Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[adrina]

You may be asking yourself, Why in the world is he debating this point if he admits he doesn't know all the facts? You may be skeptical of my motives about debating the issue when I admit I don't know all the facts. That's not unreasonable of you. I'll explain.

I think there's value in debating important political and philosophical questions even though we don't know what all the facts are AND assuming we probably know less than we think we know. I admit I don't know much about late term abortion, but I'll bet most of the people who take different positions aren't trained experts either. I think the reality is that almost all of us are much less informed about these issues than we think we are. We dig in with our moral views, and then we cherry pick the facts that we think we will support them. I'm not saying you're doing this, but I think this is what usually happens. I think you'll admit that the standard of "factual expertise" exhibited in this forum is relatively low.

We learn more about our most deeply held values when we let go of the facts and engage in hypotheticals. What if everything we thought about the evidence of climate change/gun control/late term abortion/minimum wages, etc. was wrong? Would we change our values?

I believe in reality and science, but I believe that knowing reality is more elusive and less obvious than most of us think it is.

That's why I think discussions like this can be quite useful. What if in fact the facts are quite different from what you think they are? Do you have to rethink what you believe? Most people don't want to go there. I think it's very interesting and useful to go there.

In the course of this conversation you said something about late term abortions and the consequences of regulating them that gives me pause and that I'm going to think about, and I'm going to do some research. So in my view something useful came out of this thread, after over 300 posts, despite all the utter nonsense and rancor that's been spewed forth.

The problem is that this type of hypothetical now costs women the freedom to control their own body and to determine their own reproductive future.

I happen to be very well versed in the statistics and realities of abortion and that majority of what the "pro-life" people say is false.

I'm glad you have learned something new from this.

 

[Lazaran]

The problem is that this type of hypothetical now costs women the freedom to control their own body and to determine their own reproductive future.

I happen to be very well versed in the statistics and realities of abortion and that majority of what the "pro-life" people say is false.

I'm glad you have learned something new from this.

That one is a reeeeeeeaaaally slow learner… but then…most right wing sea lions are.

 

[deckardB26354]

How about being more concerned with PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies in the first place? But oh no that might entail telling young women that they are accountable for their behavior. So you're not on board with that at all.

HEY YOU’RE RIGHT!

Why don’t you reach out to every member of Congress to get them to pass a national circumcision and vasectomy bill—making it MANDATORY for every man in this country to undergo both procedures?

WHAT!?! Your body, your choice?? What a concept.

 

[AlexBailey]

…: I'd want to know a lot more before I reached a final conclusion about what to do.

To me, this illustrates the best reason to keep the decisions for medical care out of the hands of politicians. They are not medical experts. They can spend lots of time, debating and researching and hiring shill expert witnesses to further their political goals, while a real person, a patient is being denied the care that a trained doctor has already deemed appropriate.

 

[AlexBailey]

How about being more concerned with PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies in the first place? But oh no that might entail telling young women that they are accountable for their behavior. So you're not on board with that at all.

So you want freedom for everyone except for women’s reproductive rights?

 

[Lazaran]

To me, this illustrates the best reason to keep the decisions for medical care out of the hands of politicians. They are not medical experts. They can spend lots of time, debating and researching and hiring shill expert witnesses to further their political goals, while a real person, a patient is being denied the care that a trained doctor has already deemed appropriate.

I thought you were going to go a different direction with this, but your comment works.



I would have pointed to the OP’s use of “I’d” and “I” in their comment.



“They” seem to think “their” conclusions should be given some special weight.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Apparently Republican women are okay with men telling them what to do with their bodies because they can save using their limited brain cells for pickleball.

And I'm never forgetting this;
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/08/28/trump-campaign-arlington-cemetery-photo-op-feud/

 

[beckiefalwell]

Utah Governor Cox uses Trump's Arlington photo for his fundraising emails.

https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/08/28/trump-spencer-cox-utah-arlington-photos-npr

 

[jaF0]

Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.

https://apnews.com/article/alaska-yupik-village-floods-a993b0c92092d95781ea23b10d25f6f8

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/26/us/ketchikan-alaska-landslide-evacuations/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/alaska-flooding-river-ice-jams-damage-9b0b753b5ff672f72f6e52e65f189a0e

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...-us-city-likely-will-happen-again/ar-AA1pxypn

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nat...cal-storm-landslide-flash-flood-snow/5742487/

https://www.powder.com/news/montana-ski-areas-see-summer-snow

https://www.vox.com/climate/368324/hurricane-season-2024-gulf-mexico-ocean-warming

https://theconversation.com/ocean-h...equences-for-nz-fisheries-and-sea-life-236427

https://www.***.org/scientists-warn-that-2023-s-extreme-ocean-heat-may-signal-a-major-climate-shift-2669057167.html ***s = e hn

https://news.ucar.edu/132975/international-report-confirms-record-high-global-temperatures-2023


https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01637-8




And that's just a very small sample. Add in multiple flooding events in Vermont, record heat waves, etc.

 

[jaF0]

Next he's going to try and tell us Humans never went to the Moon.

 

[jaF0]

Also:

Why hurricane season is suddenly quiet — and what’s in store​

An unusual African monsoon season is not producing the sort of atmospheric seeds that typically go on to become hurricanes. Air high above the tropical Atlantic is so warm that it’s actually preventing storms from brewing.

Unexpected Rainfall event starts in the Sahara Desert: A Rare Weather ...​

1 day agoA unique rainfall event is about to unfold across the Sahara desert, otherwise known as the driest place on Earth. The amount of rainfall might not seem large by normal standards, but a large part of the Sahara will get well over 500% of normal monthly rainfall in August and September.


But no ..... nothing will change until some maybe future hypothetical dates

 

[beckiefalwell]

Lizz Winstead discusses her Abortion Action Front on Daily Show.

 

[beckiefalwell]

There's more info on Trump's disgraceful Arlington photo op here.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...rlington-national-cemetery-matters-rcna168577

 

[YDB95]

How about being more concerned with PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

Wonderful idea. But here's what you're conveniently ignoring: the people who want to eradicate safe, legal abortions are also staunchly opposed to comprehensive sex education and easier access to contraception, and some of them are opposed to contraception period.

But oh no that might entail telling young women that they are accountable for their behavior. So you're not on board with that at all.

Only young women? Takes two to tango, you know.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Only young women? Takes two to tango, you know.

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

 

[YDB95]

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

Do you really need anyone to explain to you what the difference is? No, of course you don't. You're just pretending not to see it.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Treat them right.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/8/28/2266231/-Mock-Them-It-Works

 

[beckiefalwell]

More Lizz Winstead, the creator of the original Daily Show.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Lizz Winstead talks about Kroger Supermarket;

Want to talk about inflation?

 

[PaxNurgle]

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

Not if Trump gets elected.

Then it will be 100% The Government's responsibility, 100% The Government's body, 100% The Government's choice, 100% The Government's power and 100% The Government's decision. It's like that in Idaho already. Women in this state are little more than The Government's Grade-A breeding stock, and have virtually no rights when it comes to pregnancy.

This is what Trump and Project 2025 want to do to ALL women in America. But then again, treating pregnant women like Government Property is one of your "kinks," right?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I watched a wretched drama play out recently here in Texas where conservative dogma and religious intolerance created a situation that almost killed a woman in the name of ideological purity.

A woman was happily pregnant at 28 weeks, getting ready to welcome her new viable baby into the world, when disaster struck. Her baby suffered a catastrophic failure in the womb, the baby's skull collapsed and the nascent brain within died. The child had zero chance of survival outside the womb at this point without a functioning brain.

The dead fetus began to decay inside the mother. The mother's blood still flowed into the fetus via the umbilical cord, but necrotized (rotting) tissue entered the mother's body and began to poison her via sepsis. The mother's body did not realize it was pumping blood into a rotting carcass, there was no miscarriage.

Things of this nature are unfortunate but do occur in a very small numbers.

In the days of Roe, the decision would have been relatively easy: administer a medication that forces the womans body to expel the remains of the fetus.

In a Post-Dobbs world, though, the fee-fees of SimonDoom and "his majority of Americans" reduce the status of the woman to a mere birthing vessel, their ideological purity demand that the potential life of a brain-dead fetus is superior to that of a living mother.

The woman must by necessity die for the ideological purity of those disgusted at the thought of third trimester abortion, with no exception.

This is why all-out bans are utter nonsense in any trimester. This is why we should leave the decisions to abort between a doctor and a patient. The Roe decision applied "strict scrutiny" to third trimester abortion, which provided a path for women to survive these unexpected disasters.

Many states now claim to have exceptions "to save the life of the mother" but in reality they refuse to pre-authorize any specific procedure, instead telling the OB doctor to abort the baby as he/she sees fit and they will render judgement in a court of law as to whether or not the doctor may keep his license after the fact. No doctor wants to risk his/her career on an arbitrary and capricious court. This is now the new norm in Texas and Louisiana, among other states.

If you are in favor of a complete ban on abortion in the third trimester, I hope and pray that a castestrophic fetal collapse does not fall upon you (if female), your wife, your lover, your daughters, sisters, mother, aunts or granddaughters. If a catastrophic fetal failure DOES in fact affect one of your female loved ones, I'd be interested in hearing whether your beliefs have changed at all. I've found people's inflexible core beliefs change quite a bit when they or someone they love are personally affected.

Abortion is basic health care, your feelings on the matter notwithstanding.

I have nothing but utter contempt for anyone suggesting an unconditional ban on abortion.

 

[Wylie3]

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

If that is the case then Women have 100% the right to an abortion if they want one.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The less intelligent among us usually pivot to "PREVENTION" long before this.

The "PREVENTION" they mention (hey, that rhymes!) is not PREGNANCY prevention, it's SEXUAL prevention, i.e. patriarchal control.

What it basically boils down to is "slut shaming" and (to use Project 2025's creator's verbiage) "making sex dangerous again".

These folks are not about "PREVENTION", they're about control over unmarried sex.

It's not gonna happen.

 

[AlexBailey]

Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.

Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

The "abortion debate" is an asinine logjam. Stepping back to PREVENTION makes that debate moot.

Which you likely already understood, you're just so much of a shill for the liberal agenda, you feel compelled to be a troll.

The asinine logjam came in with you.

Do you have a workable concept of how society should be structured or is this just a fixation?

Are you like the guy yelling on a street corner pushing your version of the good book?

Part of the purpose for the US Constitution - stated in its preamble, is that it will promote the general welfare, then it goes on to describe how decisions are to be made and that we will democratically elect our representatives….

Do you promote overthrowing that system?

Maybe you aren’t talking about this country, maybe you’re evangelizing for future generations…. whatever your quixotic agenda, what’s your plan?

Your consent is surrendered in this country with an opportunity to participate within the framework of the constitution. If you think government has it wrong you are welcome to join the frey and do something within it, or you can simply vote.

Are you just playing the part of an Objectivist proselytizer?

Ayn Rand’s life is a case study that proves social security ‘promotes the general welfare’. Her life is proof that her philosophy can let anyone’s plans fail. Our society has decided to have a safety net for any citizen’s benefit. It may help you someday too.



We can talk about the benefits to the general welfare of social investment in education and infrastructure later.


“The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.” - Bertrand Russell

 

[TastySuckToy]

If that is the case then Women have 100% the right to an abortion if they want one.

Yeah, I've repeatedly argued that position.