1. #7281
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,551
    tehdang's position exposes a fundamentally rotten principle; the idea that "compromise" must, inherently, be more considered, rational, and reasonable than those positions between which it sits.

    It's trivial to expose this notion as fraudulent; should we consider the Jim Crow era of harsh and abusive race restrictions against black Americans to be the ideal "compromise" between the institution of slavery or modern freedom (as flawed as it may be)? Should the compromise on pedophilia be to split the difference between those who want under-16s protected from sexual protection and the sexual predators, and just set the age of consent to Age 8?

    No.

    Obviously not.

    So obviously that you can comfortably take any argument insisting its position is a "compromise" and thus ethical for that reason, and launch that willfully dishonest fallacy right into the fuckin' sun. Anyone making such an argument is trying to manipulate you. They are not interested in honest discussion, they are not seeking to be rational or reasonable. They're going to lie to your face and hope you're unstudied enough to fall for manipulation without being able to identify where the con in the claim lies.

    It's in that word; "compromise". That only functions as an argument when both sides have valid concerns and a middle ground should be found. You will start such discussions by acknowledging those valid concerns on both sides. These folks, like tehdang, will not do this. They'll declare themselves to be seeking a "compromise" without having to establish that both positions they fall between have inherent validity. They also do this with the word "moderate", for the same reason; to try and feign an appearance of weighing both sides and coming to a reasoned conclusion. In reality, they're just giving an invalid position an implicit endorsement, and offering a "compromise" to try and lock things down at least partially in that side's favor. And once they've secured that win, that compromise position becomes the new extreme, and they're now going to be pushing for middle ground between it and the invalid extremist view they're implicitly backing. That's what they did with Roe V. Wade, and why we're here now. Roe v. Wade was a compromise, and a particularly chickenshit one from a legislative point of view, skipping over the issue itself to file it under "medical privacy".

    It's a dishonest manipulation strategy. Don't fall for it.


  2. #7282
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,434
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    That's a lot of words to say "I'm just going to ignore the fact that the representatives will themselves just ignore what their voters actually want when it suits them."
    Yep! Pretty funny that in the year of our lord 2023 we still have people out here who genuinely believe that casting themselves as political moderates and harping on about "compromise" "debate" or "processes" makes it remotely less obvious that they're reactionary scumbags with indefensible viewpoints about democracy or human rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    tehdang's position exposes a fundamentally rotten principle; the idea that "compromise" must, inherently, be more considered, rational, and reasonable than those positions between which it sits.

    It's trivial to expose this notion as fraudulent; should we consider the Jim Crow era of harsh and abusive race restrictions against black Americans to be the ideal "compromise" between the institution of slavery or modern freedom (as flawed as it may be)? Should the compromise on pedophilia be to split the difference between those who want under-16s protected from sexual protection and the sexual predators, and just set the age of consent to Age 8?

    No.

    Obviously not.

    So obviously that you can comfortably take any argument insisting its position is a "compromise" and thus ethical for that reason, and launch that willfully dishonest fallacy right into the fuckin' sun. Anyone making such an argument is trying to manipulate you. They are not interested in honest discussion, they are not seeking to be rational or reasonable. They're going to lie to your face and hope you're unstudied enough to fall for manipulation without being able to identify where the con in the claim lies.

    It's in that word; "compromise". That only functions as an argument when both sides have valid concerns and a middle ground should be found. You will start such discussions by acknowledging those valid concerns on both sides. These folks, like tehdang, will not do this. They'll declare themselves to be seeking a "compromise" without having to establish that both positions they fall between have inherent validity. They also do this with the word "moderate", for the same reason; to try and feign an appearance of weighing both sides and coming to a reasoned conclusion. In reality, they're just giving an invalid position an implicit endorsement, and offering a "compromise" to try and lock things down at least partially in that side's favor. And once they've secured that win, that compromise position becomes the new extreme, and they're now going to be pushing for middle ground between it and the invalid extremist view they're implicitly backing. That's what they did with Roe V. Wade, and why we're here now. Roe v. Wade was a compromise, and a particularly chickenshit one from a legislative point of view, skipping over the issue itself to file it under "medical privacy".

