All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tendrin]

If you honestly 100% think that upon conception that it is a human that they are carrying, then you really don't have much leeway to say it's acceptable under anything less than life threatening conditions to kill it. If you don't believe that, then it becomes a viable choice.

To a lot of these people the difference between an abortion and strangling a baby in it's crib is just time and nothing else.

Sure, you can believe that. But what's the net effect of that belief? The net effect of that belief is treating women as nothing more than, as they say, an incubator for the fetus. It's not treating them like they're people. It's not allowing them control over their own bodies. It's valuating a theoretical baby higher than the body of women.

[numberthirty]

If you honestly 100% think that upon conception that it is a human that they are carrying, then you really don't have much leeway to say it's acceptable under anything less than life threatening conditions to kill it. If you don't believe that, then it becomes a viable choice.

To a lot of these people the difference between an abortion and strangling a baby in it's crib is just time and nothing else.

One guy's take, the issue with that assertion is pretty simple.

If that was their actual belief, they would push for every bun in the oven lost by a doctor coming with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Which no one is pushing for because it isn't actually what they believe.

[Tendrin]

One guy's take, the issue with that assertion is pretty simple.

If that was their actual belief, they would push for every bun in the oven lost by a doctor coming with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Which no one is pushing for because it isn't actually what they believe.

But they'll happily investigate women who miscarry to see if it was 'actually' a miscarriage. This was somet hing that was done while women were laying in their bloodstained clothes in the pre-roe era.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Sure, you can believe that. But what's the net effect of that belief? The net effect of that belief is treating women as nothing more than, as they say, an incubator for the fetus. It's not treating them like they're people. It's not allowing them control over their own bodies. It's valuating a theoretical baby higher than the body of women.

No it's not. If you truly believe that then you are simultaneously saying by any logical standard that 9 months of inconveniance for a woman overrides an entire possible lifetime for a child. In which case, yeah indefinitley ending a life is a far worse and a greater infringment than a 9 month delay. Assuming you actually believe that. Which I really don't. But if you actually do, then there is no compromise to be had. You can't logically make one that holds up to any scrutiny. The amount of value you place on the baby would be infinitley lower if you are ending it's life.

It's an either or thing. Either you think it's a real living human and the only difference between a baby and a fetus is that one is the location and length of time it existed, or you think there's some point between conception and maturation where it definitley becomes a sentient human and it is acceptable to terminate at some point.

That's why you won't convince Ohnooze. Because you both don't think it's the same thing. You think it's one thing and he thinks it's another. And based on where you fall between those beliefs will dictate the actual logical guidelines you can go by and the standards of morality you can use. You'll never convince him, he'll never convince you. Because you aren't arguing the same issue. You are arguing two seperate issues that share a similar situation that is dependent on belief of what that situation is.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

One guy's take, the issue with that assertion is pretty simple.

If that was their actual belief, they would push for every bun in the oven lost by a doctor coming with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Which no one is pushing for because it isn't actually what they believe.

Here's what I'll say, I think there's a lot of politicians that are scumbags and using this issue to gain favor with Christian people who do absolutely believe it. And I think that is where you will find the inconsistency. There are absolutely religious people that 100% believe that however, and would support negligent doctors being charged with manslaughter if it was on the table.

[Tendrin]

No it's not. If you truly believe that then you are simultaneously saying by any logical standard that 9 months of inconveniance for a woman overrides an entire possible lifetime for a child. In which case, yeah indefinitley ending a life is a far worse and a greater infringment than a 9 month delay. Assuming you actually believe that. Which I really don't. But if you actually do, then there is no compromise to be had. You can't logically make one that holds up to any scrutiny. The amount of value you place on the baby would be infinitley lower if you are ending it's life.

It's an either or thing. Either you think it's a real living human and the only difference between a baby and a fetus is that one is the location and length of time it existed, or you think there's some point between conception and maturation where it definitley becomes a sentient human and it is acceptable to terminate at some point.

That's why you won't convince Ohnooze. Because you both don't think it's the same thing. You think it's one thing and he thinks it's another. And based on where you fall between those beliefs will dictate the actual logical guidelines you can go by and the standards of morality you can use. You'll never convince him, he'll never convince you. Because you aren't arguing the same issue. You are arguing two seperate issues that share a similar situation that is dependent on belief of what that situation is.

I'm not contesting that Ohnooze believes that a 10 week old fetus and a born, nine month old baby are the same thing in terms of human life. That's silly so far as science is concerned, obvioiusly, but he clearly believes that.

I'm, instead, pointing out the net effect of that belief. Either women have liberty or they don't. Either you treat them as a person or you don't. They're either living and capable of making their own decisions or they're incubators for the fetus' life that takes precedent over their own. That's the net effect of that belief, regardless of how sincerely he believes something.

[numberthirty]

Here's what I'll say, I think there's a lot of politicians that are scumbags and using this issue to gain favor with Christian people who do absolutely believe it. And I think that is where you will find the inconsistency. There are absolutely religious people that 100% believe that however, and would support negligent doctors being charged with manslaughter if it was on the table.

If you can show me ten groups of them outside of such a doctor's office protesting that said doctor was not charged, I'd be willing to allow for such a possibility.

As it stands, I haven't really seen such a protest being a regular(actually, even remotely real) thing.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'm not contesting that Ohnooze believes that a 10 week old fetus and a born, nine month old baby are the same thing in terms of human life. That's silly so far as science is concerned, obvioiusly, but he clearly believes that.

I'm, instead, pointing out the net effect of that belief. Either women have liberty or they don't. Either you treat them as a person or you don't. They're either living and capable of making their own decisions or they're incubators for the fetus' life that takes precedent over their own. That's the net effect of that belief, regardless of how sincerely he believes something.

