Jump to content

Overturning Roe V Wade Is Rigged.


57 replies to this topic

#21 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 29 October 2022 - 04:10 AM

View PostLordNothing, on 28 October 2022 - 07:34 PM, said:

i always take the libertarian argument on stuff like this. the federal government has too much power and is corrupt af. they are also grossly out of touch with any state that doesn't have a large number of seats in the house, or a large number of electoral votes. i dont think people in other states should get to override the will of the people in my own state.


How is "the libertarian argument" states rights and not individual liberties? It's almost as if you aren't really a libertarian, and just want to institute authoritarian policies at the state level because you've failed to get them to stick at the federal level.

#22 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,945 posts

Posted 29 October 2022 - 06:34 AM

View PostEscef, on 29 October 2022 - 04:10 AM, said:

How is "the libertarian argument" states rights and not individual liberties? It's almost as if you aren't really a libertarian, and just want to institute authoritarian policies at the state level because you've failed to get them to stick at the federal level.


under libertarianism government at either the state level or federal level would intrude very little into the lives of its people. the federal government mostly sticks to its lane of national defense, international and interstate trade, and foreign policy. a state government is in a far better position to represent its people.

for things like gay marriage, the libertarian argument is rather than define a right, say by making a law that allows gays to apply for a marriage license, you simply abolish the marriage license. marriage is not the government's job. its between you, your partner (and your god/church officials if religious). same goes for trans rights, its not the government's job to tell you what you can do with your body or how to live your life that's between you and your doctors. you can remove the gender field from all government forms, that's not their business either.

i don't like authoritarians no matter what side of the isle they are on.

#23 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 29 October 2022 - 06:42 AM

View PostLordNothing, on 29 October 2022 - 06:34 AM, said:

i don't like authoritarians no matter what side of the isle they are on.


And yet you sit here and say the states should be given the authority to regulate reproduction.

#24 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,945 posts

Posted 29 October 2022 - 06:55 AM

View PostEscef, on 29 October 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

And yet you sit here and say the states should be given the authority to regulate reproduction.


thats not something states should be doing either frankly. thats between you your doctor and your god imho. part of libertarianism is having the right to solve your own problems. regulations impede that right.

Edited by LordNothing, 29 October 2022 - 06:57 AM.


#25 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,397 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 29 October 2022 - 11:30 AM

View PostEscef, on 29 October 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

And yet you sit here and say the states should be given the authority to regulate reproduction.


There isn't a single law in this nation that regulates reproduction or stops you from reproducing all you want and any such law proposal would be instantly shot down by every possible side of the argument. Abortion isn't reproduction, its murder of an unborn child. This progressive push to redefine it as 'health care' is demonic at best. The abortion industry is a multi billion dollar a year extremely profitable business and they want it expanded not restricted.

#26 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 29 October 2022 - 02:55 PM

View PostMeep Meep, on 29 October 2022 - 11:30 AM, said:


There isn't a single law in ...


Was I talking to you? No, I was not. F-off.

#27 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,397 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 29 October 2022 - 10:36 PM

View PostEscef, on 29 October 2022 - 02:55 PM, said:

Was I talking to you? No, I was not. F-off.


Too bad? I'll reply to whomever I wish? Posted Image

#28 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,862 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 31 October 2022 - 06:37 PM

Nice to see that reasonable, respectful discourse on this issue has kept up all the way since June. Keep it up!

I have my own opinion on both abortion and the Constitution in general, but I'll keep those under my hat for the nonce; what I want to know is, have any of you all on either side of the issue noticed that your opponents are reasoning from different definitions - and if so, why didn't you deal with that first, since all other discourse is useless otherwise?

#29 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,397 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 01 November 2022 - 03:24 AM

View PostVoid Angel, on 31 October 2022 - 06:37 PM, said:

what I want to know is, have any of you all on either side of the issue noticed that your opponents are reasoning from different definitions - and if so, why didn't you deal with that first, since all other discourse is useless otherwise?


