1. #7321
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    the only BIG PROGRESSIVE change the Pope is asking from the Church is that gay people not to be completely excluded from the Church and their "sin" to be treated like almost any other sin
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Excellent point, and it should be hammered home with the fact that Catholics see the Pope as the living version of God. They are literally against God as they themselves defined the existence of God on earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    Whoa. No offense, but that's not how Catholics see the Pope or the function of the Pope. Catholics don't even believe that the Pope has a direct line of communication to God.
    If there was one thing I wasn't expecting to read in the abortion thread, it was several presumably atheistic or nonreligious people debating theology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    I'm not going to quote him because I prefer him on ignore, but the "compromise" is exactly what we had. A fairly restricted early-term abortion, with a few exceptions for late-term abortions in the case of deformity and danger to the mother. The 'cons took away compromise in favor of extremism.
    We had judicial fiat. A bunch of men in robes decided that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. That wasn't compromise. The was policy imposition. You can criticize the legislation after the past-due correction, without gaslighting us about the past.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  2. #7322
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,189
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    We had judicial fiat. A bunch of men in robes decided that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. That wasn't compromise. The was policy imposition. You can criticize the legislation after the past-due correction, without gaslighting us about the past.
    This is why you're on ignore. Because this conversation is a fucking joke. "Judicial fiat"? We have "judicial fiat" all over the fucking country, because the courts were designed to make rulings on laws. They're supposed to interpret things, they're supposed to provide clarification, they're supposed to tell us how the law works when people can't agree.

    Acting like "judicial fiat" is some kind of bogus bullshit ignores centuries of common law precedence. Which is why in order to overturn this ruling, the "Justices" had to blatantly ignore that precedence, and reference some fuckwaffle from before the USA was even the USA.

    It's always the same with your types, it's "judicial fiat" whenever you don't like it, and it's "the system working as intended" when it goes your way. So kindly, piss right the fuck off with that garbage.
    Last edited by Sunseeker; 2023-12-22 at 11:53 PM.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  3. #7323
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    This is why you're on ignore. Because this conversation is a fucking joke. "Judicial fiat"? We have "judicial fiat" all over the fucking country, because the courts were designed to make rulings on laws. They're supposed to interpret things, they're supposed to provide clarification, they're supposed to tell us how the law works when people can't agree.

    Acting like "judicial fiat" is some kind of bogus bullshit ignores centuries of common law precedence. Which is why in order to overturn this ruling, the "Justices" had to blatantly ignore that precedence, and reference some fuckwaffle from before the USA was even the USA.

    It's always the same with your types, it's "judicial fiat" whenever you don't like it, and it's "the system working as intended" when it goes your way. So kindly, piss right the fuck off with that garbage.
    Then I highly suggest you re-read the text of Dobbs. Every word of this, every attempt to appeal to compromise shows you are blatantly ignoring what Roe and Casey did and why. Roe was a disastrous decision and we're all reeling from 50 years of a neglected debate. Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates. You liked the fiat, you liked to pretend that the constitution excluded states from abortion, and that's all I'm reading here. I'm terribly sorry that you have to pass, debate, and challenge laws, but you'll have the same opportunity as everybody else now. Common law precedent on federal abortion--that's quite a big one even around here, I gotta say.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  4. #7324
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates.
    I'd challenge this. States with more "liberal" laws on reproductive health care and bodily autonomy haven't really run into any issues in the post-Roe world. A few have passed more explicit protections for access to that health care, and others have plans for legislation or ballot measures, but there hasn't really been much "reeling" beyond trying to figure out how to help folks in the states where they can no longer get the care they need.

    And the debate has been, as evidenced, pretty disingenuous and awful since it's been over a year of women in states like Texas sharing horror stories of the suffering they endured because hospitals are concerned with legal liability - as was explicitly highlighted in the latest Kate Cox case which very much justified every fear of those hospitals.

    There is no "both sides".

  5. #7325
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'd challenge this. States with more "liberal" laws on reproductive health care and bodily autonomy haven't really run into any issues in the post-Roe world. A few have passed more explicit protections for access to that health care, and others have plans for legislation or ballot measures, but there hasn't really been much "reeling" beyond trying to figure out how to help folks in the states where they can no longer get the care they need.

