Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

[johnny karate]

OK, perhaps I misunderstand your lack of support, as it seems to be more like a hold-nose-and-support anyway kind of thing, setting it up as preferable to what you consider its opposite, or against no law at all. Apologies if that is misunderstood. Clarification noted.

Don’t fall for it. Warp12 expressed exactly that sentiment:

The law is clearly working as indented. Like when it makes some slutty 11 year old who seduced her step father give birth. This is by design.

That is something that could be avoided by a relatively minor change in the legislation.

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

Unfortunately, I doubt either is the case. Such notions are frowned upon by those who are focused on the singular aspect of choice. Hence the message will always be clouded, and there will always be encouragement for the most irresponsible of behaviors.

That he wishes to back-pedal away from it now that it is inconvenient for his argument doesn’t mean he didn’t say it.

 

[cosmicaug]

The only 100% way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence.

Nothing is 100%.

(From https://twitter.com/ExmuslimsOrg/status/1503863153712668681)

 

[cosmicaug]

*jerk-off motion*

When conservatives actually starting implementing these kinds of policies as part of their anti-abortion crusade - along with policies that address child welfare - maybe I'll believe you.

Until then, it's about nothing more than anti-science, anti-woman authoritarian control.

But if it were up to people like you, who would punish these Slutty McSlut sluts slutting around? Answer that.

 

[cosmicaug]

Two things are always pure B.S.

1. "I hold an opinion but I act in a way totally irrelevant or even counter to that opinion in everyday life."

Are you pro-abortion but only vote in anti-abortion politicians? Then guess what you're anti-abortion. And anti-abortion without modifiers. That's what being "for" or "against" something means.

This.

Many liberals/Democrats may be single issue voters when it comes to abortion; but their counterparts on the conservative/Republican side are not (even as they twist themselves into knots to proclaim how they are actually reasonable & pro-choice). This is how we get all 3 Michigan GOP attorney general candidates scrambling to proclaim how they'd like to see Griswold vs. Connecticut overturned after googling it to find out what it is (you might also argue that 0 out of 3 GOP AG candidates not knowing what Griswold vs. Connecticut is might be a problem).

 

[shuttlt]

Which immediately leads to the problem of which freedoms are actually minimized, which is a pretty common problem in how meaningful the implications are for arbitrary scales. Forced birth and forced abortion are both sides that restrict, after all. Forced birth to forced abortion is an objective scale when it comes to the subject, on the other hand.

Sure, I'm not arguing against this claim.

The fundamental difference here is a lot like the difference from an objective extreme right to an objective extreme left versus an Overton window "extreme right" to "extreme left" that starts from an objective extreme right and stretches all the way to an objective slight right.

This sort of supposes we can agree on some kind of linear scale what the issue is that defines the scale and what the extremes are. The problem is that we can't. Naturally there is a tendency for people to construct the issue such that their position is the reasonable centre.

You can obviously construct an argument in various ways, but not all ways are actually equal in value and implication.

Who gets to decide on the framing of the argument? This sounds a little self serving.

To wrap this back around, though, for Warp12's attempted "extremist" argument to actually work the way he was trying to use it here, it would need to be on the forced birth to forced abortion scale.

Why would that be the scale if the question is one of how much freedom an individual should have over their own body? The way you have constructed it 0% is at both extreme ends.

A no freedom to no restriction scale does not and cannot work for the usage he attempted, even if it could be used for other ends.

That really depends how you frame the question. If you frame it, I'm not sure that it is terribly surprising that your side comes out looking reasonable.

As noted, it's an arbitrary scale from the start, on purpose. "Doing too many healthy things" is, of course, not the same as actually "being very healthy," which is why I chose the latter as an example for the point being made and not the former.

Indeed, we choose the scale to make the case we want to make. If we can choose the scale, we can choose the reasonable middle position and be pleased to discover that we are the reasonable one.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The way you have constructed it 0% is at both extreme ends.

I find it hard to believe you could write this and still not understand it.

 

[bruto]

This.

Many liberals/Democrats may be single issue voters when it comes to abortion; but their counterparts on the conservative/Republican side are not (even as they twist themselves into knots to proclaim how they are actually reasonable & pro-choice). This is how we get all 3 Michigan GOP attorney general candidates scrambling to proclaim how they'd like to see Griswold vs. Connecticut overturned after googling it to find out what it is (you might also argue that 0 out of 3 GOP AG candidates not knowing what Griswold vs. Connecticut is might be a problem).

