And this thread, like so many before it, is totally getting locked.
It doesn't even get a nervous system before page 4 so that's okay.
Norman I didn't see where you pointed out any flawed reasoning. It looks like you were trying to agree, albeit with a flawed grasp of what rape culture is. Am I reading you wrong?
Obviously I was pointing out the flaws in that line of reasoning - in a vacuum (har har) the argument that something's inevitable, therefore it should be okay is clearly spurious. That argument only holds weight if you already judge the act itself inherently not harmful - which is the real underlying case you're making.
The argument I was actually making is that there are things that a "morally superior" group are always going to try to limit because they don't want to do them (or secretly do, but want to punish those that have). We should not base all legislation, especially not concerning sex and sexuality on that "morally superior" group's beliefs because they are not shared universally.
We have a prison system overflowing with inmates from drug related crimes for drugs that some states are legalizing to good effect.
Meanwhile, in our country's history, prohibition has shown pretty clearly that trying to ban all of a vice for the crimes of a few is never going to work... and yet, we continue to act like sex should be a prohibited act, and look how well we're doing with that. -_-
Obviously I was pointing out the flaws in that line of reasoning - in a vacuum (har har) the argument that something's inevitable, therefore it should be okay is clearly spurious. That argument only holds weight if you already judge the act itself inherently not harmful - which is the real underlying case you're making.
No, there are plenty of people who consider drugs and alcohol harmul, but who still are against Prohibition and the War on Drugs. The argument is that when you criminalize something inevitible, you don't stop the problem. Instead, you choose whatever the results of criminalization are as preferable to whatever the results of keeping it legal would have been.
Are you trying to make an argument about how the increased number of unsafe abortions is the price some people are willing to pay for dropping the absolute, overall number of abortions that would happen if abortion were criminialized? Not to tone police you or anything, but 'think of the unsafe rapes that these back-alley rapists have to risk' is like, maybe not the most persuasive analogy you could go with there?
An analysis on why allowing Hobby Lobby to opt out of laws on religious grounds sets a troubling precedent:
Are you trying to make an argument about how the increased number of unsafe abortions is the price some people are willing to pay for dropping the absolute, overall number of abortions that would happen if abortion were criminialized?
Well, if you believe abortion is murder, that's a valid opinion. If you believe abortion isn't, it's probably not valid. My point is "there will always be abortions so why bother criminalizing" is putting the cart before the horse, from a debate perspective - the horse is the morality, the cart is criminalization.
I still don't understand, Norman. Are you saying that DIY abortions are an acceptable side affect of abortion criminalization, like reducing rape is an acceptable side effect of reducing rape culture?
cheeze_pavilion wrote:Are you trying to make an argument about how the increased number of unsafe abortions is the price some people are willing to pay for dropping the absolute, overall number of abortions that would happen if abortion were criminialized?
Well, if you believe abortion is murder, that's a valid opinion. If you believe abortion isn't, it's probably not valid. My point is "there will always be abortions so why bother criminalizing" is putting the cart before the horse, from a debate perspective - the horse is the morality, the cart is criminalization.
The bodily autonomy argument still rips this to shreds, though. If we're so willing to force women to do things with their body with the threat of criminalization, why aren't we criminalizing all the other ways in which we could be keeping other people alive (blood donations, marrow donations, organ donations, etc...) that require sacrifices from other people's bodies?
By the way, are any of Hobby Lobby's products made in China?
I still don't understand, Norman. Are you saying that DIY abortions are an acceptable side affect of abortion criminalization, like reducing rape is an acceptable side effect of reducing rape culture?
I think he's saying that if you criminalize abortion, there will be X number of unborn children who will die and Y number of women from the inevitable unsafe abortions. If you legalize it, the number Y will get smaller as abortions are safer, but the number X will get biggger as access to abortion increases. He's talking about people who see the increase in Y (the number of dead women) as worth it for the decrease in X (the number of dead unborn babies).
The rape analogy was just a really really bad one that doesn't even do a good job of illustrating the point, and is best forgotten. I think everyone would actually like to see MORE rapists harmed as a consequence of having to break the law to have sex with people against their will, and I'm sure the point here wasn't about those who see the dangers of an unsafe abortion as something pregnant women 'deserve'.
unsafe abortions
All abortions are extremely unsafe for the baby.
By the way, are any of Hobby Lobby's products made in China?
Are you equating handing out abortion inducing devices(at least that's what Hobby Lobby believes), and buying a product from someone being forced into a One Child policy by their non-democratic government?
There is no hard science that can confirm or deny the point at which life begins. That is a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview. Science can tell us it is somewhere between fertilization and birth.
So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
I don't want to make assumptions on what Norman is trying to say, but abortions universally decline in an environment of legal abortions supported with healthy education.
One can make the argument that abstinence only education is pro-abortion education, when looking at the statistics. In that case, then, Nomad's accurate statement that abortions are unsafe for babies seem to imply he supports legal and safe abortions in an effort to minimize them?
There is no hard science that can confirm or deny the point at which life begins. That is a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview. Science can tell us it is somewhere between fertilization and birth.Really? Man, all those anti-abortion protesters should probably fix all their signs that tell me babies are conscious like a month in then.
Why? There is nothing that science has to refute it. I'd imagine they would "fix their signs" as soon as the abortion clinics admit that they might be killing conscious infants.
Chaz wrote:So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
Wardrobe choice and medical treatment aren't really equivalent.
I don't want to make assumptions on what Norman is trying to say, but abortions universally decline in an environment of legal abortions supported with healthy education.
One can make the argument that abstinence only education is pro-abortion education, when looking at the statistics. In that case, then, Nomad's accurate statement that abortions are unsafe for babies seem to imply he supports legal and safe abortions in an effort to minimize them?
I am fairly certain that even the "legal and safe" abortions are lethal for the baby.
Nomad wrote:Chaz wrote:So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
Wardrobe choice and medical treatment aren't really equivalent.
I never said they were, did I?
I said the reasoning behind them is the same.
There is no hard science that can confirm or deny the point at which life begins. That is a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview. Science can tell us it is somewhere between fertilization and birth.
Really? Man, all those anti-abortion protesters should probably fix all their signs that tell me babies are conscious like a month in then.
So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
I suspect Nomad's response will be something about how "our side" is doing the same thing Chaz. My response to that is simply this. If you want to live to increased morality. Feel free. No one's going to stop you. But putting your more stringent religious views as the norm and criminalizing the life decisions of a woman (again, see bodily autonomy), that's where you cross a line.
jigoku wrote:I don't want to make assumptions on what Norman is trying to say, but abortions universally decline in an environment of legal abortions supported with healthy education.
One can make the argument that abstinence only education is pro-abortion education, when looking at the statistics. In that case, then, Nomad's accurate statement that abortions are unsafe for babies seem to imply he supports legal and safe abortions in an effort to minimize them?
I am fairly certain that even the "legal and safe" abortions are lethal for the baby.
Correct! And they're never ever going away. Ever. Literally.
So shouldn't we work toward minimizing them?
Chaz wrote:Nomad wrote:Chaz wrote:So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
Wardrobe choice and medical treatment aren't really equivalent.
I never said they were, did I?
I said the reasoning behind them is the same.
I didn't realize there was a religious mandate behind the visors at McDonalds
Demosthenes wrote:There is no hard science that can confirm or deny the point at which life begins. That is a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview. Science can tell us it is somewhere between fertilization and birth.Really? Man, all those anti-abortion protesters should probably fix all their signs that tell me babies are conscious like a month in then.
Why? There is nothing that science has to refute it. I'd imagine they would "fix their signs" as soon as the abortion clinics admit that they might be killing conscious infants.
Because they're presenting it as fact when you just said it's not? It's a belief, but they present it as fact. Soooo... blatant lying about things, totally ok. Abortion providers refusing to speculate and just providing the service in accordance with the law... not ok. What?
Nomad wrote:jigoku wrote:I don't want to make assumptions on what Norman is trying to say, but abortions universally decline in an environment of legal abortions supported with healthy education.
One can make the argument that abstinence only education is pro-abortion education, when looking at the statistics. In that case, then, Nomad's accurate statement that abortions are unsafe for babies seem to imply he supports legal and safe abortions in an effort to minimize them?
I am fairly certain that even the "legal and safe" abortions are lethal for the baby.
Correct! And they're never ever going away. Ever. Literally.
So shouldn't we work toward minimizing them?
Of course we shouldn't, because then people would be having sex without consequences, and we can't have that.
Chaz wrote:Nomad wrote:Chaz wrote:So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
Wardrobe choice and medical treatment aren't really equivalent.
I never said they were, did I?
I said the reasoning behind them is the same.
And it's a specious argument either way because dress code, if it's formal and stringently enforced, is typically tied to public-facing roles where appearance is critical to doing the job effectively. The reasoning for dress code in those situations is that it factors into doing your job properly -- that doesn't apply for choice of medical treatment.
Nomad wrote:jigoku wrote:I don't want to make assumptions on what Norman is trying to say, but abortions universally decline in an environment of legal abortions supported with healthy education.
One can make the argument that abstinence only education is pro-abortion education, when looking at the statistics. In that case, then, Nomad's accurate statement that abortions are unsafe for babies seem to imply he supports legal and safe abortions in an effort to minimize them?
I am fairly certain that even the "legal and safe" abortions are lethal for the baby.
Correct! And they're never ever going away. Ever. Literally.
So shouldn't we work toward minimizing them?
How do legal and readily accessible abortions minimize the total number?
Chaz wrote:Nomad wrote:Chaz wrote:So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
Wardrobe choice and medical treatment aren't really equivalent.
I never said they were, did I?
I said the reasoning behind them is the same.
But it's not. An employer can tell me that I am required to wear a certain uniform while on the clock and being paid to perform a job. An employer can't require that I continue to wear that uniform when I am not directly performing a service they are paying me for. Why does my employer have any say in what medical treatment happens when I'm not on the clock. Hell, why would my employer have any say in what medical treatment happens when I am on the clock?
What's funny is that I'm pretty sure we agree that the employer should have nothing to do with health care at all, and it should all go single payer, completely divorced from employment. In that case, I'm not sure why there's disagreement about whether the moral views of the employer should have any bearing on the medical treatment of the employee, even if the health insurance is gotten through the employer.
Places with easily accessible abortion services also have strong birth control education and access.
Nomad wrote:Chaz wrote:Nomad wrote:Chaz wrote:So if it's a question of philosophy, religion, and worldview, with no hard answer, how come certain worldviews get to enforce theirs on others who don't share it?
The same reason your employer can tell you what to wear to work.
Wardrobe choice and medical treatment aren't really equivalent.
I never said they were, did I?
I said the reasoning behind them is the same.
And it's a specious argument either way because dress code, if it's formal and stringently enforced, is typically tied to public-facing roles where appearance is critical to doing the job effectively. The reasoning for dress code in those situations is that it factors into doing your job properly -- that doesn't apply for choice of medical treatment.
There are many ways in which your employer controls your behavior. Pick one. How about forbidding the use of marijuana outside of work?
What's funny is that I'm pretty sure we agree that the employer should have nothing to do with health care at all, and it should all go single payer, completely divorced from employment.
Agreed.
Pages