    It's a dishonest manipulation strategy. Don't fall for it.
    Fuckin' beat me to it, man. Lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  3. #7283
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Yep! Pretty funny that in the year of our lord 2023 we still have people out here who genuinely believe that casting themselves as political moderates and harping on about "compromise" "debate" or "processes" makes it remotely less obvious that they're reactionary scumbags with indefensible viewpoints about democracy or human rights.



    Fuckin' beat me to it, man. Lol.
    What can anyone expect from someone who openly admits he's a contrarian who sides with the minority on every issue, regardless of the (abject lack of) values or reasonings of said minority?
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  4. #7284
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    What can anyone expect from someone who openly admits he's a contrarian who sides with the minority on every issue, regardless of the (abject lack of) values or reasonings of said minority?
    We used to call that trolling and it was against the rules. Those were the days.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  5. #7285
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Now, there is no compromise between a person that is dead-set on abortion being illegal from the moment of conception
    There's almost no one who advocates for that and the fact you brought it up proves how disingenuous you are.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  6. #7286
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    tehdang's position exposes a fundamentally rotten principle; the idea that "compromise" must, inherently, be more considered, rational, and reasonable than those positions between which it sits.

    -SNIP-

    It's a dishonest manipulation strategy. Don't fall for it.
    I really, really hope tehdang addresses this in full, but I sincerely doubt he will.

  7. #7287
    The idea of compromise at this stage is a joke. Medical exemption should have been a no-brainer. Yet, look at the recent case in Texas. All the other Southern States have the same stupid super-vague medical exemption language as Texas.

  8. #7288
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The idea of compromise at this stage is a joke. Medical exemption should have been a no-brainer. Yet, look at the recent case in Texas. All the other Southern States have the same stupid super-vague medical exemption language as Texas.
    And all of them defend the vagueness with "obviously there are medical exemptions, and it's your doctor's fault for telling you there aren't," but when a doctor finally double-checks with the court that this qualifies, the AG vows absolute fucking retribution to the fullest extent of the law if they actually go through with it.
    Last edited by DarkTZeratul; 2023-12-19 at 10:02 PM.

  9. #7289
    https://www.chron.com/culture/religi...n-18561878.php

    "It saddens me deeply that was the decision that she made," said Alexandra Sizemore, director of development at Houston Coalition For Life, a nonprofit whose mission is to end abortion citywide. "I'm glad the Texas Supreme Court stepped in to not allow her to do it here. I just wish her doctors and lawyers would've done everything that they could to protect her from that particular decision to go to a different state altogether."
    It seems some "pro-life" folks in Texas are despondent at the initial Kate Cox ruling, and apparently think she also needs to be protected from the knowledge that she could travel to another state to get the medical procedure done to protect her health.

    Sizemore, a 49-year-old Catholic, said she believes abortion should be banned at conception and that abortions essentially equate to murder. She is open to medical doctors intervening to perform "life-saving measures" only when a pregnant woman is facing life-threatening circumstances in accordance with state law.
    Here we have the thrust of the matter: Frequently these "exceptions" are only when "the life of the mother is at risk" which is a very narrow exception that ignores a mountain of serious medical issues and risks that don't fall under "life is at immediate risk, but very soon will be and is extremely avoidable".

    We keep seeing this play out, and we keep seeing Republicans uninterested in addressing legislation to avoid these kinds of issues.

    Like other anti-abortion leaders, Sizemore rejects the idea that Cox's life was in danger and instead believes the pregnant woman was a "victim of the lies of the abortion industry" and her doctor and lawyers only brought her case to court to circumvent the law. "I can see what they're trying to do, they're trying to slowly change the law back," Sizemore said. "I think it's pretty obvious."
    Again, here we have the rub: "Pro-life" folks genuinely think there's some grand conspiracy involving "pro-aborts" and basically the whole of the medical profession.

    This is unhinged, conspiracy theorist extremism.

