NEWS Sen Tuberville and Appointment Delays

[Sonog]

Dude - fucking stop. My wife had two abortions and had to say goodbye to our twin son who passed in the first trimester before he was born. You are being emotionally and intellectually dishonest. Just, fucking STOP. Abortion is necessary, and should be AVAILABLE to anyone who needs it - legitimately. 3% of the demographic is responsible for 30% of all abortions nationwide. Does that sit well with you? Shouldn't a developed nation do everything in its power to discourage unnecessary abortions of unborn children? Grow the fuck up . . .

Can we look at this 3% and 30% number in context? Some quick googling put maybe 27% of the population in the 15-39 age range. So 13% of those are women? Or is that data from reproductive aged women only? Just curious.

As much as I want to argue over the mindset that the majority of abortions are from promiscuous harlots who are just stacking up abortions... the only way forward with the issue is to push for more accessible safe birth control, sex education, and women's autonomy. We all don't want abortions to happen. But a bunch of old white dudes tossing around legislation against women, is not going to be good for anybody.

 

[robav8r]

Can we look at this 3% and 30% number in context? Some quick googling put maybe 27% of the population in the 15-39 age range. So 13% of those are women? Or is that data from reproductive aged women only? Just curious.

As much as I want to argue over the mindset that the majority of abortions are from promiscuous harlots who are just stacking up abortions... the only way forward with the issue is to push for more accessible safe birth control, sex education, and women's autonomy. We all don't want abortions to happen. But a bunch of old white dudes tossing around legislation against women, is not going to be good for anybody.

I agree . . .

 

[Mirage]

Can we look at this 3% and 30% number in context? Some quick googling put maybe 27% of the population in the 15-39 age range. So 13% of those are women? Or is that data from reproductive aged women only? Just curious.

As much as I want to argue over the mindset that the majority of abortions are from promiscuous harlots who are just stacking up abortions... the only way forward with the issue is to push for more accessible safe birth control, sex education, and women's autonomy. We all don't want abortions to happen. But a bunch of old white dudes tossing around legislation against women, is not going to be good for anybody.

No, the "only way forward" is not to legalize the ending of innocent lives (what you describe as "women's autonomy"), any more than the only way forward with problem children is to legalize their murder. In both cases, the adults who are responsible for these lives need to sacrifice for them. That is the lot for parents, given not by me, but by mother nature. One can dislike this lot and yell at the sky, or try to twist reason to justify escaping it ("well, you can't actually hear the heartbeat yet", "oh, it feels no pain"), but at the end of the day, that's just what responsible adults have to do.

Your picture of a "bunch of old white dudes" is also wrong. Congressional makeup aside, public opinion on abortion is roughly the same between men and women. The idea that only women's voices on abortion matter is sexist and absurd, but it is also irrelevant, since the gender's think about the issue basically the same.

How about we stop talking about abortion? As many have mentioned, we aren't likely to change anyone's mind.

 

[ABMD]

Saw this earlier and thought it would be apropos to the conversation above. It would have been a cake...

 

[villanelle]

No, the "only way forward" is not to legalize the ending of innocent lives (what you describe as "women's autonomy"), any more than the only way forward with problem children is to legalize their murder. In both cases, the adults who are responsible for these lives need to sacrifice for them. That is the lot for parents, given not by me, but by mother nature. One can dislike this lot and yell at the sky, or try to twist reason to justify escaping it ("well, you can't actually hear the heartbeat yet", "oh, it feels no pain"), but at the end of the day, that's just what responsible adults have to do.

Your picture of a "bunch of old white dudes" is also wrong. Congressional makeup aside, public opinion on abortion is roughly the same between men and women. The idea that only women's voices on abortion matter is sexist and absurd, but it is also irrelevant, since the gender's think about the issue basically the same.

How about we stop talking about abortion? As many have mentioned, we aren't likely to change anyone's mind.

You go on about abortion, then end by saying we should stop talking about it. Do you see how that's... interesting?

And you keep using the word 'murder'. We can argue over whether abortion is ending a life or even killing a baby. But there is no argument to be made that is is murder. It is not. 'Murder' has a very specific meaning and it's not, contrary to the way you want to use is in this conversation, simply "ending a life". Abortion is no more murder than is ending the life of an enemy combatant in in armed conflict. "Murder" is unlawful killing, and we are talking about legal abortions, so there is nothing unlawful about them. So you can use that word to be inflammatory and provocative and misleading all you want, but it's simply incorrect and inaccurate. Abortion is not murder because, for the time being at least, it is legal (within ever increasing limits, but no one is suggesting the military pay for service members to travel and have illegal abortions, so the instances where it might be murder aren't germane to this conversation).

Also, yes, public opinion on abortion isn't as gendered as people might think. What it is though is in favor of abortion being legal in most or even all cases, which you graph shows.

And if you truly think we should stop talking about abortion, feel free not to respond. Or do respond, but then don't pretend you actually want to stop talking about abortion.

 

[Mirage]

You go on about abortion, then end by saying we should stop talking about it. Do you see how that's... interesting?

