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

[MiaBabe23]

For clarity - I am absolutely saying “fuck the lot of you” to the genocidal racist trolls and I am absolutely not saying that to anyone who hasn’t said something genocidal or racist.

Okay, apologies for the misunderstanding

 

[RobDownSouth]

A thread about seeing other perspectives immediately veered into the usual partisan BS.

Many arguments here look like video game fights, poorly executed: a few moves repeated many times, until the opponent gets bored or dies of old age and that counts as a win.

I acknowledge your smug, bitchy pathetic attempts to position yourself "above the fray".

Given your extensive partisan shitposting history here, I find this attempt to be extremely....wait for it....weird.

 

[SimonDoom]

Why have any legal restrictions on abortion at all?

Because most people, including myself, believe that the abortion question presents a conflict of values-- the woman's right to autonomy and in her body v. the interest of the fetus in being alive. As the pregnancy progresses the relative weights of those interests change. Even the majority in Roe v. Wade recognized that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus's life interest, and that at some point in the pregnancy that interest warranted regulating the right to abortion. If you believe in NO restrictions on abortion, then you are entitled to your opinion, but yours is a minority view, with no support in legal precedent, history, or public opinion.

 

[adrina]

Because most people, including myself, believe that the abortion question presents a conflict of values-- the woman's right to autonomy and in her body v. the interest of the fetus in being alive. As the pregnancy progresses the relative weights of those interests change. Even the majority in Roe v. Wade recognized that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus's life interest, and that at some point in the pregnancy that interest warranted regulating the right to abortion. If you believe in NO restrictions on abortion, then you are entitled to your opinion, but yours is a minority view, with no support in legal precedent, history, or public opinion

I'm assuming you're talking about the third trimester, the 7th 8th and 9th months.

Why do you believe women in the third trimester seek out abortions?

 

[Pad_Foot]

I'm assuming you're talking about the third trimester, the 7th 8th and 9th months.

Why do you believe women in the third trimester seek out abortions?

Because!! They said they do!!
Cuz? They do too!
And even after birth in the 10th month!!
They have many people saying it happens
So ?? It must happen all the time!!
Why would they lie???

Ummm?? Power ?? Power that feeds their greed

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Because most people, including myself, believe that the abortion question presents a conflict of values-- the woman's right to autonomy and in her body v. the interest of the fetus in being alive. As the pregnancy progresses the relative weights of those interests change. Even the majority in Roe v. Wade recognized that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus's life interest, and that at some point in the pregnancy that interest warranted regulating the right to abortion. If you believe in NO restrictions on abortion, then you are entitled to your opinion, but yours is a minority view, with no support in legal precedent, history, or public opinion.

Regulating late-term abortions puts women’s health and life at risk. When something goes wrong late in pregnancy, it’s often an emergency situation. Getting the state involved can delay healthcare until it’s too late to save the woman’s life or her ability to have children in the future.

You’re putting the interests of a hypothetical future person above the interests of a real living, breathing woman.

 

[SimonDoom]

Regulating late-term abortions puts women’s health and life at risk. When something goes wrong late in pregnancy, it’s often an emergency situation. Getting the state involved can delay healthcare until it’s too late to save the woman’s life or her ability to have children in the future.

You’re putting the interests of a hypothetical future person above the interests of a real living, breathing woman.

You are making assumptions about what I believe that are incorrect. If the life or health of the woman is at stake, obviously that must be taken into account.

What about those cases, perhaps rare, where, late in a pregnancy, a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy but none of these considerations apply? Where there's no indication of risk or threat to her health? Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to terminate the pregnancy? You may believe that. I don't. Most people agree with me.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm assuming you're talking about the third trimester, the 7th 8th and 9th months.

Why do you believe women in the third trimester seek out abortions?

I don't know. I don't make any assumptions about that.

I'll pose to you the question I posed to BrightShinyGirl: suppose a pregnant woman at 8 months decides she wants to abort the pregnancy and a) she's known about the pregnancy for a while and b) there's no indication that there's any threat to her health from the pregnancy. Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to end the pregnancy? Don't tell me the cases are rare; whether or not they are rare is irrelevant to whether society has an interest in regulating the few rare cases. If you believe that yes, she has a right to end the pregnancy up to the point of birth, regardless of circumstances, then you disagree with me and you disagree with the majority of people on this issue. You disagree with legal precedent. That doesn't make you wrong, but understand that you, not I, are taking the unusual position.

 

[adrina]

I don't know. I don't make any assumptions about that.

