Pro-choice distortion

[tabibito]

Originally Posted by tabibito
Yes to the first, no to the second. I'll work against a person being duped if that person broaches the subject ... otherwise it is a no-go zone.

I don't know what the latter statement is - but are you seriously claiming that the pro-life group does not use inflammatory language? Perhaps you think you are not doing so?

I choose to express my opinions in a non-confrontational manner. When it comes down to cases, in an environment where such discussions are appropriate, I'll discuss the issues involved by asking (admittedly leading) questions. If it becomes necessary, that discussion will involve a bit of sex ed - including pointing out the unreliability of coitus-interruptus if that too is deemed appropriate. Having noted that activism doesn't promote any sort of resolution, I leave activism to the social justice warriors. What the pro-life group has to say and might do is no greater interest to me than are the words and actions of the pro-choice group. As to inflammatory language ... pointing out facts is inflammatory. The best I can do is to avoid providing legitimate excuses to those who seek occasion to become offended.

[carpedm9587]

Here's exactly what you said...

Try that in court some day. "But, yer honor --- he was a low life scumbag jackass, not a human being!"

(That's how Islam extremists justify killing Jews, by the way)

(Come to think of it, I think Texas is the only state in the Union where an acceptable defense for homicide is "Yer Honor - he just needed killin'!")

So - you quoted me correctly - but the statement, "what you've done, and I'm not sure you even recognize it, is justifying the one side as being innocent of the killing of babies on the grounds that they sincerely believe they're not killing human beings," is incorrect.

I believe the growing fetus is a human being. Ergo, I believe they are killing children and are not "innocent." But I do also know that people can sometimes do bad things without malice or intent to do harm. So I set aside what I think in order to try and see the position from their side. That looks like this:

If I do not believe the fetus is a living human being, then there is no killing involved. What remains is a large group of people trying to impose their medical/religious beliefs on adult women who are not criminals using the government as their agency for doing so. Since I honestly believe there is no life involved, the medical rights of the woman are inviolate, and I end up being "pro-choice."

I don't agree with them. I don't want abortion to continue. But I make an effort to understand them. Once I understand them, I ask myself, "what is the likelihood that I am going to convince them it is actually a life?" History tells me that there are 50 years of that war behind us with NO advancement on that front, so the most likely thing is that continuing that war will produce exactly the same result for the next 50 years - with millions more deaths.

So my choice is simple:

1) Continue to fight the "it's a life" battle, knowing it is futile but needing to be "right" and to "win," and condemn countless millions to death over the next 50 years.
2) Try to find another way

I vote for 2.

Apparently - you vote for 1.

Hence my observations.

[carpedm9587]

I choose to express my opinions in a non-confrontational manner. When it comes down to cases, in an environment where such discussions are appropriate, I'll discuss the issues involved by asking (admittedly leading) questions. If it becomes necessary, that discussion will involve a bit of sex ed - including pointing out the unreliability of coitus-interruptus if that too is deemed appropriate. Having noted that activism doesn't promote any sort of resolution, I leave activism to the social justice warriors. What the pro-life group has to say and might do is no greater interest to me than are the words and actions of the pro-choice group. As to inflammatory language ... pointing out facts is inflammatory. The best I can do is to avoid providing legitimate excuses to those who seek occasion to become offended.

It is possible that I am simply imposing on you statements that have been made by others. If you avoid inflammatory language, then I tip my hat to you. That is not the norm for many (most?) on the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" sides of the battle.

[tabibito]

Stay out of the battles, act as an agent provocateur, suborn them as have been deceived one or two at a time. No outrage, no judgemental attitude. Until I find an effective way to do things on a broader field, that is the best I can manage.

[tabibito]

Stay out of the battles, act as an agent provocateur, suborn them as have been deceived one or two at a time. No outrage, no judgemental attitude. Until I find an effective way to do things on a broader field, that is the best I can manage.


But this is a good place to vent - debate forums are not the same as real life situations.

[carpedm9587]

Stay out of the battles, act as an agent provocateur, suborn them as have been deceived one or two at a time. No outrage, no judgemental attitude. Until I find an effective way to do things on a broader field, that is the best I can manage.

If that is truly your approach - then you are one of the rare 1%. If we could get more to put down the battle tools - we might actually make progress more systemically.

[rogue06]

Oh, the Iron E!

[*Comes running down the hall into the room. Jumps into chair in front of the monitor and quickly posts the following*]

Iron E.jpg

Pant! pant! pant!

[Cow Poke]

So - you quoted me correctly -

Of course I did! I used the quote function!

but the statement, "what you've done, and I'm not sure you even recognize it, is justifying the one side as being innocent of the killing of babies on the grounds that they sincerely believe they're not killing human beings," is incorrect.

