Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Re: framing the abortion debate Re: framing the abortion debate

05-30-2020 , 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds
A republic is a state not led by a monarch. That's why we have a president.

We're literally a representative democracy. Not a direct democracy of course.
But the idea was to have voters elect representatives and have those representatives bound by a constitution.

It's absolutely a type of democracy.
It just showed how facked up a country can become when public school and education isn’t a priority one ....

Lot of misconception are translated in electoral polls and create a distort society from the actual meaning or reality ....
Whether it’s science , economy , vocabulary, etc ....
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds
A republic is a state not led by a monarch. That's why we have a president.

We're literally a representative democracy. Not a direct democracy of course.
But the idea was to have voters elect representatives and have those representatives bound by a constitution.

It's absolutely a type of democracy.
+1
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
Lot of misconception are translated in electoral polls and create a distort society from the actual meaning or reality ....
Whether it’s science , economy , vocabulary, etc ....
Huh?
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
If Roe was overturned, then my understanding is that each state could construct their own anti-abortion laws.

Of course, any of those new laws could be found Unconstitutional for any number of reasons.
You are correct but what reasoning do you expect the court to use in its finding to “take back” a fundamental right? Do you think Roe could be deemed unconstitutional?

IMHO “Roe being overturned” probably will never happen. Roe and Casey could be minimized by expanding the state’s interests for the welfare of the fetus in the balancing test.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Huh?
........

It means the efficiency of a democracy is correlated with the education of its peoples.
More educated = better informed electorate = less Liar/imbecile in position of power = more efficient Democracy.

And the correlation is easily demonstrated where the votes go in the United States based on that .

In general
Facts , science, better income , etc = blue states
beliefs, religion , low income , etc = red states
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
You are correct but what reasoning do you expect the court to use in its finding to “take back” a fundamental right? Do you think Roe could be deemed unconstitutional?

IMHO “Roe being overturned” probably will never happen. Roe and Casey could be minimized by expanding the state’s interests for the welfare of the fetus in the balancing test.
Abortion is not based on any "fundamental right" found explicitly in the Constitution.

Some cite a "right to privacy". Which I think is a cool idea. That way, one could exercise that right to refuse to tell the government how much money one makes, which would basically put an end to the Income Tax.

On the other hand, a "right to life" is fundamental to ANY and ALL decent societies.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 11:35 PM
The real question is

Spoiler:
Why does God murder so many fertilized eggs?
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 11:37 PM
And I assume lagtight is out there protesting fertility clinics too. Lots of fertilized eggs there just being frozen until they expire or get flushed. So so many flushed humans.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
05-31-2020 , 11:37 PM
Maybe fertilized eggs are only humans when they’re inside a woman? I dunno tho! Science!
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
06-01-2020 , 12:00 AM
If you think about it, medical researchers have killed Henrietta Lacks roughly eleventy billion times, some of you pro-life dudes should be more worried about that. Is it a genocide if you mass murder the same person over and over? So complicated.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
06-01-2020 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
The real question is

Spoiler:
Why does God murder so many fertilized eggs?
I give up, why?

(Just kidding)

God can't "murder." Murder is "wrongful killing", and for God to wrongfully kill something, there would have to be a moral standard that He is Himself subject to. If there was such a standard, He wouldn't be God.

Having said that, a god could theoretically declare "I (god) am morally forbidden from killing fertilized eggs", and then violate his own decree by killing fertilized eggs.

It gets very confusing at some point....
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
06-01-2020 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Time for some SCIENCE!

The following quote is from a book titled, BEFORE WE ARE BORN: ESSENTIALS OF EMBRYOLOGY AND BIRTH DEFECTS (8th edition),
by Drs. Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia.

From the section, "Introduction to Human Embryology":

"Human development begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Development involves many changes that transform a single cell, the zygote (fertilized ovum) into a multicellular human being. Embryology is concerned with the origin and development of a human being from a zygote to birth."

(Emphasis added)

So, a zygote is technically a "human being" according to the SCIENCE of Embryology.
A young earth creationist using "SCIENCE" to back up his bigoted religious views might be some of the funniest **** I ever saw. How has nobody called you out on this yet?
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 01:10 AM
Must admit that I didn't read the whole thread yet.

I just heard Mason Malmuth talk with Mike Matusow about abortion on Mike's podcast, and in between the lines, they both sounded to be a bit more on the con side, in general. They talked about measurable heartbeat as a "point of no return", but then drifted off to some other things.

My heart is on their point of view, but my brain isn't.

It's ofc not possible to allow teens to abort their unborns until x months, and twens until y months due to different stages of maturation, same as on court regarding crimes.
...
Research now just told me that courts decide in the USA?
Could someone please tell me where they draw the line on court in the USA?
(I'm shocked, didn't expect that at all, no stageing here. Just found out about that)

In Germany it's twelve weeks max (even after rape), except with medical reasons, which means until 22nd week max.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
A young earth creationist using "SCIENCE" to back up his bigoted religious views might be some of the funniest **** I ever saw. How has nobody called you out on this yet?
1. I, of course, disagree with your claim that my religious views are bigoted.

2. But, even if they WERE bigoted, is that a bad thing? Is there something wrong with being a bigot? Why is bigotry bad? Who decides if bigotry is bad? Why should I even care if you think my views are bigoted?
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 12:25 PM
the fact that bigotry is bad is kind of captured in the definition. It seems like you want to treat bigotry as merely having an opinion that some things are good and others bad, but discriminating between the relative value of things isn't bigotry, nor is intolerance per se. We call intolerance bigotry when we think it's manifestly unreasonable.

So rather than arguing that bigotry isn't bad, you'd probably want to argue instead that your views are not unreasonably intolerant.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
1. I, of course, disagree with your claim that my religious views are bigoted.
Wanting to prevent homosexuals from getting married is bigotry. But I don't know if that is your position.

[/QUOTE]

2. But, even if they WERE bigoted, is that a bad thing? Is there something wrong with being a bigot? Why is bigotry bad? Who decides if bigotry is bad? Why should I even care if you think my views are bigoted? [/QUOTE]

Yes it is a bad thing.

Generally, there are several reasons why being a bigot is wrong. The most common is fear of variation which can forge hate.

Similar to why overall hate is bad and what it can lead to.

Anybody or nobody.

It's difficult to have hatred and empathy at the same time. Eliminating hate can lead to a happier life for that person and others around them ldo.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
the fact that bigotry is bad is kind of captured in the definition. It seems like you want to treat bigotry as merely having an opinion that some things are good and others bad, but discriminating between the relative value of things isn't bigotry, nor is intolerance per se. We call intolerance bigotry when we think it's manifestly unreasonable.

So rather than arguing that bigotry isn't bad, you'd probably want to argue instead that your views are not unreasonably intolerant.
I am NOT arguing that bigotry is isn't bad. I believe that bigotry IS bad.

I was asking d2-e4 why HE thought bigotry was bad, and why I should care what he thinks, etc.

I do not believe that my views are unreasonably intolerant.

If d2-e4 wants to make an argument, other than to merely make hitherto baseless accusations, he is free to do so.

WN: I will, of course, defer to your judgement if you believe any of my stated beliefs are bigoted. If you think any of them are, i will stop posting in this thread.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 02:28 PM
Is it bigoted to prevent blacks from getting married?
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula72
Is it bigoted to prevent blacks from getting married?
In my opinion, yes.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-02-2020 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula72
Wanting to prevent homosexuals from getting married is bigotry. But I don't know if that is your position.
I was advised by WN sometime back to not discuss homosexuality in this Forum.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-03-2020 , 10:13 AM
If abortion isn't allowed by God
... neither is IVF.

But the infertile folks have all the money.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
07-03-2020 , 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
........

It means the efficiency of a democracy is correlated with the education of its peoples.
More educated = better informed electorate = less Liar/imbecile in position of power = more efficient Democracy.

And the correlation is easily demonstrated where the votes go in the United States based on that .

In general
Facts , science, better income , etc = blue states
beliefs, religion , low income , etc = red states
How much experience do you have in universities?

Most people are so far from being understand the nuances of all those things that they might as well be rolling the dice, and that includes the highly educated.

Education and income are at best weakly correlated with peoples voting preference, and even then - it's often hinged on what their background is.

The bar would have to be so incredibly high to have a truly informed electorate that the whole process, even as an aspirational mechanism is a complete joke. Even looking at the same person at different points in their life - their opinions often shift dramatically.


put it this way: the united states by historic standards is one of the most educated in the countries history and yet here we are.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
08-30-2021 , 06:51 PM
The newest reframing attempt.

New Texas law opens up abortion bounty hunting

An antiabortion law in Texas will soon allow any U.S. citizen to sue Texas-based abortion clinics, doctors, and anyone who aids in an abortion. If successful, the petitioner, who does not have to reside in Texas, will receive an $10,000 award and the cost for attorney’s fees. Pro-choice advocates worry that this cash prize may create a new cottage industry of aggressive antiabortion bounty hunters.

The provision, which passed the Texas state legislature this spring, is part of a larger antiabortion bill which will ban all abortions after a doctor detects a fetal heartbeat, usually around the six-week mark.

Many don’t know they are pregnant before six weeks. ...

The law is set to take effect on Sept. 1, and lawyers for abortion clinics are unsure of how to rebuke it because the government isn’t the enforcing body. In the past, six-week bans in other states have all been eventually found unconstitutional as they’ve risen through the legal system.

This “legal hack” could be a way to get around that.

Typically, governmental agencies shut down or challenge abortion clinics accused of breaking the law, and the clinics then have a way to challenge the constitutionality of the state law through the courts. By deputizing Americans to sue on their own, clinics and doctors can no longer employ that method.

An organization like Planned Parenthood would normally go to court and sue Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton before the bill is enacted, but because he is not the one enforcing the law, it has to instead wait to be sued itself.

Opening up the ability to sue to all Americans could also inundate clinics with lawsuits, overwhelming their limited legal and monetary resources. Even if they ultimately win cases, time and money will be depleted.

“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” ...“You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”

Over 370 Texas attorneys, including county attorneys, current and former elected officials, former judges, and law professors wrote a letter to the state legislature earlier this spring expressing their concerns over the bill.

“In an attempt to avoid a constitutional challenge that the state will likely lose, these bills are drafted to remove any state actor from enforcing them, but allow ‘any person’ to use Texas state courts to enforce compliance with 28 existing regulations and the new unconstitutional ban,” the letter read.

...

Other Texas legal officials expressed concern that the bill was broad enough to allow sexual predators to profit off their assaults. “The bill is so extreme that it could even allow a rapist to sue a doctor for providing care to a sexual assault survivor and for the rapist to recover financial damages,” wrote Travis County attorney Delia Garza. ...
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote
08-30-2021 , 07:27 PM
“My body , my choice “ for anti waxxer , but not for woman .

It’s fascist , communist to deny people to chose for taking a vaccine or not but it isn’t for woman and abortion to be fascist by denying their freedom of choices ….

The absurdity of it all .

For the right wing extremist, freedom is ok only when it fit their ideology .
Not comprehending it’s the same ideology for every totalitarian state .
As long you do what is acceptable by the ideology of its leader , you are free …
Strange view of freedom from those that claim they are the best freedom fighter in the world ……

Last edited by Montrealcorp; 08-30-2021 at 07:36 PM.
Re: framing the abortion debate Quote

      
m