I'll pose to you the question I posed to BrightShinyGirl: suppose a pregnant woman at 8 months decides she wants to abort the pregnancy and a) she's known about the pregnancy for a while and b) there's no indication that there's any threat to her health from the pregnancy. Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to end the pregnancy? Don't tell me the cases are rare; whether or not they are rare is irrelevant to whether society has an interest in regulating the few rare cases. If you believe that yes, she has a right to end the pregnancy up to the point of birth, regardless of circumstances, then you disagree with me and you disagree with the majority of people on this issue. You disagree with legal precedent. That doesn't make you wrong, but understand that you, not I, are taking the unusual position.

I think before you ask me that question that you should do some research. I read in a post earlier in this thread that said that you have no problem researching to find information salient to the discussion at hand.

I'm not going to tell you those cases are rare. I'm going to tell you they don't exist. At all. There is not one single documented incidence of an elective third term abortion in the history of American medicine. I have yet to find an example anywhere else either. To the best of my knowledge, with the abundance of research I have done, elective third term abortions don't happen. This means essentially that it is a point of emotional hysteria as opposed to genuine policy concern.

So the question becomes why are we legislating for a situation that does not occur? I asked specifically why you think women have abortions in the third trimester for a reason. Your answer was to assume that women have elective third term abortions when there has never been an example or known incidence of that happening.

I have no problem stipulating whatsoever that I wholeheartedly disagree with elective third term abortions. They should not occur. And they don't occur. Can you stipulate that you have no knowledge of and cannot find a single incidence of an elective third term abortion? And further, why do you think it is important to legislate for an incident that has never been known to occur?

 

[HisArpy]

There is an argument to be made that the support of the president which ended Roe, regardless of the majority of the population's opinion and against all precedent, was authoritarian. Especially since they ruled beyond the original question asked. They did the same thing with the immunity ruling.

And given the circumstances of the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, there is no way to argue that reversing Dobbs and ending the right to abortion nationwide was even close to democratic or even reflective of our republic.

The US Supreme Court "ended" Roe, not any "President."

That kind of belief is why the Left gets ridiculed. You mix up everything and then you lash out against those who attempt to correct you.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You are making assumptions about what I believe that are incorrect. If the life or health of the woman is at stake, obviously that must be taken into account.

What about those cases, perhaps rare, where, late in a pregnancy, a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy but none of these considerations apply? Where there's no indication of risk or threat to her health? Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to terminate the pregnancy? You may believe that. I don't. Most people agree with me.

Your hypothetical literally never happens. We shouldn’t be making laws based on imaginary horror stories. (What @adrina just said)

 

[TastySuckToy]

I'll pose to you the question I posed to BrightShinyGirl: suppose a pregnant woman at 8 months decides she wants to abort the pregnancy and a) she's known about the pregnancy for a while and b) there's no indication that there's any threat to her health from the pregnancy. Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to end the pregnancy?

Absolutely. But ending the pregnancy shouldn't automatically mean killing the baby. At any point the fetus can be safely removed without killing or significantly harming it, that option should be available.

The pregnancy is terminated and the baby lives.

 

[HisArpy]

You are making assumptions about what I believe that are incorrect. If the life or health of the woman is at stake, obviously that must be taken into account.

What about those cases, perhaps rare, where, late in a pregnancy, a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy but none of these considerations apply? Where there's no indication of risk or threat to her health? Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to terminate the pregnancy? You may believe that. I don't. Most people agree with me.

The problem is that you're trying to argue from a position of logic while they are arguing from a position that you're stepping on their rights to do whatever they feel like doing.

That makes you the bad guy in their eyes because any type of restriction or restraint is anathema to them doing whatever they want.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

Yet here you are.

 

[Rightguide]

I live in the UK, I live amongst a very diverse community including Muslims and Jews of all kinds of genetic backgrounds and they live in peace and support each other.

In another ten years, your country will be a cauldron of Islamic chaos.

 

[MiaBabe23]

In another ten years, your country will be a cauldron of Islamic chaos.

What’s that boomer Powell?

 

[Pad_Foot]

You are making assumptions about what I believe that are incorrect. If the life or health of the woman is at stake, obviously that must be taken into account.

What about those cases, perhaps rare, where, late in a pregnancy, a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy but none of these considerations apply? Where there's no indication of risk or threat to her health? Do you still believe she should have an unregulated right to terminate the pregnancy? You may believe that. I don't. Most people agree with me.

Show me the woman who WANTS to anott her future baby after SIX months!!
Come on! Find that woman
We’ll find you five carrying DEAD ones because of rules imposed by shitheads
Mind your own fucking business !!

Mr. Doom? Go do the research!
Not hypothetical seal philosophy
We’ve done this shit of shaming late miscarriages! That’s a historical fact!!
Enough! We are not going back!!

