Abortion

[Walker]

Evelyn 'Champagne' King
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMbty5vEBGU

Great disco sax.

[Iwannaplato]

That's where you confuse reporting the news, with "complaining."

Those are not mutually exclusive. What gets focused on, what doesn't. If I could hear a conservative put what you are calling news in the context of what has gone before when their values had more sway, then I might have a different reaction.

In theory, but not the real life example that prompted the comment.

Well, if you think the post of yours I responded to too was without bias - or, to put it less pejoratively, without opinion and without political positions - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's a fine example of my theory. It would be an opinion piece in a newspaper, not an article. And of course articles, 'just reporting facts', can still be biased.

[Walker]

Those are not mutually exclusive. What gets focused on, what doesn't. If I could hear a conservative put what you are calling news in the context of what has gone before when their values had more sway, then I might have a different reaction.

In theory, but not the real life example that prompted the comment.

Well, if you think the post of yours I responded to too was without bias - or, to put it less pejoratively, without opinion and without political positions - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's a fine example of my theory. It would be an opinion piece in a newspaper, not an article. And of course articles, 'just reporting facts', can still be biased.

You're cordially invited to try and disprove all those enumerated truths.

I have a biking date. Later, Playtoo.

[Walker]

Apparently all you need is a slogan such as my body my choice to pull it off.

[Impenitent]

my body my choice except covid, take your shot

-Imp

[Walker]

Is abortion really a choice? When a woman hears that the rabbit died, doesn’t she instantly know if she wants to abort or give birth? Most women probably do.

[Iwannaplato]

In theory, but not the real life example that prompted the comment.

Well, if you think the post of yours I responded to too was without bias - or, to put it less pejoratively, without opinion and without political positions - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's a fine example of my theory. It would be an opinion piece in a newspaper, not an article. And of course articles, 'just reporting facts', can still be biased.

You're cordially invited to try and disprove all those enumerated truths.

You support them with arguments and we can take it from there.
I'm heading out to bike also, though this is days later.

[Walker]

I have nothing to prove. You're the one imagining that my statements have bias, not me.

Also another biking day, nothing but blue skies. The question is, do I wash all the glass on the sun porch before, or after? Each has its advantages that extend beyond the pleasure and the chore.

When the time comes I'll know just what to do. Why plan such trivialities when the present is so nice?

[Iwannaplato]

You know, I didn't want to discuss all this, I wanted to discuss shame and get a response around the assumptions in your post about shame and political parties, etc. But here we go. Frame it. It's a stellar moment in your development or whatever you said or implied to me, when you made up reasons not to respond to my post.

I have nothing to prove. You're the one imagining that my statements have bias, not me.

In your prediction...

Naw. An abortion in one state will be "honored" in another state.

Yes, marriages and divorces are valid across state lines, though one does need to get residency in Nevada: it's short, six weeks, but that's significant and costly for many to move to Nevada for that time. But the important issue is that there are different state laws where you don't just get a pass. Such as laws around grooming and even consensual sex and crossing state lines. So, the bias here is that you are speculating about how it will go on the future, to make sure is sounds as bad, from your perspective, as possible. It will be like laws around X, no mention of Y. Bias. This is an unsettled shifting in laws around abortion in the US. If you want to make flat statement about what will happen, these may well be biased given the intentions of your essay, which I think goes beyond enumerating truths. So...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... epublicans
but also
we have history where crossing to a diffent state to do something legal there but not in your home state was illegal
and states may do this....
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2 ... -abortion/

So, you're simply enumerating facts was actually a speculative prediction and one that fit your biases and/or rhetorical needs. We don't know. You don't know. But it suited your needs to act as if you knew, as if you were stating a fact. I have no problem with predicting and speculating even presented simply or without qualitification, but once you label your post as just enumerating truths and as without bias, it's a problem.

quickie wedding

This contains a value judgment. YOu could say 'no waiting period weddings' etc., but you used a pejorative term. If you want to claim it was merely literal, bullshit. You don't respect people making that choice. That is your bias coming out of your values. Bias.

the age of No Shame,

there's a lot of bias packed in here. And the uses of this idea are the core of my resistance to pointing out the obvious in previous posts. Are you kidding? You really think this is just a fact? To hold this position seems to me is just expecting other people to bear the onus. A convenient naivte about what you are doing. I am just stating facts. LOL.

