Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

No there's one side that is right and one side that is wrong and I'm so ******* sick of pretending it's "One side is wrong and one side isn't following civility theater."

I'm so completely and utterly across the board done with every discussion being "Okay but everytime someone is wrong let's talk about LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE except that they are wrong. I know let's have a broad philosophical debate about wrongness. Let's have a moral slapfight about the right to be wrong. Let's talk about the right way to tell someone they are wrong. Just whatever happens we mustn't talk about their wrongness!"

 

[ahhell]

Then why did our FF's...who were neither the Creator, or "Nature"... feel the need to write these "rights" down in a legal document called the Constitution upon which our GOVERNMENT IS FOUNDED?

Are you now going to tell us that America stands for "All men are created equal" when our FF did not mean that at all? " All men" were white men and most assuredly not Black men or women of any color whatsoever.

You are clearly the one in that debate that needs to do some research.

Granted, already addressed but the debate over the bill of rights was basically, include it just to be sure vs don't include it because doing so would imply that those rights were granted by the government.

Thus:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

One of the biggest flaws in the Roe V Wade decision. No right needs to be implied by the constitution, they exist unless stated otherwise.

Some of the FF did mean all men some understood that and didn't no what to do about it and some were quite afraid of what they meant.

 

[ahhell]

No there's one side that is right and one side that is wrong and I'm so ******* sick of pretending it's "One side is wrong and one side isn't following civility theater."

I'm so completely and utterly across the board done with every discussion being "Okay but everytime someone is wrong let's talk about LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE except that they are wrong. I know let's have a broad philosophical debate about wrongness. Let's have a moral slapfight about the right to be wrong. Let's talk about the right way to tell someone they are wrong. Just whatever happens we mustn't talk about their wrongness!"

I'm sick of the that side is wrong and they all agree on everything therefore they are dumb and evil and we should make fun of them and pretending that there aren't any nuts on our side. To bring it back to abortion, there is actually broad consensus on abortion in the US and the world generally, the disagreement is largely on how long it should be legal vs illegal. Almost everyone agrees it should be legal in the first trimester and almost everyone agrees it should be illegal in the third except where the life and health of the mother are concerned. If you think otherwise you are an extremist. Which is fine, just admit it.

Seriously, its OK to mock all christians because there are dominionists? WTF, how many people on this forum would put up with that argument if it were Muslims being discussed.

 

[sackett]

I tried to post this yesterday, but God forbade it. I'll try again:

If someone must speak for the fetus, let it be the woman carrying it. She's surely the person most closely concerned.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sick of the that side is wrong and they all agree on everything therefore they are dumb and evil and we should make fun of them and pretending that there aren't any nuts on our side.

*Very slowly* Calm down and actually listen to what people are saying.

Nobody is saying "I'm automatically right and everyone is automatically wrong just because I say so."

I'm saying the discussion isn't "When I'm right I'm right but when I'm wrong... oh well that's not the topic."

If you or any other Tom, Dick, or Harry want to defend removing women's right to have an abortion then fine. But ******* own it.

We have one side arguing why women should have a right to have an abortion and another side arguing everything BUT why women shouldn't have a right to have an abortion.

One side has an actual opinion they are arguing, the other wants to argue about the argument and never get to argue their point.

 

[abaddon]

Did you read my post? I agree with virtually everything you said.

I objected to the mocking tone. I think calling Jesus “jebus” is an immature schoolyard taunt. But carry on - I will defend your right to say whatever you want in any way you want. But childish, mocking posts seem out of place in an otherwise fairly civil debate.

The "mocking tone" is simply because the religious have intentionally earned the right to be mocked. Just look at the likes of convict Hovind. Tax fraud, spousal abuse, convictions aplenty, very christian, no? How about Copeland trying to justify his private jet? Is that not risible? Or Creflo Dollar and his two private jets? And so on.

At what point, in your opinion, does it become worthy of mockery and ridicule? Because you are proposing that it never can, so far.

 

[ahhell]

*Very slowly* Calm down and actually listen to what people are saying.

Nobody is saying "I'm automatically right and everyone is automatically wrong just because I say so."

I'm saying the discussion isn't "When I'm right I'm right but when I'm wrong... oh well that's not the topic."

If you or any other Tom, Dick, or Harry want to defend removing women's right to have an abortion then fine. But ******* own it.

We have one side arguing why women should have a right to have an abortion and another side arguing everything BUT why women shouldn't have a right to have an abortion.

One side has an actual opinion they are arguing, the other wants to argue about the argument and never get to argue their point.

There doesn't actually seem to be anyone on this forum in favor of the Texas law. The way I see it, one side wants to use strawmen to argue and the otherside is pointing that out. So, what's there to argue about other than the strawmen are **** arguments.

The anti abortion crowd includes those that are opposed to on account of religion, it also includes those that see a fetus as a human being and not just a parasite. There's no point in debating the first group.

Again, I'll point out there was literally a post to the effect that mocking Christians is ok because christian dominionists. That is a **** argument and I will point that out. Frankly, there's nothing more aggravating than **** arguments for things I agree with. If nothing else, it gives nuts for the other side to pick and strawmen for them to knock down.

The "mocking tone" is simply because the religious have intentionally earned the right to be mocked. Just look at the likes of convict Hovind. Tax fraud, spousal abuse, convictions aplenty, very christian, no? How about Copeland trying to justify his private jet? Is that not risible? Or Creflo Dollar and his two private jets? And so on.

At what point, in your opinion, does it become worthy of mockery and ridicule? Because you are proposing that it never can, so far.

This post is worthy of mockery. All Christians are worthy of mockery because these christians are frauds, all muslims are terrorists because some muslims are terrorists. I can dismiss all progressives because this progressive is just a nut picker.

If you want to persuade people, there is no point at which mockery is justified. If you want to build bonds with your side, mockery is always justified. I am generally depressed these days on account of most everyone having given up on persuasion. That doesn't bode well for democracy.

 

[ahhell]

If you are curios, I think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
Legal but with some limits in the Second.
Illegal with some exceptions in the third. That basically doesn't matter because there are very few late term abortions and mostly they happen for the reasons I would except.

I think doctors and care providers should be allowed to decide if they offer abortions or not. If a Catholic Hospital wants to offer OB/Gyn services they shouldn't be forced to offer abortions or even be made to refer women to facilities that do.

I think Roe V Wade was terrible for the US, it basically created the culture war. Without it, we would probably have arrived at a consensus on abortion and we could vote for a president on things other than the SCOTUS.

One more thing, if you think that abortion should be illegal in the first trimester or just as legal in the third as the first, you are an extremist. That's find, just know that you are. The one side is extreme and the other isn't because... is just nonsense. There are extremists on both sides of this debate.

 

[Lithrael]

I think that really, most people would be happy with what ahhell says there, but in practice many states have far less actual access than that already and the push from the loud and effective minority is for less and less as we go on.

I’m a little curious where this ‘I don’t think x hospital should be forced to provide abortions’ idea came from though. I’ve never caught so much as a whiff of that from anywhere, sounds like something someone made up to make people scared of the liberal agenda. Maybe a weird reading of ‘we probably shouldn’t let catholic hospitals let women die of complications of miscarriage?’

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I don't think a hospital should be forced to provide a medical service" is a weird hill to die on.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I think Roe V Wade was terrible for the US, it basically created the culture war.

Desegregation created the culture war. Abortion was a successful misdirection of religious support from race issues (which they were losing) to "the next" issue. Same reason the homophobes who used to scream about gay marriage corrupting your children are now screaming about transgender kids using the wrong bathroom without even a pause for breath in between.

 

[lobosrul5]

If you are curios, I think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
Legal but with some limits in the Second.
Illegal with some exceptions in the third. That basically doesn't matter because there are very few late term abortions and mostly they happen for the reasons I would except.

I think doctors and care providers should be allowed to decide if they offer abortions or not. If a Catholic Hospital wants to offer OB/Gyn services they shouldn't be forced to offer abortions or even be made to refer women to facilities that do.

I think Roe V Wade was terrible for the US, it basically created the culture war. Without it, we would probably have arrived at a consensus on abortion and we could vote for a president on things other than the SCOTUS.

One more thing, if you think that abortion should be illegal in the first trimester or just as legal in the third as the first, you are an extremist. That's find, just know that you are. The one side is extreme and the other isn't because... is just nonsense. There are extremists on both sides of this debate.

If they get absolutely no public funding then sure, however the main local hospital usually gets money from local property taxes, its literally itemized on my bill actually. Planned parenthood should try and open a clinic next door in that situation.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Let me stipulate that some people have earned mockery.

A fellow forum member who has, to date, attempted to post his feelings on a contentious topic in a generally dispassionate way is not one of them.
In fact I respect him for making his feelings on the matter known in a forum/thread where he’s in a decided minority.

But That’s Just Me!

 

[JoeMorgue]

The mythology around "You can be wrong forever as long as you stay surface level check in the box civil about it" is one of the reasons discourse is in the toilet.

If every possible way that 2+2=5 is wrong has been explained to you and you still insist that 2+2=5, you're being uncivil no matter how much you smile and keep your voice low while you say it. And the person who eventually gets tired of telling you that 2+2 doesn't equal five and starts to lose their patience and get snarky isn't the bad guy.

"Civil Discourse" isn't the same thing as "Making it easier and easier for the wrong side to be wrong."

"I'm willing to listen to other people's opinion" is a good quality to have, it's not a dump stat where the further you push that envelope the better person you become.

 

[Paul2]

The mythology around "You can be wrong forever as long as you stay surface level check in the box civil about it" is one of the reasons discourse is in the toilet.

If every possible way that 2+2=5 is wrong has been explained to you and you still insist that 2+2=5, you're being uncivil no matter how much you smile and keep your voice low while you say it. And the person who eventually gets tired of telling you that 2+2 doesn't equal five and starts to lose their patience and get snarky isn't the bad guy.

"Civil Discourse" isn't the same thing as "Making it easier and easier for the wrong side to be wrong."

"I'm willing to listen to other people's opinion" is a good quality to have, it's not a dump stat where the further you push that envelope the better person you become.

That's not what being uncivil means. Civil refers to the *manner* in which an argument is made - "adequate in courtesy and politeness," (Merriam-Webster) and has nothing to do the content of the argument, whether it is foolish, etc.

 

[ahhell]

"I don't think a hospital should be forced to provide a medical service" is a weird hill to die on.

Well there is this:

If they get absolutely no public funding then sure, however the main local hospital usually gets money from local property taxes, its literally itemized on my bill actually. Planned parenthood should try and open a clinic next door in that situation.

This sort of thing would definitely result in less access to medical care for lots of people considering how many hospitals have religious affiliations.

I've also run across folks arguing for it in the past. Along lines of if you aren't willing to perform and abortion you shouldn't be a doctor. I've also seen that pharmacists who don't want to fill particular prescription should not be allowed to be pharmacists. I mostly brought it up on account of when I was looking into international laws regarding abortion, there are a small number of european countries that do not allow medical providers to opt out of performing abortions.

The notion that if you are a doctor you have to be willing to perform an abortion is fairly bizarre, is there any other medical procedure where that would be the case. Doc, I need you to amputate my arm! Well I really don't want to, but I guess I have to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe

Edit to add, don't forget its the internet, you can always find someone that believes anything. In this case, its a common enough thing that its actually the law in some places.

 

[ahhell]

The mythology around "You can be wrong forever as long as you stay surface level check in the box civil about it" is one of the reasons discourse is in the toilet.

If every possible way that 2+2=5 is wrong has been explained to you and you still insist that 2+2=5, you're being uncivil no matter how much you smile and keep your voice low while you say it. And the person who eventually gets tired of telling you that 2+2 doesn't equal five and starts to lose their patience and get snarky isn't the bad guy.

"Civil Discourse" isn't the same thing as "Making it easier and easier for the wrong side to be wrong."

"I'm willing to listen to other people's opinion" is a good quality to have, it's not a dump stat where the further you push that envelope the better person you become.

Good point, good thing all political, cultural, and social issues have such clear answers as 5.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Good point, good thing all political, cultural, and social issues have such clear answers as 5.

Yes I know I've already gotten the "Oh by a magical continually ongoing coincidence every time I'm wrong the question is really subjective so I'm not wrong" argument.

A clump of cells the size of a pin is not human is as much a fact as 2+2.

 

[ahhell]

Yes I know I've already gotten the "Oh by a magical continually ongoing coincidence every time I'm wrong the question is really subjective so I'm not wrong" argument.

A clump of cells the size of a pin is not human is as much a fact as 2+2.

What is not is when that clump of cells becomes a human being. The answer is is sometime between conception and birth anyone who says anything more precise than that is full of ****. If the questions is, should I risk killing a person, a lot of people are fairly cautious about when they think that might be.

Go ahead and make fun of folks who have set that arbitrary choice somewhere other than where you do.

You are right about one thing, civil discourse is not the same thing as making it easier for the other side to be wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

Those are nice finds. There may be quote mining involved, but at least they show Jefferson was aware of two kinds of rights, and seems to be saying one stems from the other.

When I mentioned that human rights can be of two kinds, natural vs legal, I didn’t mean to start a debate as to which was “better”, but just to point out that some of the disagreements about rights in this discussion were folks referring to one or the other type or right.

They were great quotes but did not support his claim which he does not seem to understand since he repeats the same mistake. They are only evidence of Jefferson's view on the origin of rights, not that the opposition from some FF's to including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was due to fear that people would see them coming from government rather than a Creator/Nature.