 

[HisArpy]

Show me the woman who WANTS to anott her future baby after SIX months!!
Come on! Find that woman
We’ll find you five carrying DEAD ones because of rules imposed by shitheads
Mind your own fucking business !!

Mr. Doom? Go do the research!
Not hypothetical seal philosophy
We’ve done this shit of shaming late miscarriages! That’s a historical fact!!
Enough! We are not going back!!

^somebody needs to take a few steps back from the edge.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dammit all, I had to click the "Like" button on a Rightguide post.
Now I need to go take a shower,

 

[ChloeTzang]

I live in the UK, I live amongst a very diverse community including Muslims and Jews of all kinds of genetic backgrounds and they live in peace and support each other.

Delusional. Muslims generally don't live in peace with anyone and particularly not now. Come back to me in 10 years time, inshallah, and let me know how it's going.

 

[ChloeTzang]

What’s that boomer Powell?

LOL. Enoch Powell was right you know. It's coming..... the left have tried a huge social experiment and in the end, it's going to backfire very bloodily. It'll be in the inverse of the decolonization of Africa. Let's just call it the decolonization of Europe, or the Reconquista if you prefer.

We CAN actually learn from history if we study it just a little, and while it doesn't repeat, it rhymes. Assimilation can work. Diversity leads to civil conflict.

 

[Lazaran]

By being patronizing - displaying your superior and condescending attitude - such as thinking you need to give a sub-101 summary on the interpretation of the constitution to a PoliSci specialist is implying you regard me as stupid
Your view of someone isn’t only conveyed by specific words

Look, I kept at this precisely because I believed you were genuine in wanting open debate
You’d seemed a genuine person from all I’d seen
Yet it’s ended up you more than anyone on this thread are generalizing people according to their beliefs, and now you accuse me - with the points I’ve made, several of which supported your apparent aims in starting the thread, alongside my legitimate questions and reasoned positions, of not responding in good faith…
Simon, go read your original question, and think about all your sweeping comments and criticisms of people here - and how easily and quickly you moved to that point
You have your answer

SimonDoom should change their username to SimonSays.



Simon reminds me of JaySecrets and HisArpy in their aloof, patronizing, dogmatic approach to "good faith exchanges of viewpoints": They’re "interested" in having a civil debate, and "open" to being convinced…and yet…when someone IS civil, and DOES present a perfectly valid, convincing argument, they immediately go into patronizing-dogmatic-pontificating-jerk mode, with responses that read as transparent attempts to steamroll their opponent’s perfectly valid, convincing argument. (And, unsurprisingly, they lack self-awareness and are incapable of self-examination, so they will never gain personal insight into their own faults and failings, and the faults and failings of their arguments.)

Individuals that are so slaved to dogma and the letter of the law / scripture cannot engage in civil debate in good faith: They are too limited in the scope of what arguments they will entertain from others and what arguments they will present themselves.

They are patronizing, dogmatic, pedantic right wing sea lions.

Not an uncommon breed of sea lion here on the PB.

 

[Rightguide]

What’s that boomer Powell?

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'

I had to look him up, but I assume he was thinking about the Thames.

 

[MiaBabe23]

LOL. Enoch Powell was right you know. It's coming..... the left have tried a huge social experiment and in the end, it's going to backfire very bloodily. It'll be in the inverse of the decolonization of Africa. Let's just call it the decolonization of Europe, or the Reconquista if you prefer.

We CAN actually learn from history if we study it just a little, and while it doesn't repeat, it rhymes. Assimilation can work. Diversity leads to civil conflict.

However ignorant and ill-informed your argument, you pre-trashed it with your racist nonsense in your previous post
Don’t live in fear. And don’t spread hate from it. We’re all just bone beneath

 

[MiaBabe23]

SimonDoom should change their username to SimonSays.



Simon reminds me of JaySecrets and HisArpy in their aloof, patronizing, dogmatic approach to "good faith exchanges of viewpoints": They’re "interested" in having a civil debate, and "open" to being convinced…and yet…when someone IS civil, and DOES present a perfectly valid, convincing argument, they immediately go into patronizing-dogmatic-pontificating-jerk mode, with responses that read as transparent attempts to steamroll their opponents perfectly valid, convincing argument. (And, unsurprisingly, they lack self-awareness and are incapable of self-examination, so they will never gain personal insight into their own faults and failings, and the faults and failings of their arguments.)

Individuals that are so slaved to dogma and the letter of the law / scripture cannot engage in civil debate in good faith: They are too limited in the scope of what arguments they will entertain from others and what arguments they will present themselves.

They are patronizing, dogmatic, pedantic right wing sea lions.

Not an uncommon breed of sea lion here on the PB.

I wish I’d realized that earlier