Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
Vosur,
I find your position acceptable personally because you aren't in favor of legislating it. I see nothing wrong with sex education and making contraceptives more available. I agree those are needed even without the issue of abortion. Anyway, I am pro choice and that means you are entitled to abhor it. I'm simply against legislating it for everyone and it seems you are as well.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
10-12-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 10:07 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Vosur,
I find your position acceptable personally because you aren't in favor of legislating it. I see nothing wrong with sex education and making contraceptives more available. I agree those are needed even without the issue of abortion. Anyway, I am pro choice and that means you are entitled to abhor it. I'm simply against legislating it for everyone and it seems you are as well.
That is correct. I'm not sure why Bucky Ball isn't satisfied with that. It's almost like he thinks that people must not only be in favor of legalising the procedure, but also view it as a morally good thing. His behavior reeks of thought policing to me.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
@Vosur

He indeed seems to think that abortion is morally a good thing when its an enlighten decision made by a women based on her capacity and will to take care or not of a child. Of course, he is completly free to criticise and judge people around based on his values and morals. So can anybody else. You can even debate your respective morals and judgement provided you both establish a common standard by which you can jusge them. Your opinion of abortion, as an abhorrent, but sometime necessary procedure, is also a moral judgement of a person who chooses to have an abortion. It implies a strong disgust for the action of a person making that choice, especially if it was avoidable (for example from a woman who can take care of child, didn't use contraception, following a consensual relationship). Since Bucky doesn't want or call for you to be sanctionned for your opinion, I think calling his critique of your opinion thought policing is a bit too big. On the other end its true that he does present his critique in a rather rude way and your reply will probably trigger another bout of rude criticism.

On the other end, I do agree with your position on abortion. We should provide better sexual education to teenagers and young adults, easier access to contraceptives, improve maternity care and reduce the negative financial impact of pregnancy and maternity on women's financial situation. Yet, I do also think that calling it abhorrent is a too strong word. I prefer avoidable, undesirable or contentious.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
10-12-2016, 01:15 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 12:32 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Vosur

He indeed seems to think that abortion is morally a good thing when its an enlighten decision made by a women based on her capacity and will to take care or not of a child. Of course, he is completly free to criticise and judge people around based on his values and morals. So can anybody else. You can even debate your respective morals and judgement provided you both establish a common standard by which you can jusge them. Your opinion of abortion, as an abhorrent, but sometime necessary procedure, is also a moral judgement of a person who chooses to have an abortion. It implies a strong disgust for the action of a person making that choice, especially if it was avoidable (for example from a woman who can take care of child, didn't use contraception, following a consensual relationship). Since Bucky doesn't want or call for you to be sanctionned for your opinion, I think calling his critique of your opinion thought policing is a bit too big. On the other end its true that he does present his critique in a rather rude way and your reply will probably trigger another bout of rude criticism.

On the other end, I do agree with your position on abortion. We should provide better sexual education to teenagers and young adults, easier access to contraceptives, improve maternity care and reduce the negative financial impact of pregnancy and maternity on women's financial situation. Yet, I do also think that calling it abhorrent is a too strong word. I prefer avoidable, undesirable or contentious.
That might be the most even-handed critique I've ever read and I mean that sincerely. Having said that, I personally don't see a point in having a discussion about morality because it always boils down to a discussion about opinions rather than facts or evidence. That's why I have no interest in debating my reasons for calling abortions "abhorrent" with him or anyone else for that matter. It's an opinion based on my own moral code, nothing more, nothing less. Fortunately, I differ from religious people who share this particular part of my moral code in that I don't think the relevant legislation should be based upon it. Then again, you could say that avoiding unnecessary suffering by legalizing abortions is part of my moral code as well.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
I'm fine with what Vosur wrote. What anyone thinks about abortion is their business, until they try to legislate it.

I think "abhor" is a fine word for my feelings, too. I've had a gal who had an abortion though I tried to talk her out of it. It hurt. That memory, those feelings, color my view on the procedure, the discussion, but not law.

I'd never try to put my views into law. Firstly, they're inchoate, and that makes for bad law. Secondly, and much more important, I don't think any government should ever be so intrusive as to impose a decision on anyone in such a personal matter.

I don't see why Vosur's opinion, and that's all it is, is arousing such ire. People are allowed to have feelings, and he's not stumping for his to be legislated. What exactly is the problem, then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
10-12-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 09:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 09:00 AM)julep Wrote:  It's quite common for men to urge the women they've impregnated to terminate the pregnancy, and to offer to pay for this procedure...so your abhorrence is not universal. It's certainly not a given that everyone would "already see" your position.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I even said that my view isn't shared by many of my peers in an earlier post.

(10-12-2016 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You couldn't disappoint me. This is what I suspected.
You really have no rational explanation for your irrational and uneducated emotion based opinions on this subject. "Feelings" are hardly rational bases for law and ethics. Abortion is not "killing" and a clump of cells with no brain and no neural tube is not "offspring" (yet). You simply invoke all the bullshit emotional baggage and non-scientific irrational tripe that religionists invoke concerning this subject.
It's your prerogative to spout statements based on ignorance and it's my prerogative to laugh at you for doing so. As a great man once said, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And with that, I wish you a nice day.

If you "already know" everything I said, then your incredulity as expressed to Bucky is disingenuous at best. More likely (IMO) it's dishonesty so that you can try to position yourself as more righteous than your opponent. What a tediously religious tactic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2016, 03:17 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 01:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I'm fine with what Vosur wrote. What anyone thinks about abortion is their business, until they try to legislate it.

I think "abhor" is a fine word for my feelings, too. I've had a gal who had an abortion though I tried to talk her out of it. It hurt. That memory, those feelings, color my view on the procedure, the discussion, but not law.

I'd never try to put my views into law. Firstly, they're inchoate, and that makes for bad law. Secondly, and much more important, I don't think any government should ever be so intrusive as to impose a decision on anyone in such a personal matter.

I don't see why Vosur's opinion, and that's all it is, is arousing such ire. People are allowed to have feelings, and he's not stumping for his to be legislated. What exactly is the problem, then?

The problem for me, mostly, is the word.

Pardon what seems to be a digression, but: Christians are no good at hating the sin, but loving the sinner, not when it's a sin that hits them at a gut level, and most especially when other people may not even agree that it's a sin. Examples: abortion, homosexuality, charging interest on a loan... In cases like these, Christians can't seem to stop themselves from shaming the sinner, punishing the sinner, ostracizing the sinner. Of course that's not just a Christian failing, it's a human failing. It's my opinion that the language used helps drive attitudes towards what is then increasingly becomes an out group. Abhorrent is a morally loaded, us/them word.

Visor's online persona would be another reason for the ire.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
10-12-2016, 03:20 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 02:58 PM)julep Wrote:  If you "already know" everything I said, then your incredulity as expressed to Bucky is disingenuous at best. More likely (IMO) it's dishonesty so that you can try to position yourself as more righteous than your opponent. What a tediously religious tactic.
I don't understand why you say that that knowledge makes my incredulity disingenuous. Do you think that someone can't be aware of the general approval of abortion and be surprised when an individual is so utterly unable to empathize with those who hold a different view on the matter that they have to question the reasons behind it at length at the same time?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 03:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 02:58 PM)julep Wrote:  If you "already know" everything I said, then your incredulity as expressed to Bucky is disingenuous at best. More likely (IMO) it's dishonesty so that you can try to position yourself as more righteous than your opponent. What a tediously religious tactic.
I don't understand why you say that that knowledge makes my incredulity disingenuous. Do you think that someone can't be aware of the general approval of abortion and be surprised when an individual is so utterly unable to empathize with those who hold a different view on the matter that they have to question the reasons behind it at length at the same time?

Gotcha, and thanks for further explaining your position.

I withdraw the term disingenuous, as it clearly was not the mot juste. Please replace it with preening (or, if you prefer, moral self-aggrandizement...I think preening is punchier, though).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2016, 09:33 PM
RE: Ohio 'heartbeat bill' - abortion
(10-12-2016 03:17 PM)julep Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 01:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I'm fine with what Vosur wrote. What anyone thinks about abortion is their business, until they try to legislate it.

I think "abhor" is a fine word for my feelings, too. I've had a gal who had an abortion though I tried to talk her out of it. It hurt. That memory, those feelings, color my view on the procedure, the discussion, but not law.

I'd never try to put my views into law. Firstly, they're inchoate, and that makes for bad law. Secondly, and much more important, I don't think any government should ever be so intrusive as to impose a decision on anyone in such a personal matter.

I don't see why Vosur's opinion, and that's all it is, is arousing such ire. People are allowed to have feelings, and he's not stumping for his to be legislated. What exactly is the problem, then?

The problem for me, mostly, is the word.

Pardon what seems to be a digression, but: Christians are no good at hating the sin, but loving the sinner, not when it's a sin that hits them at a gut level, and most especially when other people may not even agree that it's a sin. Examples: abortion, homosexuality, charging interest on a loan... In cases like these, Christians can't seem to stop themselves from shaming the sinner, punishing the sinner, ostracizing the sinner. Of course that's not just a Christian failing, it's a human failing. It's my opinion that the language used helps drive attitudes towards what is then increasingly becomes an out group. Abhorrent is a morally loaded, us/them word.

Visor's online persona would be another reason for the ire.

You're right that "abhorrent" can be a very charged word, but it seemed clear to me that what he found abhorrent was the abortion, not the people involved.

As for his personality, he and I have had our tussles ... I don't hold his rough edges against him, because lord knows I've got plenty of my own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: