|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jul 20, 2022 19:34:35 GMT
My question is, how can the AG of one state investigate a legal action taken in another state, when that state is not going to cooperate in any way shape or form and will actively impede them and rightfully so? That's an abuse of power I think and frivolous. Not to mention, he's blowing some shit out his ass. Because it is mandatory for an Indiana doctor to report to the state of Indiana when they treat a child in these circumstances. That the Indiana AG didn't actually take the time to check that she had actually done so before opening his gob is why he's being sued. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 20, 2022 23:40:54 GMT
My bad, I got the AG's mixed up. It happens. 
Still, this entire situation sucks for the poor kid. My heart breaks for her or anyone in her situation.
I fucking hate politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jul 28, 2022 0:29:40 GMT
The problem lies with whether you believe that life begins at conception or not. If you do, then an abortion, even for a 10 year old under those circumstances, is murder. The question then becomes, is the murder of a baby a greater crime than a 10 year old having that baby. For someone on the pro-life side, there's no good answer to that question. It's going to be horrible either way. I think many, if not most on the pro-life side would view the murder as the worst crime, and so would argue against the 10 year old having the abortion. And that's what I think the Representative quoted above was clumsily getting at. The question you ask is only easy for the pro-choice side that believes that the baby is just some clump of parasitic cells. I respect those who choose to carry to term, regardless of circumstance. I also respect those who choose not to, especially in this case.
I find it difficult to respect those who enforce their will upon others (especially in this case) without ever having to make such an ugly choice for themselves. A victim of rape, incest, or sex trafficking is a violent, intimate act against their will (sex trafficking is not the same as prostitution in this regard). To force the victim to carry to term is also an act against their will.
Truly, there are some that believe that abortion (as a form of murder) is worse that the rape and impregnation of a child, but what percentage of those that do will be there to support the victim and her baby (after its birth) for the rest of their lives? How have those same individuals helped these unfortunate victims (mother and child) after birth? For those who do nothing, do they really have the right to enforce their will/beliefs upon others in this regard?
This is about demonstrating dignity, understanding, and compassion for others. It is about being humane.
First, requiring the people to have engaged in the ugly choice in order to make laws about it means that lawmakers who have no committed murder can't make laws about murder. Lawmakers who haven't engaged in fraud can't make.......oh, never mind, we're good there. Anyway, if you believe that abortion is murder, that is sufficient to be able to legislate it. Second, the argument in bold is a Red Herring. We didn't make lawmakers responsible for all the people not murdered due to other anti-murder laws, so why would this one be any different? It would be nice if funds were set up to help those women and children, but there's no requirement for that to happen in order to legislate abortive murder. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jul 28, 2022 0:30:39 GMT
The problem lies with whether you believe that life begins at conception or not. If you do, then an abortion, even for a 10 year old under those circumstances, is murder. The question then becomes, is the murder of a baby a greater crime than a 10 year old having that baby. For someone on the pro-life side, there's no good answer to that question. It's going to be horrible either way. I think many, if not most on the pro-life side would view the murder as the worst crime, and so would argue against the 10 year old having the abortion. And that's what I think the Representative quoted above was clumsily getting at. The question you ask is only easy for the pro-choice side that believes that the baby is just some clump of parasitic cells. There is a problem with the idea that the 10-year-old should not have that abortion. It's the fact that that's a child whose body usually hasn't been changed enough by puberty to actually be able to carry a child to term. It's not just a danger to her health, it's a danger to her life.Which is justification for an abortion, as I've said multiple times now in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jul 28, 2022 0:32:42 GMT
There is also the fact that most if not all of the lawmakers who are making these anti women health laws have absolutely zero knowledge of basic biology and they display this every single time they open their mouth on the subject. And finance, the economy, foreign policy, laws, and on and on. Until we change things to require people running for office to be educated, the above argument doesn't matter. The ignorant will continue to pass laws on all topics. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jul 28, 2022 1:40:08 GMT
There is also the fact that most if not all of the lawmakers who are making these anti women health laws have absolutely zero knowledge of basic biology and they display this every single time they open their mouth on the subject. And finance, the economy, foreign policy, laws, and on and on. Until we change things to require people running for office to be educated, the above argument doesn't matter. The ignorant will continue to pass laws on all topics.The ignorant includes not only those seeking office (legislature, executive, sometimes judicial), but the electorate as well as they elect the former and also pass referendums and amendments. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jul 28, 2022 1:51:06 GMT
And finance, the economy, foreign policy, laws, and on and on. Until we change things to require people running for office to be educated, the above argument doesn't matter. The ignorant will continue to pass laws on all topics.The ignorant includes not only those seeking office (legislature, executive, sometimes judicial), but the electorate as well as they elect the former and also pass referendums and amendments. Completely agree. Too many stupid people on both sides keep electing these idiots to office. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jul 28, 2022 3:36:08 GMT
The ignorant includes not only those seeking office (legislature, executive, sometimes judicial), but the electorate as well as they elect the former and also pass referendums and amendments. Completely agree. Too many stupid people on both sides keep electing these idiots to office. Absolutely! Overcoming ignorance also isn't as simple as getting a formal education / college degree as it does not guarantee wisdom (i.e. do ethics courses themselves make a pupil more ethical?).
It is: - actually listening to one another (instead of speaking first to be heard)
- seeking clarification regarding confusing/ambiguous statements/claims (circumventing misinterpretation and misjudgement)
- understanding context (something acceptable/unacceptable in the past may not be now or in the future)
- considering other perspectives (placing oneself in another's shoes)
- reflecting before speaking (and avoiding knee-jerk hot takes)
- speaking with civility and in earnest (not for the sake of optics / political correctness)
- being mindful of sources of confirmation bias (and searching for other sources that may not necessarily match/agree with your preliminary expectations)
- avoiding zero-sum mentality (and work toward goals that enrich everyone)
- embracing research as a tool for self-enrichment, not to simply win an argument (winning for argument's sake is missing the point)
- acknowledging misunderstandings when they occur
- shifting fixation of evil entities toward bad actions/tendencies (for it is better to correct and reduce the rate of those actions than to simply punish/destroy)
- being supportive of one another (to better allow ourselves and others to more deeply delve into less comfortable issues)
- accepting that it is okay to respectfully "agree to disagree"
- smiling, laughing, and waving more frequently in person whenever possible (misery loves company be damned)
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 17, 2022 8:42:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 17, 2022 9:27:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 18, 2022 15:43:33 GMT
I am curious to what those on the pro-life side of the spectrum have to say about the two articles listed by libtard. Any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 18, 2022 21:48:10 GMT
Silence. They have no defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 23, 2022 0:28:06 GMT
I am curious to what those on the pro-life side of the spectrum have to say about the two articles listed by libtard. Any takers? You mean the two people here who are pro-life and both have previous said that's the exact sort of thing abortion should be used for, rather than as birth-control as so many do now? |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Aug 23, 2022 15:04:18 GMT
I am curious to what those on the pro-life side of the spectrum have to say about the two articles listed by libtard. Any takers? You mean the two people here who are pro-life and both have previous said that's the exact sort of thing abortion should be used for, rather than as birth-control as so many do now? I suppose that's who they meant, though I suspect what they want is a vitriolic response from 3cat. Though I also suspect that they would like to see a condemnation of the states that are preventing such uses. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 23, 2022 19:36:22 GMT
You mean the two people here who are pro-life and both have previous said that's the exact sort of thing abortion should be used for, rather than as birth-control as so many do now? I suppose that's who they meant, though I suspect what they want is a vitriolic response from 3cat. Though I also suspect that they would like to see a condemnation of the states that are preventing such uses. I have no interest in precipitating a vitriolic response from anyone. I am interested in the extent to which people can evade and dismiss the inevitable ramifications of the White Christofascism which threatens the US, and the false equivalences which they like to draw with regard to progressive activists. Example: One poster previously drew an equivalence between Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC, because in their mind a progressive liberal agenda and believing in Jewish space lasers are somehow equally crazy. The Right has completely lost its mind in the US. This is painfully apparent to everyone except the Right in the US. |
|