First, you'd need to demonstrate the claims in here. That now there is less shame than in whatever period you consider the better Age. No just that certain things are no longer considered shameful, but this Age is without shame. I see an age with different shames (and guilts) and the left for example is pretty much out of control in what they are shaming people over. I could mount a long argument, but given how many conservatives agree with me, I'll let you consult with them. This in fact was part of what I responded to. There was a lack or all sorts of shame in earlier periods of history and then shaming around things that are at least legal now. People on all sides are still hurling shame, but I do agree that a number of things that were considered shameful and the law supported that judgment are no longer considered shameful by some and the law no longer supports those who think they are shameful. However there were things back then that were shameful to many people now, but were not considered shameful (at least as far as the law was concerned) then.


I don't know the years of your Age of Shame, but often this starts in the 60s for conservatives. If so, well in the 50s you had active segregation in a variety of demeaning ways and also ways that created obstacles for participation in society. People were not ashamed of that, though they were more likely to be ashamed of their sexual feelings especially if they moved beyond missionary sex with a spouse. Including masturbation. What is shameful has had some shifts, though pedophilia is still considered shameful throgh most recent Ages. So, the bias here is that you make a binary label for the era as having no shame, implicitly feeling there were better periods (for conservative values) where there was healthy shame, from the view of a conservative with your values not seeing shame for the subset of possible things one might feel shame over that matter to you. Bias.
I can come up with a lot of other examples of things people were not ashamed of in the 50s and earlier, that the law and general opinion now considers shameful.

Implicit assumptions: prochoice/lefty people have no shame and do not consider certain behaviors shameful. This is false. Lefties are in charge now and that why there is no shame. This is false. Many things considered shameful by conservatives are also considered shameful by lefties. Conservatives shame related laws still have force: corruption, child abuse (though this gets complicated since if we go back in time even many conservatives would consider certain standard childrearing punishments now shameful though then not), pimping, cruel treatment of the handicatpped, medical negligence, false advertising and so on.

Relativism says, there is no absolute by which to judge gambling, divorce, or abortion as being wrongful and unvirtuous. If it feels good, do it.

Here we have a biased conflation. IOW if you are prochoice you are a relativist. This is merely assumed and implied. If they don't have my values, they don't have any values. I don't know how you could have missed that the Left these days is objectivist. Yes, on some issues they are relativist, but not abortion. Certainly not on gay or trans rights. Not on pedophilia. (Often not on war, though now, ironically and tragically, they tend to support Biden's war noises. no one has any memory) It is hysterically and problematically obvious that there are all sorts of acts and even attitudes that the left thinks are wrong. Wrong period. Not relatively wrong, but fundamentally, absolutely. It's even a fucking problem, a big one. If you don't believe me, please check out your fellow conservative's forums. Cancel culture could be one way to search through it. Conservatives seem to forget that people could easily get cancelled for not living up to concervative values - say, in the 50s, if that's before your 'Age of Noshame. - but that doesn't make current lefty practice any better. Abortion rights are argued along moral lines, generally, and with great passion.

Further gambling: is that a liberal activity? Is it new? European colonists to the americas gambled and legally. Gamblng was often legal in much of the US as long as it didn't upset the social order. Or it was illegal except for gentlemen. Religious conservatives had a big problem with it but I don't think conservatives in general did. It's been up and down. Whatever the Age of Shame is that you prefer to this Age of Shame it is likely that gambling was legal in some form is some places.

Divorce, abortion, gambling … these used to be shameful activities because of the influence of religions and conservative traditional customs such as formal vows before God and mortal witnesses. Warriors also make secular vows, they're called blood oaths. The principle of "the vow" makes words and the meaning absolute and inviolate, even sacred.

In the age of No Shame, vows are worthless.

First off binary. NoShame again. Only specific moral issues are looked at and then these are the basis for the judgment that there is no shame now.

In part I responded to this because it seemed like you are assuming shame is good, period. I think earlier eras had a lot of problematic shame. That was part of my response. But you got to cast this off, because I was injecting bias, lol. Which is an absurd dismissal. If you agreed that there were problematic shames, you could have said that. If you disagreed, you could have said that and I could have gone into specifics. But instead of dealing with my post directly you made a metadismissal. Obviously in your rights to do that, but quite odd, and especially given the amount of bias in your post, ironic. Another word for bias could be opinion. Even assertions of what is the case, without value judgments being included, is dealing with opinions.

This residual shame is why it must be emphasized through advertising, winking and proper tips that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, because Vegas isn’t really a part of real life for folks who have yet to become woke enough to conquer the boundaries of shame that discourages aberrations both good and bad.

Here we have bias in the painting everyone who is prochoice as having what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas attitudes. That's absurd. You think someone could argue, yes, I beat up a trans person in mexico, but it is legal in Mexico so I should keep my job at NBC, and the Left would accept that.

Fuck I am not even sure that Vegas quote is particularly lefty. Sounds like it could easily flow out of a bunch of frat guys, conservative ones, going off one some ugly batcherlor's 'party'. So attributing this attitude to the left or prochoice people, which also includes conservatives, though obviously many less, mostly on the libertarian end, is biased. I mean, just listen to how silly it would be to say feminists think what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

The last part only has some bias, implicit, as much of your bias is - what is included, what is left out as one kind of this implicit bias...but still

When federal approval of all abortions declared with Roe v Wade that abortion was no longer shameful, abortion became honored by all states. Anyone who disagreed with that legal justification, was the aberration. Now, all the hubub and threats to the SCOTUS is partially because abortionists don't want any legal disapproval of abortion from anyone, anywhere, even if they are in another state or country such as the USA, the greatest country on the face of the earth, objectively speaking and of course, all things considered.

This speaks against the Vegas accusation and also against the moral relativism accusation. Yes, many prochoice people want women around the world to be able to choose. And I believe many people on the anti-abortion side want abortion to be illegal everywhere. Because both groups have not just selfish desires, but think their values are correct, that the Good is knowable. Unfortunately they differ over the Good. So, first even your own points include arguments against your painting the entire prochoice position as relativistic. SEcond, to me the implicit bias is that there is something wrong with them wanting their morals to hold everywhere on this issue. Well, that's often true for conservatives and this last paragraph is as if that wasn't the case.

But you went even further than saying there was no bias in your post. You called it reporting and enumerating truths only.

like you really saw no value judgments in 'Age of No shame'? We have to play games?

You could have been a stand up guy and actually responded to the issue I focused on. But you took some hallucinated high ground that you just enumerate facts. You seem like a very smart person or I would be pissed off by such naivte.

I'm just enumerating facts.

I mean, come on.
I mean, you make a poor coquette. You used used pejorative terms, used value/judgment laden terms, implicitly claimed that if you are prochoice you are a relativist AND that what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas is somehow a prochoice/lefty liberal thing, engaged in self-serving and obviously false binary thinking driven by your values and chose to focus on some things and not others. A lot of implicit and hell even explicit polemic. Polemic posts are fine of course, but once you claim you are judge enumerating facts without bias, it's a problem, and kinda rude.

Again, no way something like this get published as an article. Not a chance. It would be an opinion piece. Yes, there are assertions of fact in it, just like in many opinion pieces. And that's as a stand alone piece. Here in a thread on abortion more of the implicit value judgments of those who are prochoice and of liberals is even stronger. What secular relativism is referring to in your opinion piece.
the Age of noshame, and I actually had to point this out to you???!!
Oh, and a little less important. Disprove is a silly challenge. Proofs are the realm of math and symbolic logic.

A last thought about gambling: I am not sure this is a liberal creation, the legality. The governor who started it in Nevada was Republican. The forces that ran gambling there were pretty damn conservative, many religious. Then there's....
https://whyy.org/articles/when-it-comes ... on-ground/
now of course religious people tend to have more objections to gambling. but you mention traditional conservative tradition and it is not clear to me that conservatives in general have been against and I know in many instances liberals have been.

I think sometimes what you are blaming implicitly on the prochoice people actually has to do with rich and powerful people and corporations. And conseratives have been trying to set them free for my whole lifetime.

You get to make a bunch of assertions, then assert that they are just truths, but other people need to disprove you.

You should be ashamed of the trying to get other people to carry the onus BS going on here. Even in the age of noshame.

I gotta say I am leery of people who see their value judgments as facts and can't even see them as value judgments. In fact you people - not conservatives, since liberals and members of all groups can be like this - you people, the people who are so unaware of themselves and what they do, smug self-ignorant, holier than thou lazy people cause much of the problems they claim to hate. Next time you see some lefty, cocksure about their values not even being values, you're looking in the mirror. May your enrumerated truths have a nice party together.

But the enumerating facts line did give me a laugh.

I have nothing to prove. You're the one imagining that my statements have bias, not me.

I could have just said that about my first response to you. Oh, my post is just facts. Maybe I'll try being a jackass for a while, see if I can get others to bear the onus. Oh, you don't like what I wrote, you just dragged bias into my immaculate discussion. I gotta take a shower. Prove that I had bias. Heading out to bike You do some work.. I like it. Maybe denial would have been a better path for me in general. Facile, but freeing.

[iambiguous]

Maureen Dowd in the NYT

The liberal argument:

GALWAY, Ireland — I came to Ireland four years ago to cover the searing story of the Scarlet Letter in the Emerald Isle.

Back then, Ireland had a harsh abortion law, shaped by the views of the Catholic Church. The Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, added in 1983, gave fetuses rights equal to the mother’s, ensuring abortion would be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. Anyone getting the procedure or buying abortion pills online faced up to 14 years in prison. Women were forced to sneak out of the country and go to London if they wanted abortions. Some women went to loan sharks to get the money to travel.

In 2018, a referendum on repealing the Eighth Amendment roiled Ireland with turbulent arguments on a subject that had been subterranean for eons. Edna O’Brien captured the tortured drama in her novel “Down by the River,” based on the sensational 1992 case of a 14-year-old who was raped by a friend’s father and became suicidal when she was barred from leaving the country to get an abortion. She later miscarried.

There was also the heart-wrenching 2012 story of Savita Halappanavar, who rushed to a Galway hospital in distress the day after her baby shower. She was told that her 17-week-old fetus was going to die. As she went into septic shock, she begged the medical team to remove the fetus and save her life. One midwife coldly reminded her that she was in “a Catholic country.” She died after her stillborn infant. The horror of that case galvanized the Emerald Isle.

I felt grateful as I covered the referendum, which passed resoundingly, that I lived in a more enlightened America, which had long had the protection of Roe.

Now I am back and stunned that Ireland and the United States have traded places. Ireland leaped into modernity, rejecting religious reactionaries’ insistence on controlling women’s bodies. America lurched backward, ruled by religious reactionaries’ insistence on controlling women’s bodies.

Once, Ireland seemed obsessed with punishing women. Now it’s America.



And this is more or less in line with my own "rooted existentially in dasein" political prejudices.

On the other hand, there are those who do not base their opposition to abortion on Catholic/religious dogmas/convictions. They simply believe that a human life begins at conception, and that aborting it constitutes the taking of this human life. That's why it ought to be a crime to do so.

Some of course argue this is not the case. Human life begins somewhere else along the biological sojourn from conception to birth. Some even argue that a newborn baby itself is not really a human being as you and I are.

Me? Again, I think that those on both ends of moral and political spectrum make reasonable arguments. That's the source of my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. Their right from their side, we're right from ours.

The brutal reality of living in a No God world where there is no omniscient/omnipotent font to finally resolve conflagrations like this once and for all.

That's why so many here think themselves into believing that there is one. Ever and always their own of course.

[commonsense]

Lookie here:

The players may change sides, but their language can be reduced to the same words.

“If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.”

Insert either “abortion” or “guns” in place of “it”.

[henry quirk]

“If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.”

Insert either “abortion” or “guns” in place of “it”.

Let's tweak it a bit...

If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.

If you’re against property, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.

If you’re against killing babies, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t do it.

I'm thinkin' you don't see the problem.

[commonsense]

“If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.”

Insert either “abortion” or “guns” in place of “it”.

Let's tweak it a bit...

If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.

If you’re against property, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.

If you’re against killing babies, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t do it.

I'm thinkin' you don't see the problem.

Clearly property and babies are not equal.

Since toaster ovens and washing machines are among the many kinds of property that are of no legitimate concern in the gun safety debate, the issue is only about guns and not about property.

BTW, babies are not fetuses nor embryos. Babies are after birth.

[henry quirk]

Clearly property and babies are not equal.

Of course not. You have a right to property; you don't have a right to kill babies (includin' the unborn kind).

the issue is only about guns and not about property.

Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.

[Walker]

Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.

That takes you right back to my body my choice.