Well thats the rub. From the very start of the abortion debate decades ago there were two main camps. On one side are the ones who don't think an unborn child is human or in some cases even alive and therefore not recognized under the law and able to be discarded at will for any reason right up to birth. The other side thinks that as soon as conception and the first cell divide starts then its alive and a developing human who should enjoy all the rights thereof. The funny thing is that under existing law if you kill a pregnant mother regardless of how far along in her term she is and the baby dies its an automatic double homicide. But in certain states if you choose to willingly murder your unborn child even though there is no health risk and it was consentual sex its ok.

That gulf of opinion has never been breached and looks like it never will so it devolved into open sometimes bloody combat. Well it looks like the side that views unborn children as human finally won at least at the state level which is where it should have always been decided. As I stated earlier the effective outcome of overturning roe is a net zero change in number of abortions since states that will allow unrestricted abortions were the ones having the lions share of them anyways and every state that is going to ban them outright will have several adjoining states that allow it.

#30 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,862 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 01 November 2022 - 11:21 AM

The problem is what's called "ideological non-congruence." When people argue about certain issues from different worldviews, you can get situations where no amount of rational argument on that issue can sway the other side, because all the facts can fit into either viewpoint. Obviously, abortion is one of those issues, and the worldview difference at play on the issue is definitions of personhood.

The pro-choice camp uses what I characterize as a quantitative view, while the pro-life camp uses a qualitative point of view. Essentially, the qualitative view says that once a human being is formed, it is human, and has human rights. It is wrong to kill a human because their survival jeopardizes your plan in life, or has disabilities, etc. It's wrong to kill them to alleviate their parents' mental distress, too - even if their mother was *****. Generally speaking, the only justification for deliberate homicide is self-defense. So pro-lifers on average don't have a problem with medically necessary abortions, but view it as a tragedy, to be use only in the last resort.

The pro-choice camp measures personhood differently. For them, an individual is a person if they have the faculties of a person; in essence, if they have undergone enough neurological development to have a recognizable mind. So a fetus, or blastocyst for that matter, is not a person yet, because it has not yet achieved that level of development. For this reason, many people who are generally pro-choice will draw an obvious line at late-term abortions, with the same caveat as the pro-life crowd: only to protect the life of (or prevent serious health risk to) the mother. Not all pro-choicers take this view, but it's not uncommon if you talk to people who describe themselves as pro-choice.

Depending on which worldview you take, all of the available facts logically support one or the other of these general positions. So arguing on the basis of those facts alone is useless - you end up talking past each other, assuming your own worldviews and becoming more and more frustrated with each other's apparently unreasonable obstinacy. So in order avoid turning the debate into a kind of Sorting Hat for worldviews, you need to address the fundamental issues in play and make both sides support the real opinions involved.

This has been happening in apologetic circles, and the pro-choice movement seems to have lost that particular argument - or at least decided that they weren't getting anywhere. This is why the bodily autonomy argument is being preferred in pro-choice arguments. I have... opinions... on that argument too, but here I'll say that at least this new tack moves both sides into debating the fundamental philosophical issues involved, rather than assuming worldviews and seeing who can shout the loudest most convincingly at the other.

Edited by Void Angel, 01 November 2022 - 11:26 AM.


#31 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 01 November 2022 - 01:07 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 01 November 2022 - 11:21 AM, said:

The problem is what's called "ideological non-congruence." When people argue about certain issues from different worldviews, you can get situations where no amount of rational argument on that issue can sway the other side, because all the facts can fit into either viewpoint. Obviously, abortion is one of those issues, and the worldview difference at play on the issue is definitions of personhood.


Here's the thing: the so-called pro-life camp wants to dictate ideology to everyone else. The pro-choice camp doesn't dictate what you should believe, doesn't force anyone to get an abortion or not get an abortion. The so-called "pro-life" camp seeks to take your ability to decide for yourself away from you. I also find it interesting that the so-called "pro-life" camp also tends to be pro-capital punishment, anti-social welfare, anti-any kind of program designed to help people. At all. They aren't "pro-life" in the slightest. It's 1984-level DoubleSpeak. They care about forcing people to birth babies and don't give a tinker's cuss about those kids until they turn 18 and can be shipped off to war. It's a cult of suffering.