    And the debate has been, as evidenced, pretty disingenuous and awful since it's been over a year of women in states like Texas sharing horror stories of the suffering they endured because hospitals are concerned with legal liability - as was explicitly highlighted in the latest Kate Cox case which very much justified every fear of those hospitals.

    There is no "both sides".
    'Both sides are reeling' the same way someone dealing with a misbehaving toddler is upset that he keeps breaking shit on purpose. Sure both sides are nettled, but its incredibly clear its because of one side's actions.

    It's the same with every other pet social issues Republicans cry about. They make a big deal about something, shove it into the political zeitgeist, then when people push back against their campaigning they act like it's a 'both sides!' issue that can only be solved with 'compromise'.

  6. #7326
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'd challenge this. States with more "liberal" laws on reproductive health care and bodily autonomy haven't really run into any issues in the post-Roe world. A few have passed more explicit protections for access to that health care, and others have plans for legislation or ballot measures, but there hasn't really been much "reeling" beyond trying to figure out how to help folks in the states where they can no longer get the care they need.

    And the debate has been, as evidenced, pretty disingenuous and awful since it's been over a year of women in states like Texas sharing horror stories of the suffering they endured because hospitals are concerned with legal liability - as was explicitly highlighted in the latest Kate Cox case which very much justified every fear of those hospitals.

    There is no "both sides".
    States where huge majorities want "liberal" laws on abortion wouldn't be reeling. It's the campaigns in the other states that saw defeats. An entire year of mostly defeats. After they recovered their footing, the counterpunches are starting to bring successes.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  7. #7327
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,522
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Roe was a disastrous decision and we're all reeling from 50 years of a neglected debate.
    Roe was "disastrous" because it was a chickenshit evasion, rather than a decision that respected women as human beings.

    There is no "neglected debate". Pro-life advocates are religious extremists seeking to enforce their views on nonbelievers. Their views are not rooted in reason; there is no "debate" to be had with religious dogma one does not themselves believe in.

    Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates.
    The only "reeling" on the pro-choice side is how rapidly religious extremists leapt to attack women's basic personhood and self-ownership with the collapse of Roe v. Wade. But they don't have any control in the States where such laws are being passed in the first place, so it's not an imbalance based on being faced with a valid counter-argument, but the rapidity of fascistic abuses being implemented.

    You liked the fiat, you liked to pretend that the constitution excluded states from abortion, and that's all I'm reading here.
    You can stuff that "judicial fiat" bullshit back up whoever's asshole you picked it out from.

    What's going on now is political fiat to attack innocent women, pursuant to religious extremist views. It's much like the Taliban attacking girl's education.

    I'm terribly sorry that you have to pass, debate, and challenge laws, but you'll have the same opportunity as everybody else now. Common law precedent on federal abortion--that's quite a big one even around here, I gotta say.
    Again, there is no "debate". Pro-life advocates can't defend their positions rationally without appealing to their personal religious views and their desire to force those views on the choices of non-believers. That's their entire "argument". If you had valid, secular, rational points, you'd use them, but no pro-lifers ever do. Because it's not a secularly comprehensible idea. It's like trying to say there's a "debate" around whether to force girls to undergo female genital mutilation. Same fuckin' difference, really; it's the same inherent malice and dehumanization behind both views.


  8. #7328
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If there was one thing I wasn't expecting to read in the abortion thread, it was several presumably atheistic or nonreligious people debating theology.
    12 years in Jesuit Catholic schools, I got a pretty well rounded education in Catholic theology and theology in general. It was part of the curriculum. Nothing will be more effective at educating atheists than a actually going into theology beyond the surface level. Jesuits unlike many other "religious" schools actually take the whole business of critical thinking and education seriously.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    States where huge majorities want "liberal" laws on abortion wouldn't be reeling. It's the campaigns in the other states that saw defeats. An entire year of mostly defeats. After they recovered their footing, the counterpunches are starting to bring successes.
    What are you even talking about?

    Protections for abortion rights are overwhelmingly popular even in otherwise very conservative states and they perform EXTREMELY well if brought up as a ballot initiative.

    There's no both sides here. I'm pretty sure if abortion protections would be put on the ballot they'd win in 50 out of 50 states.
    Last edited by Elder Millennial; 2023-12-23 at 03:17 AM.

  9. #7329
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    12 years in Jesuit Catholic schools, I got a pretty well rounded education in Catholic theology and theology in general. It was part of the curriculum. Nothing will be more effective at educating atheists than a actually going into theology beyond the surface level. Jesuits unlike many other "religious" schools actually take the whole business of critical thinking and education seriously.
    I was raised Anglican, like "go to Church every Sunday, do Sunday School every week" Anglican. For a brief time after high school, I debated going to seminary rather than university; I still had faith at the time even if I'd become decidedly non-denominational in my approach, due to reading the Bible and exploring theological philosophy. I almost minored in theology at university; I was a half-credit short of meeting the requirements to officially declare it.

    Like you, it's my study of theology and religious philosophy that led me down my path to secular humanism and atheism. I love debating theology, and not from a shitty-atheist lol-sky-daddy perspective. I just don't get the chance here, because of the ban on religious discussion. It's why I often react so negatively to shitty religious opinions; I know too much theology and Christian philosophy and know full well how completely ignorant some of those views are, even from the perspective of a believer, accepting the tenets of the faith as a given. Their arguments fail internal to their religion, not just from a secular point of view, though I generally can't get into why because again, no religious discussion.

    There's a whole lot of us strong atheists who are atheists not because we're unread in religion, but because we're so well-read in religion. To a greater extent than the overwhelming majority of the faithful.


  10. #7330
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Roe was a disastrous decision and we're all reeling from 50 years of a neglected debate. Yes, both sides are reeling, as seen in the laws and in the debates.
    What is this alternate reality where literally the only reason abortion is an issue ISN'T because of misogynistic theocrats and their desire to control women under the pretense of protecting babies?

    The only "reeling" that has happened is everyone reeling from the instant implementation of shortsighted, ill-composed, and draconian laws the second said misogynistic theocrats had the ability to do so. And then reeling again when the actual citizens they're supposed to represent smacked that shit down whenever they had the ability to.

  11. #7331
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    States where huge majorities want "liberal" laws on abortion wouldn't be reeling. It's the campaigns in the other states that saw defeats. An entire year of mostly defeats. After they recovered their footing, the counterpunches are starting to bring successes.
    The "counterpunches" of Republican majorities just say "fuck you, women, you get to suffer 'cause now it's illegal." There has been no success outside of them successfully harming women and young girls. If you think that is a success then you are a sick individual and I hope any female escapes you.

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

  12. #7332
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    What is this alternate reality where literally the only reason abortion is an issue ISN'T because of misogynistic theocrats and their desire to control women under the pretense of protecting babies?
    And I hear that it's people like me have overly moralistic and simplistic good guys vs bad guys narratives.

    The only "reeling" that has happened is everyone reeling from the instant implementation of shortsighted, ill-composed, and draconian laws the second said misogynistic theocrats had the ability to do so. And then reeling again when the actual citizens they're supposed to represent smacked that shit down whenever they had the ability to.
    At least the ill-composed part will earn the pro-choice side some victories in the next couple years. I can't say you're 100% wrong on that count. But you're going to have to learn to argue the topic if you want every state to bend to new legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    12 years in Jesuit Catholic schools, I got a pretty well rounded education in Catholic theology and theology in general. It was part of the curriculum. Nothing will be more effective at educating atheists than a actually going into theology beyond the surface level. Jesuits unlike many other "religious" schools actually take the whole business of critical thinking and education seriously.
    Cool endorsement. But if you'll get a bit closer to my remark (and not trying to open a theological debate, though I'm happy it benefitted someone in the forum), do you consider yourself atheistic or non-religious now? How close was I when I said it was atheistic/non-religious? Apostates can definitely instruct others in church teaching.

    What are you even talking about?

    Protections for abortion rights are overwhelmingly popular even in otherwise very conservative states and they perform EXTREMELY well if brought up as a ballot initiative.

    There's no both sides here. I'm pretty sure if abortion protections would be put on the ballot they'd win in 50 out of 50 states.
    You might even say the pro-choice side was left reeling by the Dobbs decision and a little rustiness in arguing the position and advancing the legislation. There was a little gap between pro-life legislation passed as law, and the pro-choice build-up. I never said you all were going to stay down when you got knocked off your feet. Hell, win a few fights where you campaign on the deficiencies in ambiguous pro-life provisions. Just don't expect people like me to forget what happened in 2022-early 2023.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-12-23 at 04:59 AM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  13. #7333
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    At least the ill-composed part
    You say "ill-composed" as though the notion that individual patients wouldn't have to test the legal system to see whether or not their particular condition was 'acceptable' or not was unforeseen by the legislators...

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Cool endorsement. But if you'll get a bit closer to my remark (and not trying to open a theological debate, though I'm happy it benefitted someone in the forum), do you consider yourself atheistic or non-religious now?
    As @Endus indicated, given the overall decline of religiosity in general, there is a significant part of the population that is currently non-religious yet was raised in a religious household and spent their childhood going to church and being fed theology. Heck, my dad went to seminary, not that one needs to have had a religious upbringing in order to criticize theology...

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You might even say the pro-choice side was left reeling by the Dobbs decision and a little rustiness in arguing the position and advancing the legislation.
    given the vigorous discussion that has been continually happening over the last several decades, I think 'a little rustiness in arguing the position' is an utterly ludicrous assertion. "Advancing the legislation," I suppose, but only in the same context that most legislators are pretty rusty on legislating the existence of the federal minimum wage, or social security, or something else that has been taken for granted.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  14. #7334
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    We had judicial fiat. A bunch of men in robes decided that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion.
    So you don't actually understand Roe v. Wade at all, then. They didn't decide that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. They actually didn't decide it had anything to say about abortion. What they decided is that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, and that whether or not people were having abortions fell under that right.

    In fact, invalidating Roe in its entirety is potentially a crushing blow to the notion that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, but it's funny how you don't seem at all concerned about that part of the ruling, or how Justice Thomas openly advocated for it possibly leading to the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia.

  15. #7335
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    States where huge majorities want "liberal" laws on abortion wouldn't be reeling. It's the campaigns in the other states that saw defeats. An entire year of mostly defeats. After they recovered their footing, the counterpunches are starting to bring successes.
    Wait, what reality are we talking about?

    Defeats for rights advocates in states like TX or FL where those losses and rollbacks were expected? Because sure, there's disappointment but I'd hardly call a string of predicted laws being passed and being predictably upheld is called "reeling".

    To the contrary, it's consistently been states like Kentucky and Ohio where the issue has been placed in front of a crowd that's generally pretty socially conservative and "pro-life" where Republicans have been reeling after voters decided that they'd rather not roll things back some decades/centuries on the topics.

    I'm curious if you'll elaborate further on who exactly is "reeling", and how in terms of the "liberal" side. Because as far as my look back on the year and a half goes, it's been a consistently animating issue that's mobilized Democrats to get out and vote in surprising numbers, it's getting more liberal folks engaged in politics, "pro-choice" positions, or positions closer to "pro-choice" than the "pro-life" positions, are fairly consistently winning at the voting box, public sentiment is continuing to slowly shift as we're continuing to see horror stories about the suffering of women in Republican states where they choose not to update their laws around this etc.

    Maybe this is just my existing bias coloring my view and you can help dispel that. I'd like to think I've at least given the impression that I'm open to new information and changing my opinion to reflect it.

  16. #7336
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    To the contrary, it's consistently been states like Kentucky and Ohio where the issue has been placed in front of a crowd that's generally pretty socially conservative and "pro-life" where Republicans have been reeling after voters decided that they'd rather not roll things back some decades/centuries on the topics.
    Yeah, the only states that successfully passed abortion restrictions are those where said restrictions were imposed by the state legislature (or would you prefer I call it "legislative fiat"?). In every single instance where it was actually put to a vote of the people, they voted for fewer or no restrictions, and usually by a decisive margin.
    Last edited by DarkTZeratul; 2023-12-23 at 09:09 AM.

  17. #7337
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    I think it's tragic, and I hope you find some happiness for yourself.
    Yeah, it's tragic for the victims of conservatism, and no; I don't think anyone like tehdang who builds their happiness on the suffering of innocents should ever be happy, for the obvious reasons that there would be immensely more suffering to those who don't deserve it.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  18. #7338
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    ...but in a pro-life world, it isn't actually her choice, so this doesn't make sense...
    Exactly so, maybe I was a bit too on the nose.

  19. #7339
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    It's this kind of drivel that confirms my ultimate suspicion about you tehdang.

    You're an intelligent person, don't get me wrong. You had me fooled that you were a reasonable conservative that was willing to be enlightened on topics. But then I realized after the Texas woman(Cox) discussion in this thread, you're not pursuing knowledge to enlighten yourself and others. You're pursuing knowledge so that you can use it against people.

    Regulars here like Breccia, Edge, Endus, Benggaul, Elder Millennial, and others I'm having trouble recalling, keep bringing me back to this forum. The fact that so many intelligent and wise people frequent this particular sub-forum is a wonder in itself, considering the intended use of this site. They're not using knowledge as a weapon. You are, like some sick game. About real topics. That affect real people. Your mom. Your sister. Your girlfriend. Your wife. Your niece.

    I think it's tragic that you have all that knowledge and intelligence and you're still miserable.

    Sorry, mods, for the derail, but I had to get that off my chest.
    I think it's a reasonable position that the pro-choice side was also left reeling from the Dobbs decision, seeing the initial legislation losses and news stories in 2022 and shortly after. You don't have to think it's even worth taking up as a serious point of contention, and I'm not forcing you to. Somebody quoted specifically that section.

    Interact with whichever users you think reasonable, and ignore whichever users you prefer to ignore for being unreasonable or bad faith or ad hominem or whatever. Make that judgment in your own mind. I take that policy for myself, and don't deny it to you or others. I also know I'm advancing a marginal viewpoint, and am not likely to persuade the larger in-group that they should abandon many closely-held opinions (in your terms, they're not "willing to be enlightened" and are "using knowledge as a weapon.") But enough of the personal and emotional diagnosis stuff. Interact with whichever posters you choose, quote post whichever posts you want to take on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Wait, what reality are we talking about?

    Defeats for rights advocates in states like TX or FL where those losses and rollbacks were expected? Because sure, there's disappointment but I'd hardly call a string of predicted laws being passed and being predictably upheld is called "reeling".

    To the contrary, it's consistently been states like Kentucky and Ohio where the issue has been placed in front of a crowd that's generally pretty socially conservative and "pro-life" where Republicans have been reeling after voters decided that they'd rather not roll things back some decades/centuries on the topics.

    I'm curious if you'll elaborate further on who exactly is "reeling", and how in terms of the "liberal" side. Because as far as my look back on the year and a half goes, it's been a consistently animating issue that's mobilized Democrats to get out and vote in surprising numbers, it's getting more liberal folks engaged in politics, "pro-choice" positions, or positions closer to "pro-choice" than the "pro-life" positions, are fairly consistently winning at the voting box, public sentiment is continuing to slowly shift as we're continuing to see horror stories about the suffering of women in Republican states where they choose not to update their laws around this etc.

    Maybe this is just my existing bias coloring my view and you can help dispel that. I'd like to think I've at least given the impression that I'm open to new information and changing my opinion to reflect it.
    I formed that view looking at how many pro-life laws (however flawed) were passed in the months after Dobbs, and how weak and unorganized the contrary viewpoint was. I diagnose it as some unsteadiness from being out of practice arguing the benefits of contrary legislation, rather than just bashing the pro-life side and making absurd indictments of their motivations. It wasn't just four states. There were dozens.

    Now, the money and activists and NGOs are in full swing helping laws pass state-by-state citing abortion law irregularities and the (alleged) danger that the entire enterprise will be banned. There's no more Roe to shelter behind, it has to be debated in the open and persuade voters to show up and vote on that side. I think it's also obvious that the pro-life side was strategically unprepared to temper its message for workable compromise positions in each state. I wrote more on that in this post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54344775

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    So you don't actually understand Roe v. Wade at all, then. They didn't decide that the constitution had a lot to say about abortion. They actually didn't decide it had anything to say about abortion. What they decided is that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, and that whether or not people were having abortions fell under that right.

    In fact, invalidating Roe in its entirety is potentially a crushing blow to the notion that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, but it's funny how you don't seem at all concerned about that part of the ruling, or how Justice Thomas openly advocated for it possibly leading to the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia.
    The three-trimester scheme being found in some right to privacy was always absurd. And I don't fault you for immediately pivoting to Obergefell or Loving: Roe is hard to defend. Even the liberal-revered Ginsburg had to say it "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believed, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue" and disagreed with it. The Court can value the convenience of a pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life, as the Democratic-nominated Justice White wrote, but there was never any right to impose such priorities on the people or legislatures. Not in some right of privacy, or only subject to a compelling state interest standard, or any of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    You say "ill-composed" as though the notion that individual patients wouldn't have to test the legal system to see whether or not their particular condition was 'acceptable' or not was unforeseen by the legislators...
    I say ill-composed because it's obvious that some of these laws introduce vague standards that State AG and hospitals and doctors can't see the same way. I don't place in legislators some heightened knowledge of how the law would look vague to lawyers, and what added language would make things more airtight to challenges from the attorneys general, the people (private right of action), the pregnant mother, or the doctors and hospital org performing the abortion.

    As @Endus indicated, given the overall decline of religiosity in general, there is a significant part of the population that is currently non-religious yet was raised in a religious household and spent their childhood going to church and being fed theology. Heck, my dad went to seminary, not that one needs to have had a religious upbringing in order to criticize theology...
    I remarked upon the theology debate occurring between apostates or non-religious in this abortion thread. The juxtaposition caught my attention. For the larger point, I try to seek out people that really believe things because they personally think it's true, right, or just, instead of always asking (for example) a pro-life person who used to be pro-choice about what pro-choice people think. I'll also remark that religious discussion is specifically banned in thread rules, so I don't want to go further.

    given the vigorous discussion that has been continually happening over the last several decades, I think 'a little rustiness in arguing the position' is an utterly ludicrous assertion. "Advancing the legislation," I suppose, but only in the same context that most legislators are pretty rusty on legislating the existence of the federal minimum wage, or social security, or something else that has been taken for granted.
    Oh yeah, I observed the discussion. And how much it revolved around the "law of the land" and "Roe vs Wade" and "stare decisis." Abortion was just a question you sent to supreme court nominees in their infrequent replacement. The polls on majorities favoring restrictions in the second trimester were just ignored. The pro-choice side, in my view, over-relied on having won the judicial shortcut to the political process.

    Social security and the minimum wage were laws passed by legislators, not created by judges. They may be repealed in the same way they were initially passed. And getting back to my greater point, they have the benefit of the political process in passage and repeal. Laws passed in state and Congress can be traced back to the political representatives that voted on it, and form a local debate over whether they should remain in office or not.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  20. #7340
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,522
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I also know I'm advancing a marginal viewpoint, and am not likely to persuade the larger in-group that they should abandon many closely-held opinions (in your terms, they're not "willing to be enlightened" and are "using knowledge as a weapon.")
    If your arguments aren't persuasive and we keep pointing to glaring logical inconsistencies and unjustifiable premises as the reasons, maybe take some responsibility for the invalidity of your arguments rather than trying to claim it's the rest of us who are the problem.

    I've repeatedly asked for explanations that stand up to scrutiny that justify a pro-life position. I really want to see the best you've got. It's just that everything I've been presented with is so inherently dishonest and malicious that I have no legitimate option but to condemn the movement accordingly, until/unless someone can demonstrate that there's anything else to it. I keep asking. I keep getting nothing. That's how critical analysis works, not to mention things like the scientific method.

    If I keep asking a creationist to explain why they don't accept evolutionary theory and they keep being dishonest and irrational about those reasons, I have every reasons to dismiss creationism as a valid argument. Same difference here.

    I formed that view looking at how many pro-life laws (however flawed) were passed in the months after Dobbs, and how weak and unorganized the contrary viewpoint was. I diagnose it as some unsteadiness from being out of practice arguing the benefits of contrary legislation, rather than just bashing the pro-life side and making absurd indictments of their motivations. It wasn't just four states. There were dozens.
    And did you check the political imbalances in those states and draw a correlation?
    https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/s...-do-so-roundup
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...in_U.S._states

    To the surprise of no one, those States are universally Republican-leaning. Without exception. Not all Republican-led States, but no Democrat-leaning States.

    You're mistaking "having the political heft and organization to ram these decisions through despite opposition voices" with the pro-choice side "reeling". It isn't an argument that makes sense.


Posting Permissions

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