Yes indeed, and in the process we end up unsure whether certain of our esteemed colleagues would support such candidates, because, although they disagree, they accept the compromise, hoping that cooler heads will cause the proposed lunacy to fail, without disqualifying the lunatics who propose it.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

This.

Many liberals/Democrats may be single issue voters when it comes to abortion; but their counterparts on the conservative/Republican side are not (even as they twist themselves into knots to proclaim how they are actually reasonable & pro-choice). This is how we get all 3 Michigan GOP attorney general candidates scrambling to proclaim how they'd like to see Griswold vs. Connecticut overturned after googling it to find out what it is (you might also argue that 0 out of 3 GOP AG candidates not knowing what Griswold vs. Connecticut is might be a problem).

States' rights. Which is code for a moral majority trampling on individual rights.

How about protecting civil rights for a change? Sorry if I don't have tears for the poor states that can't control their populations like cattle.

 

[shuttlt]

I find it hard to believe you could write this and still not understand it.

Not understand what? Warp12 seemed to be saying that you shouldn't choose extreme positions, but rather the truth lies somewhere towards the middle. Very often, you have to choose a side in the argument in order to be able to define the middle. Hence Warp12's description is insufficient.

 

[Aridas]

This sort of supposes we can agree on some kind of linear scale what the issue is that defines the scale and what the extremes are. The problem is that we can't. Naturally there is a tendency for people to construct the issue such that their position is the reasonable centre.

Yet, it's been done. Obvious example, the objective political right versus left scale. It's certainly not perfect for all uses and includes a heck of a lot of subsets, but it's useful in a number of ways.

Why would that be the scale if the question is one of how much freedom an individual should have over their own body? The way you have constructed it 0% is at both extreme ends.

Which is much the same in nature as what Warp12 invoked originated from, which is required for the argument that he invoked to hold water in the first place. It's fallacy to invoke false equivalence, after all, which is fundamentally where I'm coming from.

Indeed, we choose the scale to make the case we want to make. If we can choose the scale, we can choose the reasonable middle position and be pleased to discover that we are the reasonable one.

And when the scale determination has nothing to do with self-justification, this point becomes moot.

Not understand what? Warp12 seemed to be saying that you shouldn't choose extreme positions, but rather the truth lies somewhere towards the middle. Very often, you have to choose a side in the argument in order to be able to define the middle. Hence Warp12's description is insufficient.

Warp12 invoked a particular observation that's reasonably valid about a particular kind of scale and tried to misapply it to a different kind of scale. As we've both pointed out now, the specific traits of the particular kind of scale that Warp12 invoked are not able to be correctly generalized to all scales. Where we seem to be having a difference seems, for the moment, looks like it may come down to a failure to properly establish that common ground.

 

[cosmicaug]

Good Lord. I know you love post-mining, but the constant misrepresentation is ridiculous.

Did he misrepresent that you suggested that it was an acceptable trade-off (ie. it may be a bad thing but it is not as bad as...) to force an 11 year old to carry a pregnancy to term if we could only force people to "behave responsibly" and reduce abortions? We know that you say no such law does this and & therefore it is a hypothetical*; but are we supposed to conclude that you think that if it was not a hypothetical, it would be an acceptable trade-off?

* Considering how close you have skirted in the past to suggesting that the responsible path is always not having an abortion & considering how close you have skirted to suggesting that forcing a birth might be OK if you can guarantee that you are not forcing parenthood, I'm not even sure it's hypothetical: ie. in the case of that child you are reducing abortions by 1 and you are forcing "responsibility".

 

[Aridas]

The one who uses the nom de plume Aldous J Pennyfarthing decided to shine some light towards a Kentucky copycat bill by pointing towards Kentucky State Senator Karen Berg's opposition.

