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

[BrightShinyGirl]

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.

The US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade felt otherwise. It believed states have a legitimate interest in protecting the life interests of fetuses after a certain point, and I think the majority of the US population agrees with that and disagrees with you. That doesn't make you wrong, but your statement is a conclusion and not an argument. You can't just make a statement like this; you have to support it with arguments.

We worry about climate change because real living people want a livable world for their descendants, not because hypothetical future people have rights.

The majority of Americans want abortion to be legal.

 

[adrina]

We worry about climate change because real living people want a livable world for their descendants, not because hypothetical future people have rights.

The majority of Americans want abortion to be legal.

I can say with complete conviction that I would never want my existence to come from someone's lack of choice of control over their own body. I would never want my mother to be forced to carry a pregnancy. I would never want my existence to come at the cost of someone else's freedom.

 

[SimonDoom]

I appreciate that.

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.

 

[SimonDoom]

We worry about climate change because real living people want a livable world for their descendants, not because hypothetical future people have rights.

The majority of Americans want abortion to be legal.

It's not a perfect analogy, but most people don't see an 8 month old fetus as a hypothetical. They see it as more or less a person that just hasn't been born yet.

If we're talking about fetuses pre-viability, then you and I don't really disagree at all. To the extent there's disagreement, it's over a tiny, tiny fraction of pregnancies, and as I've said in my responses to Adrina I'd want to know a lot more before I reached a final conclusion about what to do.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

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.

You feel free to treat this as a fun hypothetical because you’re a man. For women, access to abortion is a matter of life and death. Choose a different philosophical playground.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It's not a perfect analogy, but most people don't see an 8 month old fetus as a hypothetical. They see it as more or less a person that just hasn't been born yet.

If we're talking about fetuses pre-viability, then you and I don't really disagree at all. To the extent there's disagreement, it's over a tiny, tiny fraction of pregnancies, and as I've said in my responses to Adrina I'd want to know a lot more before I reached a final conclusion about what to do.

People who feel that way shouldn’t get abortions. Let individual women choose.

 

[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.

 

[Chernosoth]

 

[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.