And you keep using the word 'murder'. We can argue over whether abortion is ending a life or even killing a baby. But there is no argument to be made that is is murder. It is not. 'Murder' has a very specific meaning and it's not, contrary to the way you want to use is in this conversation, simply "ending a life". Abortion is no more murder than is ending the life of an enemy combatant in in armed conflict. "Murder" is unlawful killing, and we are talking about legal abortions, so there is nothing unlawful about them. So you can use that word to be inflammatory and provocative and misleading all you want, but it's simply incorrect and inaccurate. Abortion is not murder because, for the time being at least, it is legal (within ever increasing limits, but no one is suggesting the military pay for service members to travel and have illegal abortions, so the instances where it might be murder aren't germane to this conversation).

Also, yes, public opinion on abortion isn't as gendered as people might think. What it is though is in favor of abortion being legal in most or even all cases, which you graph shows.

And if you truly think we should stop talking about abortion, feel free not to respond. Or do respond, but then don't pretend you actually want to stop talking about abortion.

Yes, by equating abortion in most cases to murder, I am implying that the two are equal in my mind, which they are. I am not stating that we are talking about illegal abortions. That was obvious, and in no way misleading except to the stupidest of people.

There is a difference between ending a debate on a "let's agree to disagree", like I offered at the end of mine, vs one side making unreasonable claims that go unchallenged. But thank you for your permission to respond or not respond as I please, that means a lot.

 

[IKE]

Yes, by equating abortion in most cases to murder, I am implying that the two are equal in my mind, which they are. I am not stating that we are talking about illegal abortions. That was obvious, and in no way misleading except to the stupidest of people.

There is a difference between ending a debate on a "let's agree to disagree", like I offered at the end of mine, vs one side making unreasonable claims that go unchallenged. But thank you for your permission to respond or not respond as I please, that means a lot.

Ad hominem much?

You have repeatedly destroyed your own credibility as a debater by intentionally conflating terms, unsupportedly bundling abortion-seeking with other unethical (in your POV) behaviors, and straight-up personal insults.

Cheers!

 

[Mirage]

Ad hominem much?

You have repeatedly destroyed your own credibility as a debater by intentionally conflating terms, unsupportedly bundling abortion-seeking with other unethical (in your POV) behaviors, and straight-up personal insults.

Cheers!

Ad hominem is when you attack a person instead of the logic. I called nobody stupid. Per my comment, the only stupid person would be someone who confused my use of "murder" by thinking I was referring to illegal abortions, which nobody was confused about (which was my point). Nice try.

If you don't agree with my logic for how murder and abortion are equally bad (which, btw, not one person has challenged directly), then sure, I've lost credibility with you, as you have with me. Where's my violin...

 

[villanelle]

So I guess you do want to keep talking about abortion.

And since you said "not one person has challenged" you equating them, I will, if I'm understand what you are saying hasn't been challenged. I don't think they are equal. Not even close. In fact, I find abortion in most contexts to be entirely morally neutral. Frankly, I don't care if someone does want to have a dozen abortions. (I mean, I think that's a bad idea from a health perspective, but otherwise, I see it as an act without moral implications either way.) Because I don't think that those cells are a life, so I don't see morality as meaningful part of the decision metric. So yes, I directly challenge the notion that murder and abortion are "equally bad" and in fact don't even find them in the same universe of morality. I find abortion not bad at all, though I think it often points back to systemic issues that are in fact bad and troubling and that do lead people to want to abort their fetuses.

I respect other perspectives, and I even respect the feelings of those who feel it is ending the life of a baby and see that as abhorrent and tragic. They see a gross injustice and find that painful, and I actually sympathize, and even empathize (since there are plenty of policies I find deeply unjust and wrong) with that. But I don't respect their desire to make that call for other people when the concept is deeply ambiguous.

 

[Mirage]

So I guess you do want to keep talking about abortion.

And since you said "not one person has challenged" you equating them, I will, if I'm understand what you are saying hasn't been challenged. I don't think they are equal. Not even close. In fact, I find abortion in most contexts to be entirely morally neutral. Frankly, I don't care if someone does want to have a dozen abortions. (I mean, I think that's a bad idea from a health perspective, but otherwise, I see it as an act without moral implications either way.) Because I don't think that those cells are a life, so I don't see morality as meaningful part of the decision metric. So yes, I directly challenge the notion that murder and abortion are "equally bad" and in fact don't even find them in the same universe of morality. I find abortion not bad at all, though I think it often points back to systemic issues that are in fact bad and troubling and that do lead people to want to abort their fetuses.

I respect other perspectives, and I even respect the feelings of those who feel it is ending the life of a baby and see that as abhorrent and tragic. They see a gross injustice and find that painful, and I actually sympathize, and even empathize (since there are plenty of policies I find deeply unjust and wrong) with that. But I don't respect their desire to make that call for other people when the concept is deeply ambiguous.

So, I guess you don't want to agree to disagree, as I offered? See how that works?

You did not challenge my reasoning at all. You just said that murder and abortion aren't equal and that the cells aren't life. That's challenging my conclusion, not my reasoning.

My reasoning is this. Why is murder wrong? I have suggested that it is wrong for Jack to murder Jill because if Jack did nothing, Jill's life would continue, and Jack has no right to end Jill's life. How old Jill is, how many cells are in her body, how intelligent she is, if her heart is functioning rather than being on machine, if Jill feels pain, etc., are irrelevant. Do you agree with this? If not, then why is murder wrong?

 

[cfam]

While I applaud everyone for keeping it mostly civil, we’re devolving into a circular argument and we’re certainly not going to reach a consensus here. Please start a new thread if there’s a desire to discuss the particulars of the Tuberville situation in more depth without getting into another abortion good or bad debate.