#32 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,862 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 02 November 2022 - 02:45 PM

Unless the pro-choice camp is willing to condone child murder, it actually wants to dictate ideology to the exact same extent as the pro-life crowd. You're doing the exact same thing I just described, here: you've assumed your worldview and judged other people to be unreasonable by your standards - not their own. And you believe that your assumed viewpoint is a neutral ground that should have the protection (and thus the force) of law. If that's not dictating ideology, I don't know what is.

I've heard that argument about pro-lifers before; it's not convincing. There is a rational ideological connection between opposing what they believe is a murder and advocating the death penalty for murder, and a belief in personal responsibility and suspicion of too much power in government are not proof that they don't care about anyone until they're of military age. In fact, Pew Research recently found that 65% of highly religious Americans (the kind that tend to be pro-life) had donated goods or money to the poor in the last week, as opposed to 41% of those not highly religious ("highly religious" meaning "prays every day and goes to church once or more a week.) The social services impact of faith-based nonprofits alone were recently valued at over $20 billion, and there are a host of pro-life abortion-alternatives that are funded by pro-life causes. The total input of faith-based social services, including pregnancy/neonatal care, non-medical counseling, and support for needy families have been valued at over $1 trillion by multiple sources I've seen. I could go on... but consider: this information was literally at my fingertips, because I've been over this ground before and knew where to look. The people who thought up the argument, on the other hand, seem to be the same kind of people who mistake Heinlein for a fascist.

It's no more true that pro-lifers are all cynical, dystopian warmongers than it is true that pro-choicers are inhuman monsters who value human life below their own convenience. If someone disagrees with me on this issue, I find their point of view wrongheaded, and tragic in its implications - I do not dehumanize them as irredeemably wicked to explain to myself why they do not share my worldview.

#33 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 02 November 2022 - 03:53 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 02 November 2022 - 02:45 PM, said:

Unless the pro-choice camp is willing to condone child murder, it actually wants to dictate ideology to the exact same extent as the pro-life crowd.


Not at all. People are free to decide for themselves what does and does not constitute a child. I don't see the pro-choice camp trying to dictate religious beliefs to others. Hell, according to Jewish faith, a child is not a human being until it draws its first breath. The pro-life crowd claims their religious belief as the origin of their position, yet their holy book condones abortion and infanticide. Go ahead, ask them why the Medianite children had to die.

In the end, they don't care about life.

View PostVoid Angel, on 02 November 2022 - 02:45 PM, said:

I've heard that argument about pro-lifers before; it's not convincing.


Than I recommend you look at who they support and what legislation they support and oppose. I also find it quite interesting that they want the government to force their belief in "life" upon others, but don't want that same government to pay for anything that child requires to live once they are born.

I find it interesting that every vote against the PACT Act, intended to pay for the medical treatment required by veterans that became ill as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals released by burn pits, was cast by "pro-life" politicians. We had to have a semi-retired comedian, a freaking comedian, come out and publicly shame them to change their votes. Does that sound "pro-life" to you? This is personal to me. We're talking about my brothers and sisters in arms, and these "pro-life" politicians, politicians that will also claim to support the troops and veterans, tried to tell them that illnesses they contracted as a direct consequence of their military service are their own problem, and if those illnesses kill them, too damned bad.

So, yeah, you might not be convinced. I am. And you've got a hell of an uphill battle if you think you can prove otherwise. All the "pro-life" rhetoric is not more than warm air and platitudes.

#34 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,862 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 02 November 2022 - 10:51 PM

Are you in the burn pit registry? Because if you're not, that makes one of us who is.

If people are free to decide for themselves what a human being is, then no one has human rights. Your definition of "freedom" here is literally Puritanical. When asked how religious freedom reconciled with fining people for missing church, they responded that religious freedom was "the freedom to keep away from us." You generously grant people the "right" to disagree - but award your point of view the moral and legal force of law. That's not freedom, in either case.

Your legislative analysis is similarly a massively hasty generalization: you assume that the only reason ever anyone could vote against the PACT act is unconcern for veterans. But is it? Those who held up the bill in procedures (which is when all the hooplah hit veterans' social network channels) were disputing a mandatory spending provision that could potentially be used for unrelated things. So do they not care about veterans issues, or were they trying to remove just one of the bills' provisions? You could see that in their voting history, if you look.

One of them (Crapo, from Idaho) voted for an amendment to include insulin subsidies for low-income patients in the Inflation Reduction Act. Pro-choice Democrats unanimously voted it down. Does he still not want the government to pay for anything for children? Do those pro-choice Democrats not care about diabetes patients - even children with diabetes?

Of course not! That's a silly thing to claim on the basis of a few cheap generalizations and cherry-picked data points.

I have no problem proving my points on the basis of facts - so long as the common rules of argument, like the burden of proof and avoidance of logical fallacies, are maintained. Heck, it's a pretty low bar, because all I'm arguing is that there are reasonable ways to support both viewpoints from the facts depending on worldview - with the corollary that the smear campaigns often enacted against the other side by both camps are unwarranted.

#35 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 03 November 2022 - 02:21 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 02 November 2022 - 10:51 PM, said:

If people are free to decide for themselves what a human being is, then no one has human rights.


Incorrect. Extremely incorrect. Because what any individual considers a human being to be is irrelevant. It is what the government considers a human being to be. If you don't believe that, I suggest you look at the old 3/5ths bit in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.

View PostVoid Angel, on 02 November 2022 - 10:51 PM, said:

Your definition of "freedom" here is literally Puritanical.


Is that so? Well, since you seem to be such an expert, please, by all means, explain to me what my definition is. I want to hear this, it should be good.

View PostVoid Angel, on 02 November 2022 - 10:51 PM, said:

You generously grant people the "right" to disagree - but award your point of view the moral and legal force of law. That's not freedom, in either case.


I do no such thing. However, I deny others the privilege of imposing their views upon others. It becomes more and more obvious that, much like another poster here, you will use any argument that is convenient if it works. No guiding philosophy, no morals, no ethics; just win at any cost and don't pay too much mind to the fact that your agenda is a horribly mismatched pile of whims.

View PostVoid Angel, on 02 November 2022 - 10:51 PM, said:

I have no problem proving my points on the basis of facts - so long as the common rules of argument, like the burden of proof and avoidance of logical fallacies, are maintained.


I wish I could believe that were true.

#36 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,945 posts

Posted 03 November 2022 - 05:03 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 31 October 2022 - 06:37 PM, said:

Nice to see that reasonable, respectful discourse on this issue has kept up all the way since June. Keep it up!

I have my own opinion on both abortion and the Constitution in general, but I'll keep those under my hat for the nonce; what I want to know is, have any of you all on either side of the issue noticed that your opponents are reasoning from different definitions - and if so, why didn't you deal with that first, since all other discourse is useless otherwise?


issues like abortion are bait for tug of war politics. hot button issues that distract from more important things. usually used for the soul purpose of getting votes. i think the republicans may have shot themselves in the foot over this issue, because the other side is sure going to use it as ammunition in their attack ads.

the fact of the matter is i dont want either side to have absolute power in the senate/house/presidency/supreme court, because thats the day democracy really dies. they will pack their cabinets with yes men and rewrite every law they disagree with, and they will blackball the other side from participating in political discourse.

#37 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,862 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 03 November 2022 - 05:37 PM

View PostEscef, on 03 November 2022 - 02:21 PM, said:


Incorrect. Extremely incorrect. Because what any individual considers a human being to be is irrelevant. It is what the government considers a human being to be. If you don't believe that, I suggest you look at the old 3/5ths bit in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.


The Constitution doesn't define anyone as 3/5ths of a person. The clause people abuse to claim that it does so is a limitation on the influence of slavery. The right answer was "hey, slaves are people, and if all people are created equal, you can't have slaves," but we hadn't gotten there yet - still the 3/5ths compromise was still a step in the right direction, intended to limit the slave States' ability to simply buy representation by doubling down on slavery.