    Sizemore, who provides free ultrasounds to pregnant women in Houston and protests outside of Planned Parenthoods clinics, disagreed. She acknowledged that Cox faced "some medical risks" in continuing the pregnancy but determined that she "was not in any immediate danger."

    "I would not want anything to happen to the mother," Sizemore said. "Regardless of the baby's diagnosis, it doesn't mean that the baby doesn't deserve to live out the life that God planned for that baby. The most compassionate option would be to do everything for that child."
    A random person, with no medical training, having not actually interacted with a patient apparently has the exact diagnosis and prognosis for the patient.

    Just a reminder of how deeply dishonest and ignorant these people are. Providing ultrasounds does not make you a doctor.

    John Seago, the son of a Baptist pastor turned president of Texas Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state which is headquartered in Houston, echoed that Cox's medical risks "were not life threatening." The state abortion ban, Seago said, has a "very clear medical emergency definition."

    "The idea that there is some kind of malice or agenda to make these decisions for women or make sure that doctors can't intervene, that's completely wrong," Seago, 36, said. "As someone pro-life, I don't want women with life-threatening conditions to have any delay in their medical treatment if needed. This is a case where a doctor clearly understands that this case doesn't fit into our exception, and they are asking for permission to have an abortion anyway."
    Another noted non-medical professional giving their diagnosis and treatment recommendation.

    Why do conservatives even go to doctors if they're all medical experts?

    Advocates from both sides of the abortion ban said they supported the state Supreme Court telling the Texas Medical Board "to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails."
    Gee, it's that thing we all keep saying in this thread and also that thing that Republicans keep choosing not to do and also that thing that gets defended for some reason in this thread.

  10. #7290
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Here we have the thrust of the matter: Frequently these "exceptions" are only when "the life of the mother is at risk" which is a very narrow exception that ignores a mountain of serious medical issues and risks that don't fall under "life is at immediate risk, but very soon will be and is extremely avoidable".

    We keep seeing this play out, and we keep seeing Republicans uninterested in addressing legislation to avoid these kinds of issues.
    It also conveniently exposes whoever's endorsing that idea as a operating in bad faith; someone who does not actually believe their own bullshit.

    If they really thought the fetus was a human life from conception, then why would risk to the mother be an argument that justifies killing that life? It's a position that inherently acknowledges that the fetus is not a human life in the same sense as the mother, and thus can be eliminated to protect her life. That's an admission that the core belief; that the fetus is a human life from conception, is not one the pro-life advocate actually believes. It's emotional rhetoric they use to cover up their real motives.

    Same applies to any pro-life advocate endorsing rape and/or incest exceptions, though it's way more clear-cut there since there's no question of the pregnant person's life being at risk at all.

    When people willfully lie right to your face like this, stop taking them or their stated views seriously. They're malicious and dishonest actors whose central goal and purpose is harming women, not protecting lives.


  11. #7291
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    And all of them defend the vaguewith "obviously there are medical exemptions, and it's your doctor's fault for telling you there aren't," but when a doctor finally double-checks with the court that this qualifies, the AG vows absolute fucking retribution to the fullest extent of the law if they actually go through with it.
    The states do not want these cases to be heard. Their defense is based on "standing." In their opinion, the plaintiff with standing has to be pregnant with cognizable harm and injury. Basically, only a woman with amniotic fluid and blood dripping down her legs has the right to sue the state. At issue here is that they do not want to face judicial review of these very, very dangerous statutes.

    In Amanda Zurawski case for example, the State of Texas argued that she does not have standing to sue because she is unlikely to be able to get pregnant again and the law won't affect her. What the state neglect to mention in the defense was that she is unlikely to get pregnant again because of the laws that the state has enacted in the first place.

    No one in these states is taking responsibility for the human suffering, and, as clearly shown in the article that Edge linked, they’re trying to deflect blame on the women themselves or on their doctors.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Gee, it's that thing we all keep saying in this thread and also that thing that Republicans keep choosing not to do and also that thing that gets defended for some reason in this thread.
    The Texas Medical Board is not exactly the best place to get unbiased guidelines. The board members were appointed by the governor. Most of current members were Abbot top donors. Quite a few have no experience in patient advocacy.

