Page 41 of 62 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 612

Thread: Pro-choice distortion

  1. #401
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,324
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1035
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    The abortionists want to be able to kill babies in the womb.

    They already have their way and are doing it.

    We think the fetuses are human beings with rights. We want to stop the abortions.

    Exactly what compromise could we give them since they already have their way and can abort babies at will legally?
    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 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.

    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.
    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

  2. #402
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,324
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1035
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    How will they pack the court? Are they going to murder the sitting Justices they don't like?
    No. They simply have to add two justices.

    The number of justices on the court is not fixed in the constitution. It has changed a few times in history.
    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

  3. #403
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,324
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1035
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Carpedm seems to be advocating a non-confrontational education campaign - which is laudable. Problem is, once it moves to the public arena, confrontations are inevitable. I also have to wonder if that attitude is consistent. In the ordinary course, social ills don't get corrected without confrontation. Anti segregation (freedom riders), anti slavery, suffrage, anti child labour etc so forth and so on were not achieved without confrontation in the public arena.
    I can't see anything to suggest that carpedm would say confrontations were a wrong by the advocates for change. And I'm reasonably confident that he would pin the blame for the conflict on those who wanted to continue the injustices.
    Yes, I would - but there are two injustices at work here:

    1) abortion itself.
    2) those on both sides who inflame the confrontation with intellectually dishonest rhetoric. This is the rhetoric I regularly point out from each side. It is (I believe) what CP is finding to be "fanning the flames." But you cannot convince people to dial down the rhetoric if you don't point out the rhetoric you are asking them to dial down.

    Confrontation in this issue is inevitable. But the confrontation does not have to take the form it is currently taking.
    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

  4. Amen tabibito amen'd this post.
  5. #404
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,206
    Amen (Given)
    5449
    Amen (Received)
    5255
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No - Carpe wants both sides to abandon the "war" in favor of finding actual solutions. Compromise is always possible.

    So try this. Forget abortion for a moment. You and your town are engaged in a struggle with a neighboring town. It has raged for 50 years. You have actually mostly been on the losing side of skirmishes, and your population is declining. You see them as the aggressor. They see you as the aggressor. You are confronted with two options:

    Option 1) Continue to wage the war, decrying their "foulness" and maintaining the current rate of deaths indefinitely, with a significant possibility that you will lose outright.
    Option 2) Sue for peace and seek to put a truce in place, knowing that this won't 100% eliminate the skirmishes, but it has the potential to reduce the carnage to perhaps a 10th of what it was.

    Which would you prefer?
    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?
    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

  6. Amen Raphael amen'd this post.
  7. #405
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,324
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1035
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I'm curious what a pro-life argument would look like in the context of your "all morality is subjective; therefore, nothing is actually right or wrong" worldview. How would you go about convincing a pro-abortionist that he should change his subjective opinion on this issue?
    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?"
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-15-2019 at 07:14 AM.
    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

  8. #406
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,324
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1035
    Quote 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

  9. #407
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    46,645
    Amen (Given)
    4541
    Amen (Received)
    20766
    Quote 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.

  10. #408
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,206
    Amen (Given)
    5449
    Amen (Received)
    5255
    Quote 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

  11. #409
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,206
    Amen (Given)
    5449
    Amen (Received)
    5255
    Quote 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

  12. #410
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,206
    Amen (Given)
    5449
    Amen (Received)
    5255
    Quote 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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •