Jump to content

US-Roe vs Wade overturned


CharonY
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MSC said:

You and Zaps egos are bruised

I’d have to first give a shit what you think in order for you to be able to bruise my ego. 

 

2 hours ago, MSC said:

you really don't see the irony in advocating for making abortions illegal

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm not advocating for making abortions illegal

1 hour ago, MSC said:

You've been here arguing for abortion being made illegal.

Facepalm 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Romans used to dump unwanted babies. Since abortion was as deadly for the mother as the fetus back in those days, it was the more humane option. The Romans were incredibly callous to in thousands of ways, so this was just one more. They were practical people, who live their lives far closer to death than we do. Death was all around you back then, as well as horrible disease. 

Even in the 1800s, in England, children were not considered people, till they got to the age of 8 to 10. They had a nasty habit of dying suddenly, so it was best not to get too attached to them. 

I've always been of the opinion that there is no right and wrong, just the morals that are current and practical at the time, with a dash of inherited instinct. 

I happen to think that abortion is one of those questions with no right answer. There's nothing wrong with removing a few cells, but I would really dislike late abortions where the fetus was viable. There's not a lot of difference between doing that, today, and the Romans taking unwanted newborn babies to the dump. So a compromise date of so many weeks being the limit is not great, but it's better than anything else on offer. 

The argument that it's wrong, because this old book says so (very indirectly) is rubbish. But that's what drives the ban-abortion lobby in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MSC said:

I'll respond now only to people who actually engage with my writing and don't ignore my questions

You seem to have issues comprehending. Engaging with your writing is all that’s happened.

What questions have you asked that you feel I’ve ignored? The only one here IMO acting like they have a fragile ego full of bruises is you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The Romans used to dump unwanted babies.

On a side note, that practice contributed to the rise in Christianity in Rome. Christians collected the dumped babies and raised them as Christians, rapidly increasing the Christian population.

25 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I happen to think that abortion is one of those questions with no right answer.

I agree. Both sides make what is for them compelling arguments and firmly believe they are correct. Those in the middle may pick a side but rarely seem totally at ease about it.

I don't ever recall anyone changing their mind on abortion due to persuasion by the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I’d have to first give a shit what you think in order for you to be able to bruise my ego.

We get it. You think I'm beneath you. So why would I continue to engage with you? At least I attempt to give a shit what others have to say. Until they do what you do and reveal that they think they are superior to others. Now I no longer give a shit what you have to say since there will be no reciprocation. If you can't read for nuance and are incapable of interpreting what I'm saying, that's your problem. I'm not reading averse and I can tell the difference between a question mark and a full stop. I'm no longer wasting my time with you so save your bile for someone else.

Tell yourself whatever false narrative you want about me in order to protect your self appointed status of smartest person in the room. 

On 6/17/2022 at 9:41 PM, zapatos said:

IMO, it would be hypocritical to back off an anti-abortion stance just because women will seek alternative, riskier options.

This is one example of where it reads like you are advocating for abortion.

 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are fetuses lives included in that equation? Because unless you include just the mothers there is no evidence that making abortions illegal would cost more lives.

Also, would you think it hypocritical to oppose clinical infanticide, if you were concerned many mothers might do themselves in while illegally killing their kids?

Here is another. So no, you haven't made your own views clear at all and now seem to be back pedaling because you stopped feeling confident in this bs.

If you agree that abortions should be legal, then why tf are you even arguing with me? What is the goal exactly if we are both preaching to the choir?

Edited by MSC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

Tell yourself whatever false narrative you want about me in order to protect your self appointed status of smartest person in the room. 

You have a repellant habit of putting words and motivations into others when those words and motivations don’t exist.

So, since you mentioned your communication style:

 

5 hours ago, MSC said:

I'm really just getting the impression that others here don't really get my communication style

… I’ll confirm for you that your style IS a problem, but it’s not because others are too dumb to comprehend your meaning.
 

It’s because you seem to struggle focusing on their points and choose so often instead to focus on them personally and whine like a petulant bratty toddler. Like here:

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Oops, shared my opinion again. I forgot you said mine isn't allowed. I'm just going to come right out and say what is on my mind, You and Zaps egos are bruised because you can't actually supply me with a valid criticism and are crying foul because I won't pretend there is any weight to these ineffectual ones. 

I'll respond now only to people who actually engage with my writing and don't ignore my questions to try to construct their own false narrative

 

22 minutes ago, MSC said:

You think I'm beneath you. … they think they are superior to others. Now I no longer give a shit what you have to say since there will be no reciprocation. If you can't read for nuance and are incapable of interpreting what I'm saying, that's your problem. … I'm no longer wasting my time with you so save your bile for someone else.

Tell yourself whatever false narrative you want about me in order to protect your self appointed status of smartest person in the room. 

There’s clearly bile spewing in this thread, but back to my earlier comment regarding a clear lack of self-awareness, you seem blind to the fact that most of it is coming from you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MSC said:

Here is another.

First off, I am not J.C. MacSwell. Second, why are you so angry? All I did was disagree with some of the things you said.

18 minutes ago, MSC said:

If you agree that abortions should be legal, then why tf are you even arguing with me? What is the goal exactly if we are both preaching to the choir?

Perhaps you should re-read our conversation. The reason I am arguing with you is because I don't agree with some things you've said. Just because I agree with you that abortion should be legal, that does not mean I am obligated to agree with everything else you say.

30 minutes ago, MSC said:

So no, you haven't made your own views clear at all

If something I said is not clear, all you have to do is ask. I'll be happen to explain further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

You have a repellant habit of putting words and motivations into others when those words and motivations don’t exist.

And you have a repellant habit of continuing to speak to people in a way that warrants questioning your motivations.

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s because you seem to struggle focusing on their points and choose so often instead to focus on them personally and whine like a petulant bratty toddler. Like here:

Thats literally what you are doing here. Show me where I've ever called you a petulant bratty toddler? The only one making this personal is you and Zap. 

 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s clearly bile spewing in this thread, but back to my earlier comment regarding a clear lack of self-awareness, you seem blind to the fact that most of it is coming from you. 

Projection buddy. That's all I can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, MSC said:

Here is another. So no, you haven't made your own views clear at all and now seem to be back pedaling because you stopped feeling confident in this bs.

If you agree that abortions should be legal, then why tf are you even arguing with me? What is the goal exactly if we are both preaching to the choir?

Because it's a bad argument. I think they should be legal in some cases and in some cases not. I can therefore agree with arguments from each side. Capiche?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

something I said is not clear, all you have to do is ask. I'll be happen to explain further.

Likewise.

And yes, sorry I misquoted you on the second paragraph just now. But what did you mean by the first?

And can we all just stop calling each other childish. It's beneath all of us to say things so petty and only makes it more difficult for us all to communicate. This isn't reddit and I'm tired of giving my all to a discussion only to have to bite my tongue and keep trying to be reasonable while people keep up with personal attacks even after I've attempted to assure them that I've meant them no personal Insult. Me actively insulting someone and me just ad libbing generalized rhetoric look nothing alike. I dunno, maybe it's a cultural thing and we just have very different ideas of what it means to personally attack an individual and attacking their argument. Where I'm from, if you're not making an attempt to make a light hearted joke out of something, and are just calling someone childish, whiny or petulant, that's fighting talk. That's intent to upset and hinder, not communicate. It's perceived as an attempt to be paternal, to pull rank, to put someone beneath you. Equality and manners are very important to Scots, even if from the outside it does not seem like it. If you were actually my dad or my boss, you could get away with it. In a venue like this where we are all equal in our ability to share our thoughts freely and non staff have all the same capabilities within the framework of the forum, it just makes communication unnecessarily difficult. 

This was genuinely one of my biggest culture shocks when I moved to the USA. Its why a lot of Europeans just don't feel comfortable here. We have to deal with ridiculous stereotypes, inappropriate jokes, sexual harassment and people constantly trying to take advantage of your ignorance in how this place works. There have even been incidents where someone here, who seems like a fairly inclusive American, will say something which would be completely out of order back home. In the same way that here, I can say cigarettes but if I had the inclination to ask someone for a fag, that would be offensive.

It does present differently online. Much less of an accent barrier to deal with here, but I can tell that the cultural one is still there and is actually more prominent. I think we may also be having problems understanding the tone we are trying to convey. 

For the sake of helping you understand me a little better, I do have social difficulties, problems focusing or getting too focused on things. I just got a new psychiatrist who disagrees with the Aspergers diagnosis I got home and instead suspects ADHD. But at this point, I've grown so annoyed with all the confusing psychiatric labels that I'd rather just focus on the symptomology of me as an individual and do away with the labels altogether. But I certainly don't communicate in the normal way, and the version of me speaking with you now, has actually put a lot of effort to try to meet other people where they are, sometimes I can only get halfway. 

There is a weird thing I just noticed, I read back some of what I've said in an American accent and for whatever reason, I sound more condescending than you would hear if I was saying it on the phone with my own voice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MSC said:

Likewise.

And yes, sorry I misquoted you on the second paragraph just now. But what did you mean by the first?

And can we all just stop calling each other childish. It's beneath all of us to say things so petty and only makes it more difficult for us all to communicate. This isn't reddit and I'm tired of giving my all to a discussion only to have to bite my tongue and keep trying to be reasonable while people keep up with personal attacks even after I've attempted to assure them that I've meant them no personal Insult. Me actively insulting someone and me just ad libbing generalized rhetoric look nothing alike. I dunno, maybe it's a cultural thing and we just have very different ideas of what it means to personally attack an individual and attacking their argument. Where I'm from, if you're not making an attempt to make a light hearted joke out of something, and are just calling someone childish, whiny or petulant, that's fighting talk. That's intent to upset and hinder, not communicate. It's perceived as an attempt to be paternal, to pull rank, to put someone beneath you. Equality and manners are very important to Scots, even if from the outside it does not seem like it. If you were actually my dad or my boss, you could get away with it. In a venue like this where we are all equal in our ability to share our thoughts freely and non staff have all the same capabilities within the framework of the forum, it just makes communication unnecessarily difficult. 

This was genuinely one of my biggest culture shocks when I moved to the USA. Its why a lot of Europeans just don't feel comfortable here. We have to deal with ridiculous stereotypes, inappropriate jokes, sexual harassment and people constantly trying to take advantage of your ignorance in how this place works. There have even been incidents where someone here, who seems like a fairly inclusive American, will say something which would be completely out of order back home. In the same way that here, I can say cigarettes but if I had the inclination to ask someone for a fag, that would be offensive.

It does present differently online. Much less of an accent barrier to deal with here, but I can tell that the cultural one is still there and is actually more prominent. I think we may also be having problems understanding the tone we are trying to convey. 

For the sake of helping you understand me a little better, I do have social difficulties, problems focusing or getting too focused on things. I just got a new psychiatrist who disagrees with the Aspergers diagnosis I got home and instead suspects ADHD. But at this point, I've grown so annoyed with all the confusing psychiatric labels that I'd rather just focus on the symptomology of me as an individual and do away with the labels altogether. But I certainly don't communicate in the normal way, and the version of me speaking with you now, has actually put a lot of effort to try to meet other people where they are, sometimes I can only get halfway. 

There is a weird thing I just noticed, I read back some of what I've said in an American accent and for whatever reason, I sound more condescending than you would hear if I was saying it on the phone with my own voice. 

I hope you feel better now that’s all off your chest and that your visits with mental health professionals are productive.

Now, back to the topic…

You said you’ve posed questions to me that I refuse to answer. Remind me what thread relevant question(s) you have asked of me that have not yet been answered to your satisfaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, I just want to be friendly with people. One of the things that frustrates me the most is that when people get upset with me, it often feels like it is coming out of nowhere. It's overwhelming to say the least. It gets even more so when there is a gang up and all of a sudden I have 2 or 3 people upset with me instead of just one. It's enough to give anyone a headache. 

I've got Inow basically telling me he finds me repellant, doesn't give a shit what I have to say and has called me a brat. And for what reason? Because I'm here debating and don't always see or understand other people's points? It's really just taking it too far in the whole edgelord meanstreak trope everyone is doing these days. It doesn't help anyone. It doesn't make me feel particularly great and only seeks to satisfy some need he has of being brutal for brutalities sake. Probably calls it brutal honesty, but I just see brutality. 

When he says I lack self awareness, he might as well just come out and say "you just don't realize what a piece of shit you are." That's what I hear, that's the kind of negative self talk I have to fight off everyday. It also directly contradicts one of the most consistent criticisms I've had from people who actually know me as a person. Ever since I was a kid, it's always been that I'm too self aware for my own good, but usually it also ties in to how I also over share that self awareness. 

@zapatosyou implied earlier, that I don't give enough credit to the people that are trying. That may be true.. maybe I should try to work on that. But ethics really is my passion, career and vocation. It's what I try hardest at. 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

hope you feel better now that’s all off your chest and that your visits with mental health professionals are productive.

I do a bit. Thank you. I am trying to be better at communicating with people. It's not easy. It's easier with some and harder with others. 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

You said you’ve posed questions to me that I refuse to answer. Remind me what thread relevant question(s) you have asked of me that have not yet been answered to your satisfaction. 

Well in this thread, I've not actually asked you that many, but I probably complicated the issue in my mind by expecting you to perceive some of the questions I asked when speaking to Zap, as open questions meant for anyone else who decides to read and engage. One thing about social media that I can't ever seem to shake thinking about, is that there is an audience and you don't know who or how many people are in it or even when they are in it. Does that make sense? So I feel like most of the time, I end up just trying to speak to everyone, since I can't know the audience.

That happens because of my need to keep social advice in mind that I have sought out and learned to better cope. Knowing your audience being one of them. So on social media, since the only thing I can know about the invisible audience, is that they are human. That's really the only core thing I can hold onto for trying to communicate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it. You accused me of refusing to answer questions you never actually asked me and then proceeded to berate me for evasion and introduction of false narratives. Glad we cleared that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MSC said:

Since you've made it clear that you have the deontological perspective of right and wrong, what if I say it ought to be a rule that it is always right to try to avoid the worst consequences that cause the most harm? Why can't demonology, utilitarian and consequentialist ethics be used in conjunction with each other as tools to enhance our understanding of right and wrong, instead of the ideological tribalism most engage with? Why can't I value and make use of all three of those types of moral thinking as well as virtue theory?

@iNow

I'm going to rephrase the first line that was directed at Zap. "Since the argument examples you have cited are from the deontological perspective..." the rest carries on the same. 

I suppose these are questions I'd like to hear feedback on the most. Are they relevant enough for you in this thread or should there be a more specific thread by itself?

7 hours ago, MSC said:

So can you show me a section that gives you this impression or not?

@iNowthis was the question I had in mind which I felt you were being evasive on. I'm sincerely asking for examples of my writing that are giving people an impression which I'm not trying to convey. So I can understand what is causing the impression so I can fix it. Please, humor me.

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

You accused me of refusing to answer questions you never actually asked me

No, you've misunderstood what I just said. I was asking some questions of everyone who read as they were open questions that weren't just meant for Zap. But I fucked up and was not clear enough when I wrote them, that they were open questions not just meant for Zap but for anyone who is interested in this topic enough to have the discussion. If you aren't interested enough, that's your choice to make. No judgement either way. I don't want to fight and argue with anyone anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MSC said:

Are they relevant enough for you in this thread

No

8 hours ago, MSC said:

for anyone who is interested in this topic enough to have the discussion. If you aren't interested enough, that's your choice to make

My interest in the topic and reasonable discussion about it is “enough.” My interest in engaging with folks who focus on others personality instead of others points is nil to nonexistent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough with the sea-sections, fellas.

MSCs most recent post was aborted and his membership terminated for 2 trimesters. Hopefully this gestation brings something better after birth. We won’t be nursing him here for a while, nor cleaning any further spit up. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2022 at 6:07 AM, CharonY said:

Effectively conservative states are poised to make abortions impossible,

Which is plain evil..

...sometimes abortion is the only way to save women's life.. e.g. ectopic pregnancy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

"In the developing world, however, especially in Africa, the death rate is very high, and ectopic pregnancies are a major cause of death among women of childbearing age."

"The rate of ectopic pregnancy is about 1% and 2% of that of live births in developed countries, though it is as high as 4% in pregnancies involving assisted reproductive technology."

 

https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/ectopic-pregnancy-level-4-cause

map_374.thumb.png.6db40f9eba0a549d857e93f086526c8e.png"There were a total of 6·69 million (...) ectopic pregnancies globally in 2019,"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-choice and pro-life are not incompatible.
My interpretation of pro-choice is simply that everyone has the right to choose what is best for themselves, or their morals/ethics.
If you are for, or against, abortion, that is your choice to make for yourself, not to impose on others.

But can we get back to Alito's draft proposal, and how it will affect state laws in the US ?

I'm not sure, maybe JC or Peterkin have a clearer understanding  of Canadian abortion laws, but it is my understanding that we have no 'concrete' laws either, just a 'gentleman's agreement' between our political parties that the issue of abortion will not be brought up.
So far, it seems to have worked, but maybe we need some legislation, or a Charter 'amendment' to fix things in place before we also get into the situation the US finds itself in.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Pro-choice and pro-life are not incompatible.
My interpretation of pro-choice is simply that everyone has the right to choose what is best for themselves, or their morals/ethics.
If you are for, or against, abortion, that is your choice to make for yourself, not to impose on others.

That's how I interpret pro-choice as well. I recently heard of an exchange between two women on either side of that fence, and the pro-life woman admitted she had gone to a clinic to abort her daughter but walked out before the procedure, and considered it the best decision she ever made because she loves her daughter so much. The pro-choice woman just told her she was very happy the woman had been given the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the issues here is that "pro-life" is not actually pro-life; they chose that name and it plays well, but the same folks largely do not support efforts to help children survive other than being anti-abortion. They generally don't support efforts to reduce abortion e.g. via birth control and sex education. They also don't support some efforts to keep people from dying via other means. As a group they are objectively not pro-life. They are just anti-abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-life is a real lie. Humans are destroying life all around the planet, because we are destroying bio-diversity. Each aborted fetus is actually a bonus for "life". In numbers of humans we are way past what the living world can tolerate. 

If you were really pro-life, you would be in favour of mass sterilization, and a one-child policy, as well as free abortions. 

I am, but not compulsory.  If I was world dictator, I would remove financial incentives towards big families, by reducing state child support, and providing guaranteed pensions in developing countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.

Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.

“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,” Alito wrote.

Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0

The day has come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.