That is the unique conundrum of this war. The only way to successfully get that separation to happen is to a) work to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and b) make carry/adopt a more desirable choice than abortion (without triggering the law of unintended consequences).
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      AFAICT, the conflict of rights will never be resolved. The only possible compromises have to be pre-pregnancy, to significantly reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Once the pregnancy occurs, the only approach I can think of is to use human psychology: carrying/placing has to be made more attractive than aborting, without triggering the law of unintended consequences.
      what makes you think we are not doing this? Of course we Christians are trying to educate young people about not getting pregnant. Heck the bible teaches not to have sex until marriage. And we also try to educate people about adoption too. None if this is is anything new. We are already doing this.


      What are the details? I have absolutely no idea. If I had such a solution, I'd probably be a rich man (or a famous one). It will take people from both sides working together to conceive of these and implement them. So long as it is one side - it will be viewed with suspicion by the other side.
      So as I said earlier, this whole thing is just you being a sanctimonious prig, trying to claim the high ground and insisting we need to compromise our values to save lives, and all along you have no actual solution. You just want to sound like you are being more fair and better than us unwavering prolifers. Got it.

      But so long as people are busily "waging the war," that is not happening.



      Perhaps I am not being clear about what I mean by "stop waging the war." I am not suggesting the right close their crisis pregnancy centers. I am not suggesting the right embrace abortion. I am suggesting the right put down its inflammatory language and assumptions that the other side is "bad." Stop using "abortion mill" and skewing data and testing people's words to make them sound horrible. Recognize that BOTH sides are engaging in an intellectually dishonest war of words and commit to stopping your own contribution to it. Dial down the rhetoric. Look for ways to engage, discuss, and seek solutions. Communicate that the rights of a woman are also important to you, instead of focusing just on the child.

      The right has the harder row to hoe in this - because you see the fetus as a child (as do I) and they do not. So your acknowledgement that a woman has rights that must also be respected won't be reciprocated because they do not believe it is a child with rights to be respected. Since you cannot agree on that, set it aside. Leave it "agree to disagree" and approach it from "avoid unwanted pregnancies. That is something both sides could agree on.
      I will never acknowledge a women has rights to kill her baby. That is ridiculous. The baby is not part of her body. She has the right not to get pregnant, the right to have her tubes tied or use birth control, or to abstain from sex. Once pregnant, she has to take responsibility for the life she created. She can give it up for adoption, but she cannot end it's life. There is no compromise there.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I would't. A pro-choice person can only BE a pro-choice person if they do not believe the fetus is an independent human being. The moment they see it as a human being - their pro-choice stance collapses. Despite all of the accusations from the right, I don't know a single person on the left that seriously questions their position on "when life begins." I'm sure some exist, but every single person I know is, AFAICT, not being disingenuous. They don't hold the position so they can have an abortion. They don't hold the position so they can claim "woman's rights." They hold the position - and the rest follows from it. Despite Tab's statement, most of these people have not been "deceived." They simply use different criteria to determine when life begins. The current abortion conundrum is a comparatively new thing. For much of human history, the dominant position was that life began at "quickening," so there has long been a point, somewhere between conception and birth, that was the "here it begins" mark.

        The morality of taking a life is not something we believe differently. The right of an adult person to make their own medical decisions is not something we believe differently. The core difference is "when a human life begins." That is a scientific/philosophical question that will NOT be resolved. It hasn't for 50 years, and I have no basis for thinking it will be in the next 50 years.

        So my starting place is to accept this reality - and ask "what can we do in light of this reality?"
        That was an impressively verbose non-answer, even for you. Remember, the question was, "How would you go about convincing a pro-abortionist that he should change his subjective opinion on this issue?" and you did everything but answer it. I was about to say "directly answer", but your response can't even be construed as an indirect answer.

        Ever consider running for political office? You'd be a natural.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          ...my "compromise" would likely take the form of finding strategies to separate Jews from Nazi's, so the probability of them being killed is reduced/eliminated. For those I cannot separate, I would need to find strategies to make letting them live more attractive than killing them.
          So your "comprise" is, essentially, let the Nazis win.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            So as I said earlier, this whole thing is just you being a sanctimonious prig, trying to claim the high ground and insisting we need to compromise our values to save lives, and all along you have no actual solution. You just want to sound like you are being more fair and better than us unwavering prolifers. Got it.
            He's already conceded that the pro-abortion faction doesn't recognize there is any problem to solve, so where's the common ground? What motivation do they have to compromise with pro-lifers? As far as they're concerned, we should just sit down, shutup, and stay out of their way. It's entirely the woman's decision whether or not to use birth control, and entirely her decision whether or not to seek an abortion as a "remedy" for pregnancy, and we should keep our noses out of her business.

            So I ask again, where's the common ground? What is there to compromise?
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              How will they pack the court? Are they going to murder the sitting Justices they don't like?
              All they have to do is what FDR threatened to do. Expand the number of justice on the SCOTUS until you reach the point where the majority agrees with you. If currently you're losing 6-3 then you appoint 4 more judges so that you win 7-6.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Nazis sincerely believe that the Jewish race is sub-human and should be eliminated for the good of mankind.
                Yup. They likened the Jewish people to a disease infecting humanity and themselves to Pasteur and Koch in their move to eradicate them.

                As I've previously pointed out:
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Without going through the whole thread I'll assume that the Nazis were brought up as an example already. They thought that they were doing a great service for not just Germany but all of Europe in their campaign to exterminate the Jews. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis" and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered them.

                Hitler cites Louis Pasteur, as well as Robert Koch (the father of microbiology who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his tuberculosis findings in 1905), as inspirations for the Holocaust.

                During one of his Table Talks on February 22, 1942 Hitler remarked that:

                It is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! Japan would also have got them if it had remained open any longer to the Jew. We will get well when we eliminate the Jew.


                Similarly on July 10, 1942, Hitler stated:

                I feel I am like Robert Koch in politics. He discovered the bacillus and thereby ushered medical science onto new paths. I discovered the Jew as the bacillus and the fermenting agent of all social decomposition.


                In a speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937, Hitler explained that the anti-Jewish policy he had inaugurated reflected his endeavor to make the German people "immune against this infection." Measures enacted by the Nazis, Hitler claimed, were designed to enable the German people to avoid "close relationship with the carriers of this poisonous bacillus." For as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

                Could anyone believe that Germany alone was not subject to exactly the same laws as all other human organisms?


                It's from a speech in Salzburg in the August of 1920 where Hitler we can see he compared the Jews to a disease – the aforementioned "racial tuberculosis" – in need of eradication:

                For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.


                And it wasn't just Hitler.

                In an infamous speech delivered to SS leaders and army generals on October 6, 1943, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler defended the radical policy he had instituted by declaring that Germany had the "moral right, the duty towards our people to destroy this people that wanted to destroy us." We do not want, he said, to be "infected by this bacillus and to die."

                In his 1935-6 propaganda booklet about the SS as an anti-Bolshevik battle organization, Himmler presented his theory that struggles between Jews and nations had occurred throughout history. The "battle against peoples conducted by Jews," Himmler proclaimed, "has belonged, so far as we can look back, to the natural course of life on our planet." One could calmly reach the conviction, therefore, that the struggle of life and death—between nations and Jews—is as much a law of nature as "man's struggle against some epidemic;" as the struggle of a healthy body against "plague bacillus."

                Therefore, according to Himmler’s deranged reasoning, just as human beings throughout history always had been attacked by bacteria, so nations throughout history always had been attacked by Jews. The "life and death struggle" between nations and Jews, therefore, could not be avoided. This struggle represented a "law of nature" that was part of the "natural course of life on our planet."

                So, for the Nazis it was their moral right, duty even, to eliminate the Jews.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  what makes you think we are not doing this? Of course we Christians are trying to educate young people about not getting pregnant. Heck the bible teaches not to have sex until marriage. And we also try to educate people about adoption too. None if this is is anything new. We are already doing this.
                  There is some effort here, I know, but it is overshadowed by "the war." Each side distrusts the other, so the efforts aren't going to penetrate very far into the public sphere. Furthermore, if there is going to be compromise, it is here that it must happen. One way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, for example, is to make contraception more available and not seen as a "bad" thing. At the same time, abstinence is also a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. For the two sides to arrive at a compromise - bring BOTH options to the table in a concerted effort - rather than warring an undermining one another's messages, would be progress.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I will never acknowledge a women has rights to kill her baby. That is ridiculous. The baby is not part of her body. She has the right not to get pregnant, the right to have her tubes tied or use birth control, or to abstain from sex. Once pregnant, she has to take responsibility for the life she created. She can give it up for adoption, but she cannot end it's life. There is no compromise there.
                  That is not what you are acknowledging. You would be acknowledging that a woman does have a right to make medical decisions about her own body without government intervention. SO the message would look like this:

                  Look, I recognize and understand that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions without government intervention. After all - I'm not particularly excited about government intervention in our personal space! But I also believe a fetus is a life. I know you don't believe that, but because I do, it creates a horrific situation. I'd like to explore ways we can craft solutions that respect your concern about freedom of choice while also respecting my concern about the life of what I see as an unborn child.


                  In sales, this is called "Drop the Rope." Instead of continuing to haul on your end of the line, committing both sides to a perpetual tug-of-war, you let go of your end and acknowledge the concerns of the other side - then ask for consideration of the things you are trying to put forward. It's amazing how often it works.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    That was an impressively verbose non-answer, even for you. Remember, the question was, "How would you go about convincing a pro-abortionist that he should change his subjective opinion on this issue?" and you did everything but answer it. I was about to say "directly answer", but your response can't even be construed as an indirect answer.
                    I did answer it: I wouldn't.

                    Then I explained it. We don't differ on moral grounds, so there is nothing for me to convince. We both agree killing is immoral. We both agree that a person should be able to make personal medical decisions without government intrusion.

                    We disagree on the status of the fetus as "a human life." That is not a moral issue - it is a scientific/philosophical issue and it is intransigent: there is no mechanism for resolving it.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      So your "comprise" is, essentially, let the Nazis win.
                      My compromise is "save as many lives as I can." It does not require me to adopt or approve of the Nazi philosophy. It does not mean that I stop doing everything I can to shift that philosophy. It means that I look for practical ways to save lives.

                      The alternative is to continue to fight a hopeless battle while people continue to die.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-15-2019, 12:02 PM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        My compromise is "save as many lives as I can." It does not require me to adopt or approve of the Nazi philosophy. It does not mean that I stop doing everything I can to shift that philosophy. It means that I look for practical ways to save lives.
                        And how would you propose shifting the philosophy of pro-abortionists since you claim that the differences are "intransigent: there is no mechanism for resolving it"?
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          No. You folks are doing that all by yourselves with "abortion mill" and "baby killer" and "misogynist" and "hypocritical right-wing nuts" and all the rest.
                          And you keep fighting back --- you're pretty much keeping this war, particularly in this thread, alive.

                          Pointing out what you are doing and its futility is not "fanning the flames." Indeed, the flames are burning just fine without me. That I can occasionally convince a person here or there to abandon the war and look for other solutions is a testament to the fact that I am working to reduce the flames.
                          Yet, here you are, blogging on and on and on with vigor and verbosity.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            yep. How can you compromise with someone who wants to kill babies? The only thing you could do is allow them to kill babies, which they are already doing. So carp wants us to stop trying to prevent abortions and somehow that is supposed to stop abortions?
                            I think he honestly believes he's "neutral" on this, but he has clearly chosen to stay in the fight.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              And how would you propose shifting the philosophy of pro-abortionists since you claim that the differences are "intransigent: there is no mechanism for resolving it"?
                              I don't. That's pretty much the point. Your philosophy is not going to shift to theirs. Theirs is not going to shift to yours. It hasn't for 50 years. There is no reason to think it is going to for the next 50 years. This is what you folks are not hearing, as best I can tell. Any attempt to shift the philosophy of the other side is most likely doomed to failure and will only result in prolonging the conflict and more deaths.

                              That is why solutions must engage BEFORE the conflict arises. Once there is a pregnancy - the conflict is inevitable. The only option I can think of is to make carry/adopt more attractive than abort.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                All they have to do is what FDR threatened to do. Expand the number of justice on the SCOTUS until you reach the point where the majority agrees with you. If currently you're losing 6-3 then you appoint 4 more judges so that you win 7-6.
                                Which is why the liberals weren't pushing for more justices before Trump's justices were seated.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X