Texas bans abortion.

[The Great Zaganza]

Also here's a question.

Why do they keep getting to ask the question over and over until they get the answer they want? Wasn't Roe Vs Wade supposed to be one of those, whatchmacallit, "precedent" things?

Isn't asking the Supreme Court something and getting an answer supposed to be where the question ends unless some major new facts about what is being asked come out?

What new facts about abortion are there to ask the question again?

the new fact is: we have now our people on the Supreme Court.

 

[Warp12]

I think I missed this post.

Consider combinations of the following factors:

• 
  use/non-use of birth control
• timing of the abortion (1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester)
• serious danger to the woman's health or life
• high probability of unsurvivable deformity of the fetus after childbirth

What does personal accountability look like to you in various of those scenarios, your choice?

Why don't we start here:

What level of accountability do YOU think a woman has in the reproductive process? Is personal accountability even a factor in your mind? Should abortion be considered just another form of birth control?

Do we draw the line anywhere?

 

[JoeMorgue]

the new fact is: we have now our people on the Supreme Court.

Well yeah I'm just wondering what the lie they are telling us is.

 

[cosmicaug]

That is a ridiculous interpretation of parentheses. The phrase "for which the state has in interest in preserving" modifies the object "human being" whether it is in parentheses or not. Similarly, it invites the consideration of the possible existence of a "human being (for which the state does not have in interest in preserving)" irrespective of the use of parentheses.

Correct and no different from what I explained. It is not relevant to your outright fabrication of meaning. The issue is that, no matter how much you prevaricate, the object is not "a human being for which the state has in interest in preserving". The parenthetical is not a part of the object but a modifier. The interpretation of the parenthetical being an integral part of the object is entirely your own trollish fabrication (and because you know that that reading doesn't make sense, you edited out the parenthesis the second time).

The particular notion being conveyed in that sentence was "the idea the fetus is a human being is earnestly disputed" and it stands on its own independently of the parenthetical. The parenthetical expands on that idea. The way it is expanding on that idea is by noting that the state has an interest in preserving human beings*. It is not expanding on that idea by noting that the state has an interest in preserving some human beings but does not have an interest in preserving other human beings. It is not expanding on that idea by noting that the state has an interest in preserving human beings who happen to be fetuses. Indeed, the primary thing conveyed is that the very notion of fetuses being human beings is disputed.

But you know all that. I do not know if you are actually stupid. I do know that whatever your level of stupidity is, it is not so profound as to prevent your understanding of these things. Your apparent misinterpretations of this are only for the purpose of trolling. They are not innocent misunderstandings.


* So yes, as you noted, it is extremely clear that the parenthetical is meant to apply to human beings rather than to toasters and I never suggested or implied otherwise.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why don't we start here:

What level of accountability do YOU think a woman has in the reproductive process? Is personal accountability even a factor in your mind? Should abortion be considered just another form of birth control?

Do we draw the line anywhere?

No here's a fun game. For a change of pace actually start at "answering the question you were asked."

 

[Warp12]

I'm still waiting on a (non-troll) answer as to why women using abortion as birth control is any different then them using the pill or IUDs or condoms that isn't pure "But at an arbitrary point it's a baby because God put a soul in it" nonsense or pure semantics.

Ridiculous...and you know it. "Conception" is the difference, obviously. Not worth any further debate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ridiculous...and you know it. "Conception" is the difference, obviously. Not worth any further debate.

I'm still waiting on a (non-troll) answer as to why women using abortion as birth control is any different then them using the pill or IUDs or condoms that isn't pure "But at an arbitrary point it's a baby because God put a soul in it" nonsense or pure semantics.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why don't we start here:

What level of accountability do YOU think a woman has in the reproductive process? Is personal accountability even a factor in your mind? Should abortion be considered just another form of birth control?

Do we draw the line anywhere?

how is deciding not to have a child when it is clearly a bad time in your career not taking responsibility for your action?

According to you, there is one and exactly only one moment in the process for which the woman can be held accountable for.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're going to argue in circles for a thousands a years and they will just come up with new excuses why the one point of volition they think woman should have in pregnancy is just keeping their legs closed in the first place.

 

[Warp12]

how is deciding not to have a child when it is clearly a bad time in your career not taking responsibility for your action?

According to you, there is one and exactly only one moment in the process for which the woman can be held accountable for.

In my line of work we focus on proactive action as opposed to reactive action. Yes, we have contingency plans for reactive scenarios, but we don't favor them and thus take precautions to avoid them. We emphasize the proactive approach.

 

[cosmicaug]

how is deciding not to have a child when it is clearly a bad time in your career not taking responsibility for your action?

Sluts need to be punished! Duh!

As an aside, this is also why HPV vaccinations are bad.

 

[cosmicaug]

In my line of work we focus on proactive action as opposed to reactive action. Yes, we have contingency plans for reactive scenarios, but we don't favor them and thus take precautions to avoid them. We emphasize the proactive approach.

In your line of work (whatever that is), you focus on proactive action and you assume that it is always going to work and if it doesn't (or if someone screws up in the first place) you don't enact contingency plans because that's how you demonstrate accountability?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Accountability" for what?

What are we holding women "accountable" for?

Why will nobody give a non-troll, non "No wait stop let's redefine a word for no reason" answer to this?

A woman gets pregnant. She doesn't want to be pregnant. She stops being pregnant. Where is the moral failing that we have to "account" for?

Someone answer that question.

 

[Warp12]

In my line of work we focus on proactive action as opposed to reactive action. Yes, we have contingency plans for reactive scenarios, but we don't favor them and thus take precautions to avoid them. We emphasize the proactive approach.

In your line of work (whatever that is), you focus on proactive action and you assume that it is always going to work and if it doesn't (or if someone screws up in the first place) you don't enact contingency plans because that's how you demonstrate accountability?

Of course not. I am already on record numerous times as stating that I think the TX law is too stringent. However, what I see in this thread is no concern for the proactive aspect. As in, "it doesn't matter"...and that is a very irresponsible mindset, and not helping to avoid unwanted pregnancies, imo.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah yes the "I'm not on X's side, I'm just against people over-reacting to X's side in a way that is functionally identical to being on X's" argument.

What are we over-reacting to? What are we going "too far" with? What scale are you trying to balance or needle are you trying to push back to center?

Explain in words that actually answer and address the question asked.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sluts need to be punished! Duh!

As an aside, this is also why HPV vaccinations are bad.

OMG, the pearl clutching about HPV is so bizarre.
It's clear that they all fear the LOOKS from others in their church when they are caught even thinking about the possibility of STDs.

 

[JoeMorgue]

OMG, the pearl clutching about HPV is so bizarre.
It's clear that they all fear the LOOKS from others in their church when they are caught even thinking about the possibility of STDs.

The fact that a reflexive top of the lung shrieking about "YOU WANT MY UNDERAGE DAUGHTER TO HAVE SEX!" is literally the only argument against one of the most effective and life saving vaccines on the market is so goddamn pathetic.

 

[Stacyhs]

I repeat, guy is trolling.

In addition to constantly equivocating on the use of "human" (ie. "is human" vs. "is a human"), did you not notice how he edited his own quote of the text you linked so as to make it appear as if it supports his "reading" of the text (or that the text is, at worst, unclear in this point)?

I did not point it out (I just called him a troll without referencing this) because it just jumped out at me.

The quote "human being for which the state has in interest in preserving" was originally "the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed". The object here is "a human being". He is forcing a reading here in which the object becomes "a human being for which the state has in interest in preserving". Thus, as he has explained, he is making the erroneous point that the court is creating the class of human beings for which the state has an interest in preserving and the class of human beings which do not fall in that category (presumably zygotes, embryos, fetuses, sperm & ova).

He clearly knows that the object in that sentence is "a human being". He dishonestly made that edit removing the parentheses that make this unambiguously clear*.

Nothing here is in good faith. These are not innocent errors. He is just trolling here (and everywhere else in this thread).


* The parenthesis are expanding on "the idea the fetus is a human being is earnestly disputed". There is no ambiguity here. This is a statement about a
dispute regarding whether a fetus is a "human being". It is not a statement regarding a dispute concerning which of two classes of human being a fetus should placed in (one deserving legal protection or one not deserving of legal protection).

No, I had not noticed but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Such dishonesty. But I've taken the advice of several on here and will no longer be replying to a certain person and have taken a technological step to reduce the urge to do so.

 

[cosmicaug]

Of course not. I am already on record numerous times as stating that I think the TX law is too stringent. However, what I see in this thread is no concern for the proactive aspect. As in, "it doesn't matter"...and that is a very irresponsible mindset, and not helping to avoid unwanted pregnancies, imo.

I don't see what a concern for the "proactive aspect" has to do with anything.

All I have seen you suggest is that if conception occurs, it should be carried to term because that is somehow "accountability" (in some manner which you have failed to explain despite repeated requests).

You have also suggested that you have some degree of acceptance of the fact that this outlook may not be reflected in the real world; but it is clear that you are claiming to think that the ideal is that a conception should lead to a pregnancy (putting aside the issue of the slut escaping proper punishment if a miscarriage happens —because we don't need that tangent).

 

[Warp12]

Ah yes the "I'm not on X's side, I'm just against people over-reacting to X's side in a way that is functionally identical to being on X's" argument.

What are we over-reacting to? What are we going "too far" with? What scale are you trying to balance or needle are you trying to push back to center?

Explain in words that actually answer and address the question asked.

Let me put this simply:

When I gave a direct response to your question about the difference between abortion and other means of birth control, you disregarded it as a "troll" answer", it seems. Everyone obviously knows that conception is the difference, however. And that is the most direct answer I could possibly give.

Since that wasn't clear enough for you, I am not going to address your questions or statements here any further, right now. There is obviously no point in doing so.