    Money, politics and patient safety: Abbott donors on Texas Medical Board
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-12-19 at 10:15 PM.

  12. #7292
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The Texas Medical Board is not exactly the best place to get unbiased guidelines. The board members were appointed by the governor. Most of current members were Abbot top donors. Quite a few have no experience in patient advocacy.

    Money, politics and patient safety: Abbott donors on Texas Medical Board
    I do believe this is known as "stacking the deck". Also, just your average political corruption in America.

  13. #7293
    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/u...rge/index.html

    This is the type of world conservatives like tehdang want to create.

    Where women can miscarry and doctors and administrators are, rightfully, too worried about legality to treat them, then said women undergoing that traumatic experience gets unironically charged with ridiculous crimes and punished for surviving the ordeal.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  14. #7294
    There's already a perfectly reasonable compromise:

    If you don't like abortions... don't get one. We promise we won't force it on you. That's what the "choice" part of "pro-choice" means.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2023-12-20 at 09:15 AM.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  15. #7295
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The idea of compromise at this stage is a joke. Medical exemption should have been a no-brainer. Yet, look at the recent case in Texas. All the other Southern States have the same stupid super-vague medical exemption language as Texas.
    Can accurate language exist for medical exemptions? Most states that restrict abortion with an assortment of exemptions simply leave it to medical judgment and since doctors presume good faith from the state they just exercise it. That is just not possible in the US since that good faith demonstrably does not exists. Are we discussing the possibility of a ghoulish reality where we have a stat based approach where doctors would have to reduce medication just to bring the pregnant woman far enough into distress to hit the magic number and allow the abortion? Because that is the only result that precise language would cause.

  16. #7296
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Can accurate language exist for medical exemptions?
    The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.

  17. #7297
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.
    But then the next problem comes in of the government stepping in to make sure you talked to your doctor before getting the abortion.
    9

  18. #7298
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.
    Which is why the doctors' attorneys are telling them it opens them up to being sued or charged by the state, and women are getting threats and actual action from the state that prevents them from getting life-saving healthcare....oh wait.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  19. #7299
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.
    Pretty much. The typical OB/Gyn specialists will have 12 years specialized education (4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and 4 years residency.) Add another 2 - 3 years of medical fellowship for those specializing in high-risk pregnancies. What’s the point making them go through all those years of learning and experience, if they are going to have their decisions being second guessed by politicians with no patient advocacy experience.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Show us how much you care about children's welfare.

    More Than Half of Children Losing Medicaid Coverage Live in Just 5 States - Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Arkansas – accounted for 54% of the reductions, or more than 1.2 million children.

    In terms of total disenrollment, the 10 states that have refused Medicaid expansion – Texas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, Wisconsin and Wyoming – have removed more children from coverage than all of the expansion states combined, HHS said.


    - - - Updated - - -

    Do not forget Texas foster care system in the words of U.S. District Judge Janis Jack.

    “Texas’s foster care system is broken, and it has been that way for decades,” Jack wrote in a damning 260-page ruling that landed like a bomb. “All the while, Texas’s … children have been shuttled throughout a system where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication, and instability are the norm.”

    The US foster care system for the most part sucks. However, Texas' foster care system suckage is of completely different order of magnitude.

  20. #7300
    Sizemore rejects the idea that Cox's life was in danger and instead believes the pregnant woman was a "victim of the lies of the abortion industry" and her doctor and lawyers only brought her case to court to circumvent the law.
    Anyone who uses the phrase "abortion industry" while being completely serious needs to immediately be removed from polite society and introduced to a nice, quality padded cell.

    "Regardless of the baby's diagnosis, it doesn't mean that the baby doesn't deserve to live out the life that God planned for that baby. The most compassionate option would be to do everything for that child."
    In a perfect world, this woman would discover she has a malignant cancer that will 100% kill her very painfully and slowly, but is completely curable by modern medical treatment, and when she goes in for an assessment, the Doctor would tell her that while they COULD treat her cancer, she really just needs to live out the life that God planned for her when he gave it to her in the first place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •