BillStime Posted February 29 Author Posted February 29 1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said: 👆 On 2/28/2024 at 12:25 PM, BillsFanNC said: It's like asking a heroin addict to quit.
BillStime Posted February 29 Author Posted February 29 On 2/27/2024 at 2:52 PM, Tommy Callahan said: Courts ruled it's a state issue. The entire narrative of making it illegal or legal on a federal level is the strawman. Don't you love when your cult leaders upstage you? 1
Tommy Callahan Posted February 29 Posted February 29 If he did, it would be struck down by the courts just like last time. It's a state issue. We will end up like the EU with different laws for each state. 8 minutes ago, BillStime said: Don't you love when your cult leaders upstage you? He is pandering to morons. Similar to the Dems narratives you parrot. 1 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted February 29 Posted February 29 6 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: See the EU for how abortion is handled on a state by state basis. Been working there for a long time. From full bans to a 24 week limit. The privacy argument went out the window in the COVID lockdown . Again. Anything that passes though the congress would be struck down by the courts as they already ruled it's a state issue. Yes, I’m quite familiar with the EU’s abortion policy. It’s far from optimal for many women, especially the ones geographically stuck in Eastern Europe. You’re not defending the existence of every red state abortion law, are you? You don’t see anything unconstitutional with any of them? Is that the debate path you want to take? The COVID lockdown was (ostensibly) about PUBLIC health. Your refusal to get vaccinated affects everyone else’s health in indoor places. The right to PRIVACY is very much still an inalienable right. How do our abortion decisions affect your personal life? Re-read my court-packing threat. That’s the constitutional crisis we’re facing if 5 or 6 unelected individuals keep pushing their retrograde superstitious nonsense on an entire country of ~340 million. Overturning a federal abortion law that had passed through Congress would be catastrophic for the country’s stability and not just for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts knows this. If your entire argument reduces to Supreme Court fatalism, then you don’t have much of an argument. 1 1
Buffarukus Posted February 29 Posted February 29 (edited) On 2/27/2024 at 1:25 PM, ComradeKayAdams said: Yes, unequivocally: the prevention of a cluster of cells from developing into a child, when intentionally done against a mother’s consent by another human, should be considered murder. This is my personal answer for what I believe to be true, in principle, as well as what I think should be true legally. But once again…intent can often be hard to prove in a court of law, so I would expect most successful charges to end up less punitive than murder charges…especially when the mother isn’t visibly pregnant. You seem to be looking for a “2+2=4” type of answer on this general topic, Buffarukus, but all that I can offer you is a “wave-particle duality of light” type of answer. Let me try explaining myself this way… 1. A scientific perspective: Human life begins at conception. 2. A philosophical perspective: Human life begins at the first sign of brain activity (~8 weeks into pregnancy). 3. An ideal legal perspective: Human life begins whenever the mother says it does, up to the point of birth. 4. A practical/social contract perspective: Human life begins somewhere in the second trimester, with certain agreed-upon exceptions (essentially the Roe v. Wade standard…but preferably the general European standard of up to 15 weeks or with approvals from medical professionals). 5. A private/personal perspective: Life begins at the nebulous gestational limit where I could no longer live with myself for having had the abortion. I believe all the aforementioned to be true, just like I believe light is both a fundamental particle and a wave. How you analytically treat light depends on the particular circumstances in which you make observations of the light. Similarly, how we approach the definition of human life depends on our frame of reference, with each frame of reference valid in its own domain of inquiry. Let’s try working with another analogy: veganism. I believe it is unethical to treat sentient life like food, unless it’s done out of genuine necessity. Does that mean I think meat consumption should be made illegal? NO!! It is my job, as a vegan activist, to persuade you to willingly choose not to eat meat using whatever perspective (animal rights, environmentalism, healthy diet, etc.) I feel is compelling. I fully understand that eating animal meat is inherently different than, say, cannibalism. I feel the same way about abortion. I can persuade other women to reconsider it: maybe I could tell them about their adoption options, mention examples of successful adults who were almost aborted, or even show them graphic images of aborted fetuses. It is NOT my right, however, to use the legal system to physically force nine months of pregnancy and childbirth on another woman…especially when I don’t know her physical, emotional, financial, career, or family circumstances. The question of life is inherently less clear for a fetus than, say, a crawling toddler. I’m sorry if my responses aren’t helpful. If you’re still uncomfortable with dualities, then try considering this more pragmatic point of view: women important to you in your personal life, encountering situations in which they might resort to seeking out dangerous “back-alley abortions.” How do these thought experiments affect your public policy stances? Because as you probably know by now, we women can be extraordinarily willful… I get your points with duality but frame of reference could also be simply how some people rationalize things they dont want to face. It seems to have little to do with evidence from signs of life and more to do with how people want to perceive what they condone. Thats not how most things work and why we have laws to begin with. Ill explain. Your example of a meat eater. One can say animals have no souls and are objects on this planet primarily for man. A gift to use at will. Unless you know the creator/reason animals exist noone can disprove that thought. The point is not whos right or wrong in that debate but how it becomes much easier to look past moral issues like slaughter and mistreatment when a person maintains that frame of mind. You say you would not want a law in place for meat eaters but i think that you agree with laws and oversight for animals being humanly treated and respected before their lives are sacrificed to create the meat. I personally dont think there are enough of them to protect that cause. Like i said im libertarian on the subject but do so knowing that abortion is now promoted far past the "safe and rare" limits. Thats the frame of reference pro abortion has taken up. A last resort to save women from what you mention is only part of a story. The other side is extremely irresponsable/ vindictive/ and self serving part in humanity. It can capitalize on women in need for monetary reasons as well. At a certain point should we not try to make a distinction between what most see as understandable examples and the others that exist? How do we do that if not for laws/exceptions/ or limits. A do what you want mentality when it comes to human life at its infancy should be given alot more respect then absolute trust and advocation for all procedures all the time as "none of our buisness". Who speaks for those who have no voice? Animal or fetus? How does civilized society promote more of your outlook and use? The way it always has. laws that are hopefully built on logic that exclude those who wish to proceed recklessly. If not, then we should all mind our own buisness on almost everything we are not directly involved in. I have a belief in my right to protect myself and family but there are plenty of laws that govern what limits constitue that human right. The only place we really disagree is in how we perceive the intentions of everyone involved. Thats the duality. the nature that people are capable of dark things is my perception. Its not always the empathetic best case scenario that advocates seem to use all the time as broad reasoning. If my outlook is true, and human history is full of examples showing it, then there has to be some form of check and balance. even more carefully when dealing with the defensless. You see that as a infringment on a god given right and i see it as a way to hold a basic standard if its necessary. Either way it was nice to discuss on this level. It deserves it. Edited March 2 by Buffarukus 1
daz28 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 Trump doesn't want to ban abortion. he thinks that his great negotiating skills can get a happy medium from people who believe their body is their rights, and that embryos are people. Only the best deals!!! iow, he's doing everything possible not to have a stance, because he's afraid of alienating voters from both sides of the issue. How very presidential of him.
BillStime Posted March 3 Author Posted March 3 This ain’t going away and the cult is doing themselves no favors
ComradeKayAdams Posted March 4 Posted March 4 On 2/29/2024 at 4:14 PM, Buffarukus said: I get your points with duality but frame of reference could also be simply how some people rationalize things they dont want to face. It seems to have little to do with evidence from signs of life and more to do with how people want to perceive what they condone. Thats not how most things work and why we have laws to begin with. Ill explain. Your example of a meat eater. One can say animals have no souls and are objects on this planet primarily for man. A gift to use at will. Unless you know the creator/reason animals exist noone can disprove that thought. The point is not whos right or wrong in that debate but how it becomes much easier to look past moral issues like slaughter and mistreatment when a person maintains that frame of mind. You say you would not want a law in place for meat eaters but i think that you agree with laws and oversight for animals being humanly treated and respected before their lives are sacrificed to create the meat. I personally dont think there are enough of them to protect that cause. Like i said im libertarian on the subject but do so knowing that abortion is now promoted far past the "safe and rare" limits. Thats the frame of reference pro abortion has taken up. A last resort to save women from what you mention is only part of a story. The other side is extremely irresponsable/ vindictive/ and self serving part in humanity. It can capitalize on women in need for monetary reasons as well. At a certain point should we not try to make a distinction between what most see as understandable examples and the others that exist? How do we do that if not for laws/exceptions/ or limits. A do what you want mentality when it comes to human life at its infancy should be given alot more respect then absolute trust and advocation for all procedures all the time as "none of our buisness". Who speaks for those who have no voice? Animal or fetus? How does civilized society promote more of your outlook and use? The way it always has. laws that are hopefully built on logic that exclude those who wish to proceed recklessly. If not, then we should all mind our own buisness on almost everything we are not directly involved in. I have a belief in my right to protect myself and family but there are plenty of laws that govern what limits constitue that human right. The only place we really disagree is in how we perceive the intentions of everyone involved. Thats the duality. the nature that people are capable of dark things is my perception. Its not always the empathetic best case scenario that advocates seem to use all the time as broad reasoning. If my outlook is true, and human history is full of examples showing it, then there has to be some form of check and balance. even more carefully when dealing with the defensless. You see that as a infringment on a god given right and i see it as a way to hold a basic standard if its necessary. Either way it was nice to discuss on this level. It deserves it. Oh, I very much doubt we disagree on the “dark” nature of man…though I’ll spare you a boring theoretical rant on Hobbes versus Rousseau! Any disagreement seems to be coming down to a fundamental difference in prioritization. With my public policy support of abortion up to birth, I’m choosing to prioritize the well-being of one group (pregnant women qualifying for a reasonable exception) at the unfortunate expense of not fully protecting another (fetuses that may be terminated for what we may perceive to be disreputable reasons). You can prioritize the latter instead of the former, but remember that the abortion statistics tell us that the latter group happens to be WAY smaller in number than the former. Moreover, I’ve always been personally uncomfortable telling any woman that she MUST endure the challenging experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, no matter the circumstances, when I, myself, have yet to even experience it. Nevertheless…I’m open to compromise. I could accept Trump’s 16-week limit if his list of exceptions was expanded beyond his proffered 3 and if exception-granting powers were shifted from lawyers and judges to doctors and therapists. Bear in mind that this is my own opinion and is not necessarily representative of typical progressives. I’m a centrist on many issues (crime, immigration, guns, political correctness), open to centrist solutions on others (macroeconomics, foreign policy), and am really only an intransigent pinko commie on a couple (health care, environmentalism). Final thought…since I feel like I inadequately explained myself with “dualities” and what not…let’s try a “proof by contradiction,” of sorts. Let’s apply the sentience standard commonly used in the animal rights community. So legally protected life now begins at the point in which pain can be experienced. For human fetuses, this would be some point between 12 and 24 weeks (i.e., the second trimester). Scientists (and philosophers) still debate the specific point at which this becomes a reality, but let’s say it is clearly delineated for the sake of argument. If this is the case, then what legal right do we have to allow ANY abortion exception (including rape) other than the life of the mother? We allow life termination for self-defense, but not for inconvenience! A similar logical fallacy arises in animal rights discussions. If one accepts the sentience standard, then one MUST outlaw free range farming and recreational hunting in addition to the usual: factory farm living conditions, animal entertainment exploitation, and any method of execution deemed torturous. Did this clarify?? So my argument condensed in one sentence: the concept of “legal dualities” is an unavoidable feature accompanying any action of defining and protecting life in a civil society. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) France (the left) is celebrating legalizing abortion nation wide. With a 14 to 16 week limit. Here the left frames that as a national ban. To highlight the power of narrative manipulation.... https://rollcall.com/2024/03/04/responding-to-us-france-enshrines-abortion-access-in-constitution/ Edited March 4 by Tommy Callahan
Tommy Callahan Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) Welp. Here is CNN covering it with no details about the new term limit. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/europe/france-abortion-constitution-intl/index.html Edited March 5 by Tommy Callahan
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 5 Posted March 5 13 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: France (the left) is celebrating legalizing abortion nation wide. With a 14 to 16 week limit. Here the left frames that as a national ban. To highlight the power of narrative manipulation.... https://rollcall.com/2024/03/04/responding-to-us-france-enshrines-abortion-access-in-constitution/ So, in France, a woman’s right to choose terminates after the 14th week, at which time the French become pro-life? 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted March 6 Posted March 6 On 3/4/2024 at 5:58 PM, Tommy Callahan said: France (the left) is celebrating legalizing abortion nation wide. With a 14 to 16 week limit. Here the left frames that as a national ban. To highlight the power of narrative manipulation.... https://rollcall.com/2024/03/04/responding-to-us-france-enshrines-abortion-access-in-constitution/ Oh Tommy, there is a certain JE NE SAIS QUOI with your posts… Think about the different components of an abortion law: 1. Temporal limits. 2. List of exceptions. 3. Processes by which exceptions are granted. 4. Any constitutional protections. 5. Federal protections up to the temporal limit (or limits, in cases of state-by-state legislation). 6. Trustworthiness of politicians promoting said law. Now think about what makes France’s current abortion situation different from Trump’s proposal, given the context of these 6 components. Also, make sure you understand what the difference between component #4 and component #5 implies. While your point about the media’s narrative framing is technically true, I also find their framing to be apt. Component #1 is basically the only commonality here between France and Trump. 