As for your definition of freedom, I'm using the one you used. Go read your own post! In fact, I've provided multiple arguments and explanations, and you've ignored them all - then accused me of lying and cheating in order to "win" the argument.

Arguments do not become incoherent and dishonest because you haven't anticipated them, or because you don't like what they say. You hate your opponents in this political debate, but can't respond when challenged on the reasons you gave - instead, you've just ignored all rebuttals and thrown out canned argument after canned argument - then turned around and accused me of doing the same. You argument boils down to a long diatribe of ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies; it is argument in bad faith.

#38 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,862 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 03 November 2022 - 05:42 PM

View PostLordNothing, on 03 November 2022 - 05:03 PM, said:


issues like abortion are bait for tug of war politics. hot button issues that distract from more important things. usually used for the soul purpose of getting votes. i think the republicans may have shot themselves in the foot over this issue, because the other side is sure going to use it as ammunition in their attack ads.

the fact of the matter is i dont want either side to have absolute power in the senate/house/presidency/supreme court, because thats the day democracy really dies. they will pack their cabinets with yes men and rewrite every law they disagree with, and they will blackball the other side from participating in political discourse.


They're used as polarizing issues, partly because they are polarizing. People tend to shut off their brains when they deal with emotional issues, and politicians can use those issues to separate people out so they don't have to worry as much about more bipartisan issues.

On the other hand, I'm not as grim about the possibility of anyone getting absolute power. Our voting system isn't the best, but it does enforce a two-party system, so any unilateral power will be fleeting - you can see that in recent memory, when Trump got into power with a Republican Congress - and ended up touting "deep state" conspiracy theories to explain why he didn't get his way all the time. It's not all ice cream and roses, but we're not looking at the 21st century version of Warhammer 40K, either.

#39 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,945 posts

Posted 03 November 2022 - 06:04 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 03 November 2022 - 05:42 PM, said:

They're used as polarizing issues, partly because they are polarizing. People tend to shut off their brains when they deal with emotional issues, and politicians can use those issues to separate people out so they don't have to worry as much about more bipartisan issues.

On the other hand, I'm not as grim about the possibility of anyone getting absolute power. Our voting system isn't the best, but it does enforce a two-party system, so any unilateral power will be fleeting - you can see that in recent memory, when Trump got into power with a Republican Congress - and ended up touting "deep state" conspiracy theories to explain why he didn't get his way all the time. It's not all ice cream and roses, but we're not looking at the 21st century version of Warhammer 40K, either.


its not that i think it will ever happen. the checks and balances that exist work for the most part. but hypothetically assuming one side gets all the power, it will indeed get grim as a consequence.

#40 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 04 November 2022 - 01:23 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 03 November 2022 - 05:37 PM, said:

The Constitution doesn't define anyone as 3/5ths of a person. The clause people abuse to claim that it does so is a limitation on the influence of slavery. The right answer was "hey, slaves are people, and if all people are created equal, you can't have slaves," but we hadn't gotten there yet - still the 3/5ths compromise was still a step in the right direction, intended to limit the slave States' ability to simply buy representation by doubling down on slavery.


They were considered 3/5ths of a person for computing the number of seats a state would have in the House of Representatives. Rather than a limitation on the influence of slavery, was a magnifier. As far as the government was concerned, slaves were property, not people. Counting them as fractional people was done so that the states with economies dependent upon slave labor would not be drowned out in the HoR by states with lesser slave populations.

View PostVoid Angel, on 03 November 2022 - 05:37 PM, said:

As for your definition of freedom, I'm using the one you used. Go read your own post!


Funny, I don't recall spouting a definition for freedom.

View PostVoid Angel, on 03 November 2022 - 05:37 PM, said:

You argument boils down to a long diatribe of ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies; it is argument in bad faith.


So, let me see if I got this right... You lied about what I've said, but I'm the one arguing in bad faith? Sure, why not?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users