Ah, so to what grounds would you like to shift to justify their part of the battle? And do withdraw that "reason"?

I believe the growing fetus is a human being. Ergo, I believe they are killing children and are not "innocent."

You've made progress since your "blob of tissue" grenades.

But I do also know that people can sometimes do bad things without malice or intent to do harm. So I set aside what I think in order to try and see the position from their side. That looks like this:

But you have no problem ascribing to me a position that I do not hold - that abortion workers are "bad people" - your words.

If I do not believe the fetus is a living human being, then there is no killing involved.

No - stop right there.

If an Islamist extremists believes that Jews are "monkeys and pigs", then there is no killing, right? Because they don't believe Jews are human beings.

[Cow Poke]

So my choice is simple:

1) Continue to fight the "it's a life" battle, knowing it is futile but needing to be "right" and to "win," and condemn countless millions to death over the next 50 years.
2) Try to find another way

I vote for 2.

Apparently - you vote for 1.

Hence my observations.

And, once again, you're doing that mind reader thing you pretend to hate - AND - make a goofy statement in the process. How does "fighting for the ones who can not defend themselves" condemn millions to death over the next 50 years, Mr. Chamberlain? AND, you're building a false dichotomy.

Three strikes - you're OUTTA HERE!

Carpe, you rag on me for my "bad analogies", yet you come up with this horrible analogy to "the Troubles" of Northern Ireland.

[Sparko]

This is just carp's way of denouncing us while pretending to have the high ground, while not actually having any ground.


Carp - you guys are bad, continuing the war. we need to find a solution.

us - what's your solution?

Carp - I don't have one but you guys are bad.

[Cow Poke]

This is just carp's way of denouncing us while pretending to have the high ground, while not actually having any ground.


Carp - you guys are bad, continuing the war. we need to find a solution.

us - what's your solution?

Carp - I don't have one but you guys are bad.

And the other side gets a pass cause they don't believe the babies they are killing are human beings.

[oxmixmudd]

I wouldn't. That is the heart of the ongoing war, and that is never going to be resolved. I'd set it aside and attempt to shift the focus.



Why is this surprising? There is no indication I have ever seen from the pro-life group that the rights of the woman to make her own medical decisions are worthy of respect, so why would you expect respect in return? And why would you expect that the rights of one person supersede the rights of another? Why do we not take the approach that both are rights worthy of respect, and use that as our starting point?

Well, acknowledging there is debate over when this occurs, once you are dealing with two people, they each have equal rights, and neither of them has the right to kill the other. So If at any point we concede the fetus is a human person, then after that point, the mother's desires to live free of obligation to the child do not supersede the child's right to life. So she may chose to adopt, but she legally couldn't chose to kill once the fetus is recognized as a human person. That is, in fact, the crux of the impasse. Pro-life typically deems the fetus a human person from conception. Pro-choice avoids classifying the fetus as a person for the entire term of the pregnancy, up to and including actual birth (there are stories of post birth abortion, but that is illegal even if it occurs).

AFAICT - the only possible approach to all of this is to look at what can be done BEFORE the unwanted pregnancy occurs. Once there is a pregnancy - the clash of rights is unavoidable. The only way to address THAT is to make birth/placement more attractive than abortion - and that has to be carefully done to avoid triggering the "cobra effect" (i.e., the law of unintended consequences).

Changing the attitude toward abortion to favor adoption, coupled with attitudes/practices that are effective at reducing unwanted pregnancy would be a big help in terms of reducing the number of abortions. But we have too many conflicting messages. It's like #metoo, which crucifies men that might have accidentally (or on purpose) in a weak moment touched a women when she didn't want him too, OTOH the net crawls with porn that encourages and glorifies the opposite. A good bit of our music and entertainment encourages behavior that produces babies before one is ready. But we tell kids not to have babies before they are ready. It's pretty messed up.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Worth mentioning again, cause it gets lost in the fog of war.....

World's biggest abortion provider admits it exists for abortion

Pro-life organizations are "thanking" Planned Parenthood's newest leader for confirming what really isn't secret to anyone paying attention.

Planned Parenthood's new president is Dr. Leana Wen, who has enjoyed weeks of fawning media interviews since taking the helm in November.

She was apparently unhappy, however, with a Buzzfeed headline that read, "Planned Parenthood's new president wants to focus on non-abortion health care."

wen.jpg

[firstfloor]

I see that Alabama is bidding to be the rape and incest baby capital of the USA.

[Tassman]

And the other side gets a pass cause they don't believe the babies they are killing are human beings.

They are “human” certainly. But they are not viable beings until 20+ weeks. In fact, the vast majority of abortions (89%) are performed within the first 12 weeks, well before the viability of the fetus..