BERG: “You know, I’m a diagnostic radiologist, and diagnostic radiologists, historically, and in many places in this state still do all of the first trimester OB ultrasound. So I am extraordinarily, personally familiar with the development of a fetus in the womb. And for you to sit here and say that at 15 weeks a fetus has a functional heart, a four-chamber heart, that can survive on its own is fallacious. That is not true. There is no viability. You know, I look around at my colleagues on this committee. I am the only woman on this podium right now. I am the only physician sitting on this podium. This bill is a medical sham. It does not follow medicine. It does not even purport to listen to medicine. And for each and every one of my colleagues to be so willing to cast an aye vote, when what you are doing is putting your finger, putting your knee, putting a gun to women’s heads. You are killing women, because abortion will continue. Women will continue to have efficacy over their own body, whether or not you make it legal. I vote no and I really, really apologize to the people of Kentucky that we are spending this much time and this much energy when we have families in poverty. We have single women heading households in poverty at a higher rate than any other group in the state. And you all are not addressing that. You are making it worse. Thank you.”

 

[Warp12]

Did he misrepresent that you suggested that it was an acceptable trade-off (ie. it may be a bad thing but it is not as bad as...) to force an 11 year old to carry a pregnancy to term if we could only force people to "behave responsibly" and reduce abortions? We know that you say no such law does this and & therefore it is a hypothetical*; but are we supposed to conclude that you think that if it was not a hypothetical, it would be an acceptable trade-off?
.

It would be an acceptable, though avoidable and tragic tradeoff, if an imaginary piece of legislation existed that created a situation of benefit that far outweighed any such drawbacks. Such a piece of legislation does not, and will not ever exist. Furthermore, there is no conceivable case where such legislation could not easily be written to exclude cases of rape and incest. Which is why I will never support outlawing abortion in such cases.

I have already spelled this out clearly. Feel free to harp on it all you like. I won't be addressing it again.

 

[Stacyhs]

The one who uses the nom de plume Aldous J Pennyfarthing decided to shine some light towards a Kentucky copycat bill by pointing towards Kentucky State Senator Karen Berg's opposition.

Good for her!

These anti-pro choice people insist on ignoring medical science in favor of their own personal religious/moral/politically advantageous beliefs. Fine...let them live their own lives according those beliefs, but don't force others to.

 

[cosmicaug]

It would be an acceptable, though avoidable and tragic tradeoff, if an imaginary piece of legislation existed that created a situation of benefit that far outweighed any such drawbacks. Such a piece of legislation does not, and will not ever exist. Furthermore, there is no conceivable case where such legislation could not easily be written to exclude cases of rape and incest. Which is why I will never support outlawing abortion in such cases.

I have already spelled this out clearly. Feel free to harp on it all you like. I won't be addressing it again.

I'll take that as a "no, he did not misrepresent".

 

[Stacyhs]

I've never understood this "no abortion, unless a case of incest or rape" argument. According to anti-prochoice advocates, every child is precious and abortion is murder. I guess the baby that results from incest or rape isn't quite precious enough so it's not murder to abort them.

 

[Warp12]

I've never understood this "no abortion, unless a case of incest or rape" argument. According to anti-prochoice advocates, every child is precious and abortion is murder. I guess the baby that results from incest or rape isn't quite precious enough so it's not murder to abort them.

Where do you come up with this "one view fits all" idea? Weird.

"Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" are some pretty limiting choices. Seems rather all-or-nothing.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Why is there no good side of the coin? If neither side of the coin is completely good, maybe the good lies much closer to one side than the other?

One can feel it’s wrong to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, while still feeling it’s wrong to snuff out a developing human life.

Horns of a dilemma, and I don’t see either position as being inherently good or bad. Well intentioned people have to weigh two “evils” and decide which is worse.

 

[shuttlt]

One can feel it’s wrong to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, while still feeling it’s wrong to snuff out a developing human life.

Horns of a dilemma, and I don’t see either position as being inherently good or bad. Well intentioned people have to weigh two “evils” and decide which is worse.

I was talking in principle. Warp12 seemed to be making some kind of "the truth is normally in the middle" argument.

Straightforwardly, I agree with you that there are good people on all sides of this. I just don't think that one can say "well, this is at one extreme of the argument therefore it's wrong".

 

[johnny karate]

It would be an acceptable, though avoidable and tragic tradeoff, if an imaginary piece of legislation existed that created a situation of benefit that far outweighed any such drawbacks. Such a piece of legislation does not, and will not ever exist. Furthermore, there is no conceivable case where such legislation could not easily be written to exclude cases of rape and incest. Which is why I will never support outlawing abortion in such cases.

I have already spelled this out clearly. Feel free to harp on it all you like. I won't be addressing it again.

Yes, thank you for - once again - spelling out clearly that you think forcing a raped 11 year-old to give birth is acceptable.