Your opinion of the net effect of that belief is something that logically doesn't hold up imo. There's no barometer where you are going to place an inconveniance of 9 months, NO MATTER how severe that inconveniance is, with permenantly ending something you believe is human life. Because logically you could extrapolate that off to after the baby is born and say, well the mother shouldn't have to pay for, hold, change or breast feed the baby, so she could kill it.

You're never going to reach a point where permanent death is acceptable next to a delayed autonomy of personhood for a period of time.

Once you establish that it is a human life, ending it will always become the more egregious offense in comparison to anything else, and anything else becomes lesser than that. Which is why even most of these people will concede that they would be okay with terminating a pregancy if it was the mother's life at risk. Because then it becomes a one life to one life comparison.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

If you can show me ten groups of them outside of such a doctor's office protesting that said doctor was not charged, I'd be willing to allow for such a possibility.

As it stands, I haven't really seen such a protest being a regular(actually, even remotely real) thing.

You'd have to find examples where the death of the child was clear negligence to make that case. You can't count unavoidable miscarriages. And in those cases, I'd be shocked if there weren't malpractice suits over that.

[Farealmer]

How is it that everyone on the conservative side in these threads ends up becoming the very boogeyman they claim are made up by the left? Like I have followed this since before the 2016 election and I can't think of a single instance of a conservative coming in here to debate you guys about misconceptions of the right that didn't end up backing those very things when push came to shove. It's surreal...

[JCAll]

I'm not contesting that Ohnooze believes that a 10 week old fetus and a born, nine month old baby are the same thing in terms of human life. That's silly so far as science is concerned, obvioiusly, but he clearly believes that.

I'm, instead, pointing out the net effect of that belief. Either women have liberty or they don't. Either you treat them as a person or you don't. They're either living and capable of making their own decisions or they're incubators for the fetus' life that takes precedent over their own. That's the net effect of that belief, regardless of how sincerely he believes something.

That's why there will never be any compromise on this issue. Either something murder or it isn't. Yes, the alternative to abortion is turning women into breeding slaves, but to people that think abortion is murder...well, murder is worse than slavery so that's what it'll have to be. Plus it comes with a side of control and punishment.

That's how binary this issue is, there can't be a compromise because there's no line when murder stops being murder. One side has to win on this, and even if they win they have to keep fighting forever those rights. Democrats had better damn well learn that fast or women in this country are going to be fucked. Literally and metaphorically.

[Tendrin]

Your opinion of the net effect of that belief is something that logically doesn't hold up imo. There's no barometer where you are going to place an inconveniance of 9 months, NO MATTER how severe that inconveniance is, with permenantly ending something you believe is human life. Because logically you could extrapolate that off to after the baby is born and say, well the mother shouldn't have to pay for, hold, change or breast feed the baby, so she could kill it.

You're never going to reach a point where permanent death is acceptable next to a delayed autonomy of personhood for a period of time.

Once you establish that it is a human life, ending it will always become the more egregious offense in comparison to anything else, and anything else becomes lesser than that. Which is why even most of these people will concede that they would be okay with terminating a pregancy if it was the mother's life at risk. Because then it becomes a one life to one life comparison.

Well, that's your opinion, sure, but I think it's pretty logical since we can see the effect. By the way, your statemnet logically doesn't hold up because we've seen women die due to rules like this, as they did in the case that eventually lead ot Ireland overturning its abortion ban, and the jeapordy mother's lives are placed in in CAtholic hospitals, as seen here:

https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/...shes-speaking/

Dr. Jessika Ralph was waiting for her patient to get sick.
The young woman had arrived at Wheaton Franciscan-St. Joseph hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in labor. She was 18 weeks pregnant, and her twin fetuses were long from viable. She miscarried one fetus within hours of admission, but her labor stalled while the second still had a heartbeat. Because the hospital followed rules issued by the Catholic Church, until the patient hemorrhaged or showed at least two signs of infection—fever of 100.4 or higher, uterine tenderness, rapid heart rate, or rapid fetal heart rate—Ralph could do little except watch her sicken.
So Ralph’s team trimmed the umbilical cord from the miscarried twin as short as possible to minimize the infection risk, and waited overnight.

While I might never convince someone who believes 'life begins at conception', I don't generally argue for the sake of convincing someone like that.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That's why there will never be any compromise on this issue. Either something murder or it isn't. Yes, the alternative to abortion is turning women into breeding slaves, but to people that think abortion is murder...well, murder is worse than slavery so that's what it'll have to be. Plus it comes with a side of control and punishment.

That's how binary this issue is, there can't be a compromise because there's no line when murder stops being murder. One side has to win on this, and even if they win they have to keep fighting forever those rights. Democrats had better damn well learn that fast or women in this country are going to be fucked. Literally and metaphorically.

Exactly. This is literally my point. It's so binary and the disconnect is so fundamentally that you can't get either side to compromise. It's way better for people to just fight to win on this issue in policy because hearts and minds won't change.

[PwrdOn]

How is it that everyone on the conservative side in these threads ends up becoming the very boogeyman they claim are made up by the left? Like I have followed this since before the 2016 election and I can't think of a single instance of a conservative coming in here to debate you guys about misconceptions of the right that didn't end up backing those very things when push came to shove. It's surreal...

Conservatives these days have no political identity of their own, they are just what others tell them they should be, so they have no problem sacrificing their most deeply held principles for the sake of owning the libs.

[JackDaw]

I’d suggest that “compromise” on abortion law must be possible..because it’s exactly what happens in most countries that allow abortion.

Does any country really give mother unlimited freedom to women to terminate at any point up to point of birth??

In UK for example..the termination rights of the mother depend on the age of the foetus...after 24 weeks abortion can only proceed in exceptional circumstances.