14 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: So, in France, a woman’s right to choose terminates after the 14th week, at which time the French become pro-life? WOAH. Leh-nerd Skin-erd. Now there’s a name I haven’t seen posting in a long time…a long time… In France, I believe it’s 4 full months, technically, from one’s last period. So imagine this scenario: Mademoiselle Adamski casually walking down a street in Paris, listening to “Par Les Paupieres” by Alizee, with a (plant-based) croissant in hand. She’s looking particularly ELECTRIC that day with her blonde highlights and a Chartreuse-colored long-sleeve pencil dress from Les Sublimes, ruched from the waist to the upper thighs. She serendipitously bumps into some guy along the sidewalk who looks like Timothee Chalamet. He cannot resist the scrumptious sight…and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout that croissant, Leh-nerd!! Long story short because this is a family board (think: 50 Shades of KAY…very hawt…), eight months pass by and everyone’s favorite verbose vegan has a visible baguette in the oven. But the Timothee look-alike is suddenly no longer in the picture because, well, it’s a long story… So Kay visits a therapist and cites the overwhelming mental distress. Or how the Timothee look-alike was actually some rapist who more closely resembled Gerard Depardieu. A quickly signed note or two later and…well…do you now see the contrast between France’s “pro-life” policy and what the pro-life debates are like here in America? Read my previous posts if you’re still confused. Or call on our friend, Muppy, to help explain things. Adieu, - La Kay 1
Tommy Callahan Posted March 6 Posted March 6 Lots of words and didn't discredit anything. You all and media call teumoa talk of 15 week with exemptions a ban. When it passed in France. It's historic. Btw. Abortion was unregulated and decriminalized in most of France. Now it's not.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 6 Posted March 6 12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: WOAH. Leh-nerd Skin-erd. Now there’s a name I haven’t seen posting in a long time…a long time… In France, I believe it’s 4 full months, technically, from one’s last period. So imagine this scenario: Mademoiselle Adamski casually walking down a street in Paris, listening to “Par Les Paupieres” by Alizee, with a (plant-based) croissant in hand. She’s looking particularly ELECTRIC that day with her blonde highlights and a Chartreuse-colored long-sleeve pencil dress from Les Sublimes, ruched from the waist to the upper thighs. She serendipitously bumps into some guy along the sidewalk who looks like Timothee Chalamet. He cannot resist the scrumptious sight…and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout that croissant, Leh-nerd!! Long story short because this is a family board (think: 50 Shades of KAY…very hawt…), eight months pass by and everyone’s favorite verbose vegan has a visible baguette in the oven. But the Timothee look-alike is suddenly no longer in the picture because, well, it’s a long story… So Kay visits a therapist and cites the overwhelming mental distress. Or how the Timothee look-alike was actually some rapist who more closely resembled Gerard Depardieu. A quickly signed note or two later and…well…do you now see the contrast between France’s “pro-life” policy and what the pro-life debates are like here in America? Read my previous posts if you’re still confused. Or call on our friend, Muppy, to help explain things. Adieu, - La Kay Mornin, Ma'am. I'm around, just stepping back a bit. I used to consider this forum one place to listen/consider unvarnished opinions from the other side. While at times the dialogue got a bit ugly, or feelings got hurt, I took what I could, every now and again learned from it, and moved on. Now, not so much. The French are a complicated people. A reputation for surliness to the non-French. Investing substantial time and effort to riot/loot/burn their cities, which seems like a god-awful amount of work to protest work. The snail thing. And the pretentiousness of "Timothee" is obnoxious, as if throwing an extra E at the end of a name bestows upon an individual some special status for all to behold. He may be the face of his generation, but at the end of the day, don't be fooled by the name that he got, he's just Timeee....eee from the block. On the other hand, I'm not all that complex. If asked, I would have presumed that the French had a fail safe for victims of sexual abuse, or to protect the life of the person carrying the child. That makes sense to me. Beyond that, the story shared above really boils down to this for me: In the scenario where "Kay" was the victim of a sexual assault, I understand why she might decide to terminate the pregnancy; In the scenario where "Kay" was living her best life yet faces "overwhelming mental distress", I understand why she might want to terminate the pregnancy, though for reasons different in scenario #1; In both scenarios, the termination of the life of the child in the 8th month is barbaric from the perspective of the child. In one case, I would understand that the needs of the person carrying the child trumped the rights of the unborn child. In the other, I would see the needs of the child trumping the rights of person carrying the child. I also find it interesting that in both cases, the right to choose is really an illusion. Why the need for a doctor's note, like one is trying to avoid playing dodgeball in gym class in WNY in 1968. Is there a fundamental choice or not? Finally, I want to acknowledge your suggestion that I review your previous posts, and/or reach out to the Mup for clarification if comprehension was a struggle for me. It reminds me for every mansplainer, there's a (wo)mansplainer, and that people are really just people. 2
Tommy Callahan Posted March 6 Posted March 6 France goes from decriminalized to a 15 week limit is hailed by non western media. Western media and it's moronic parrots call the same 15 week limit, a ban.
Recommended Posts