Messages

51

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Shows that have you by the balls, or vag...

« on: March 11, 2025, 06:23:13 AM »

I love severance. 

52

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: February 27, 2025, 12:46:48 PM »

it's counting the tariffs

53

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Recent motion picture viewing - Add your own!

« on: February 25, 2025, 06:58:53 AM »

Is that the one where she’s a kind of a credit card fraudster?  I liked it ok.  Probably 4 raccoons for me.

54

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Recent motion picture viewing - Add your own!

« on: February 24, 2025, 02:34:02 PM »

blood by far

55

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Possible WW3 thread

« on: February 24, 2025, 02:12:43 PM »

I’m still absolutely convinced that the plan is to carve up the world between China, Russia, and the US. Everyone who formerly relied on the US for protection better go get nukes.

I don't know what you mean by this.  Are you talking about influence or actually like, absorbing states wholesale.

56

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 06:43:39 PM »

Millions of women knowingly consume alcohol while pregnant, so I don’t think that would be rare to prove. Whether it proximately caused the death of the child is what the jury would be there to determine.

Anyway, I think I understand your position:
-Yes murder if a woman ingests a banned drug, regardless of proof it cause termination of pregnancy (a felony murder theory I suppose)

-Yes to manslaughter if a prosecutor can prove to a jury’s satisfaction that a woman accidentally caused herself to miscarry by any kind of activity pregnant women are not supposed to do

I mean, if she ingested an abortifacient, like mifepristone, yes.  Felony murder wouldn’t be necessary.  That would be murder assuming nothing bizarre intent wise (in this hypothetical world where the law is clear).

And if a prosecutor can prove a mother’s recklessness proximately caused the death of her child, yes.  I think that would be exceptionally hard to prove in almost every case, but for the sake of your point, yes.

57

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 06:16:41 PM »

In an abortion the cause of death is pretty obvious.  In miscarriages, it may not be.

A baby who dies while the mom has alcohol in her system may or may not have died because of the alcohol.

You would be ok with a woman being convicted of murder because she had a certain drug in her system (like mifepristone) at the time of miscarriage? But a jury shouldn’t even have an opportunity to evaluate whether alcohol in her system was a cause of death?

Yes on the first (in this hypothetical where mifepristone is clearly outlawed), and on the second, I think it would depend on the circumstances. 

I don’t think a woman who merely had alcohol in her system ought to be convicted of manslaughter, barring some clear evidence that she knowingly consumed alcohol while she knew she was pregnant, and her alcohol consumption proximately caused the death of the child. In the extremely rare case where that evidence is there, yes, I would prosecute.

58

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 05:50:55 PM »

In an abortion the cause of death is pretty obvious.  In miscarriages, it may not be.

A baby who dies while the mom has alcohol in her system may or may not have died because of the alcohol.

59

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 03:46:09 PM »

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

I appreciate the honest answer, but what makes it more difficult to investigate than other deaths? You question witnesses, run some bloodwork, and let the people decide.

I understand your view to be that a fertilized egg should be valued the same as a human life and that it should only need the conditions to grow in order to become a birthed child. If a child dies in utero why would we not dedicate the same resources as to any deadly incident investigation?

Maybe we should?  My issue is that humans dying in utero is far more common (and far less obvious) than incidents of humans dying after birth. 

But criminally investigating each time a child dies in utero doesn't strike me as practically realistic for like, several different reasons.  Do the children that died in utero deserve an investigation to determine what caused their death?  Yes.  Do I think or expect that if abortion was massively restricted in this country that that would happen for every miscarriage?  No.

I certainly agree it’s more common. It’s probably only less obvious because governments currently treat born children dramatically different than unborn. If you support banning abortion on the basis that a fertilized egg deserves the same right to life as a fully viable child, then I don’t see why you wouldn’t support a requirement to certify each fertilization the same way we currently do for births.

If you don’t support those measures because they’re expensive or logistically difficult then I have to wonder if you really do value the lives the same as born children.

I don't support investigating each miscarriage because it's practically impossible.  I also think an investigation would be unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of cases, and proving it up at trial would be near impossible from a causation perspective.  If there's clear reason to believe foul play is involved (e.g. a pregnant lady smokes meth every day and the child does of an overdose), then yes.  Investigate and prosecute, imo.  But I don't think we need a database or have authorities knocking on doors merely because a baby died in the first trimester.

You can claim I don't actually value the unborn as much as I say I do unless I support investigating every miscarriage, but I don't see those as inconsistent. 

60

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 02:23:01 PM »

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

I appreciate the honest answer, but what makes it more difficult to investigate than other deaths? You question witnesses, run some bloodwork, and let the people decide.

I understand your view to be that a fertilized egg should be valued the same as a human life and that it should only need the conditions to grow in order to become a birthed child. If a child dies in utero why would we not dedicate the same resources as to any deadly incident investigation?

Maybe we should?  My issue is that humans dying in utero is far more common (and far less obvious) than incidents of humans dying after birth. 

But criminally investigating each time a child dies in utero doesn't strike me as practically realistic for like, several different reasons.  Do the children that died in utero deserve an investigation to determine what caused their death?  Yes.  Do I think or expect that if abortion was massively restricted in this country that that would happen for every miscarriage?  No.

61

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 01:57:29 PM »

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

62

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 01:53:09 PM »

Hey isn't that interesting!  I wasn't expecting that!  Now, I'm in no way shape or form an expert on Swiss abortion laws, so take the above with a grain of salt.  Like I said, it's just what Google AI told me when i searched for "[X Country]'s abortion laws."  That said, as far as I can tell, all of those countries' laws are considerably more restrictive on abortion than the US's pre-Dobbs rules (up around 24ish weeks) -- and they're also all considerably more restrictive than Sweden's:

Sweden has liberal abortion laws, allowing women to terminate a pregnancy up to 18 weeks of gestation without restriction.
Key Provisions:
Time limit: Abortion is permitted up to the end of the 18th week of pregnancy.
Request: Women have the right to request an abortion without having to provide any specific reason.
Procedure: Abortions can be performed in a hospital or health center by a doctor or midwife.
Cost: Abortions are covered by the Swedish healthcare system.
Exceptions: After 18 weeks, abortions may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is at risk or if the fetus has a severe malformation.

I'm also no expert on Swiss abortion law so, take what i say with a hint of lime but is it possible that the womenfolk from those surrounding countries that are in the 12-18 week window are travelling to Sweden to have the operation performed? And honestly i have no idea, like I don't know if Sweden makes any distinction between a woman having an abortion if she is a citizen or not. If they are just looking at it from the standpoint of "abortions performed, doesn't matter where you're from" then might we consider there's a strong possibility their numbers are high because they are attracting some visitors?

All I can find is this:

Since 1 January 2008, foreign patients – including asylum applicants, non-permanent residents, and those not registered in Sweden – are allowed to get an abortion in the country. During 2009, 132 such abortions were performed in Sweden. The National Board of Health and Welfare called this a comparably small figure, in relation to the total number of abortions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden#:~:text=From%201%20September%202004%2C%20these,an%20abortion%20in%20the%20country.

So yeah, there's some of that going on, but not nearly enough to completely account for the disparate rates.

63

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 01:39:24 PM »

Viability as a human is a pretty good litmus test as to if something has become human.  Pain is a great litmus test for humanity. 

I continue to bring religion to this as it should be kmportant to both of us that political policy not be created around religious beliefs.  Surely you can admit that you would not like to live under such policies of other religions.

You haven’t addressed my questions regarding the soul.

What do you mean by viability though?  My 4 month old would die pretty quickly if we stopped giving him food.  Is he viable?  There are dozens of premature babies over at children's mercy that are only surviving with the help of machines and nurses and doctors.  Are they viable?  Are people in comas who can't feel pain humans? There are people who have a condition called "congenital insensitivity to pain."*  Are they humans?  That's why I don't think "viability" and "sensitivity to pain" are very good litmus tests.

On the topic of viability, I think as of today, the earliest born human to survive was at 21 weeks and 1 day.  An interesting (at least I think it's interesting) thing to think about is this: let's say tomorrow, there's some medical breakthrough where an artificial womb is invented that makes it so fetuses can be extracted at...I don't know, 4 weeks and survive and grow in the artificial womb.  Would you be willing to lower the abortion threshold to 4 weeks in that hypothetical?

Yes, we agree that religion (Christianity or otherwise), in and of itself, isn't a good basis to create policy.  I don't think there should be a law requiring any particular religious belief or requiring people to go to church or to pray or whatever.  We definitely agree on that.

As to your question, my personal belief is that someone get's a soul when their life begins.  I still don't know how that has anything to do with what we're talking about -- since the concept of a soul has nothing to do with any point I've made about why I think abortion is wrong. 

*https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3564101/#:~:text=Congenital%20insensitivity%20to%20pain%20and%20anhydrosis%20(CIPA)%20is%20a%20very,that%20receive%20the%20pain%20messages.

Regarding born human beings viability, that is intentionally obtuse again.

From your own post, it sounds like 21 weeks should be the cutoff.  Want to hedge a bit, cool, let’s call it 16 weeks. The problem is that the assholes who apparently don’t agree with you and I about religion in politics like to make it where there are cooling off periods, multiple visits, and restricted quantities of providers that limits availability of appointments all equating to most folks not able to get their service in that timeframe.

With regards to my question and your belief about souls, it’s perfectly relevant to my greater point.  There is zero ability to have this discussion with someone who believes that life begins at conception, that the souls enters the body at life, and thinks this doesn’t completely inform a no abortion stance.

It seems the religious secret is to not admit that your faith governs your beliefs so that you don’t have to admit that voting for policy based on that is forcing religious beliefs on Americans who are supposed to be free of such things. It’s the defense to get what is wanted but ignoring its danger and harm.  It’s dishonest.

Hey man, I'm just trying to follow your logic and point out where it misses.  My view on what's a human is pretty easy (and consistent with the scientific consensus, by the way - see below).  Yours runs into pretty obvious problems.  I asked you questions about it, and you dismiss them and change topics.  And hey, you're free to do that.  You're entitled to your opinion and you don't have to engage with challenges on it. But if you do that, cool it with your righteous indignation about pro lifers basing everything on religion and being ignorant.

And I'm sorry, but denying that "human life begins at conception" is about as non-scientific as it gets.  You can dispute the value of that human life or whether that human has rights or not or the degree of those rights in relation to others', but dismissing me as some religious nutjob because I think human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg is absurd.  From the American College of Pediatrics:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

64

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 01:28:49 PM »

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of maternity/paternity leave.  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

We could do that for heavily Catholic countries, why are El Salvador so high? Columbia? (27 per 1000), Panama (30 per 1000)? Puerto Rico? Mexico (31). Sweden is 18 to US 14.4. That's pretty close. My take? Is ask what/where are those abortions coming from. Are they due to "I don't want a kid" or are they coming from the incidents of "requiring" one? I think looking at infant mortality provides some of this answer. Sweden for example is super low, 2.6, US is 6.3. Add those numbers together you get a suspiciously close number to the same infant death rate. Which makes me think, that we're probably near the bottom no matter what we do. Sweden is being, proactive, if you want to say it that way. And also Sweden's healthcare is leaps and bounds better, so they are actually giving those who are born a better chance. So then it comes down to, what are we trying to do to reduce it more? At least try and give yourself the chance to do it that way, but we probably are near the limit the lowest amounts you're going to have. I still never see that coming from pro-life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

22% more abortions isn't "pretty close," imo.  That's a significant difference. 

And I'm not saying improving education and social policies (e.g. parental leave) wouldn't help. I think economics and education and all that have lots to do with whether someone decides to have a baby or seek an abortion (hence the Central American rates you listed).  But if the goal is "maximally reduce abortions," massively increasing social policies/education etc. isn't really a panacea, and I think Sweden proves that.

I don't follow your discussion on the infant mortality rate at all.  Are you crediting Sweden's higher abortion rate for their lower infant mortality rate?  I think that's pretty tenuous.  I may be totally missing the point there.

Yes, and i don't think it's tenuous at all. Sure there are more factors, but if you ultimately looking at birth success, you have to say that the US and Sweden are nearly equal in that.

Also, there are plenty of countries with much lower rates such as Finland, Germany, Switzerland, Norway. Is Sweden a mere outlier compared to those that do provide those? Why make that much of a point? I think if anything, it proves mine more than yours.

Just so I can better understand, you're suggesting that the main reason the US has a relatively higher infant mortality rate than Sweden is because Sweden is having more abortions per capita?  I don't know about that one.

And I agree that Finland (etc.) have lower rates than the US.  I'm not arguing social stuff/education/contraception doesn't reduce the abortion rate.  I'm all for making that stuff available. But again, my point is that increasing social support, alone, doesn't mean minimal abortion.  Sweden proves that point. 

You referenced Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Norway.  Here are each those country's abortion laws according to very cursory google searches:

Finland:

Gestational Age Limit: Abortion is permitted up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without any restrictions.
Request: Women can request an abortion directly from a healthcare provider without needing approval from a partner or other third party.
Medical Grounds: After 12 weeks, abortion may be considered on medical grounds, such as a threat to the mother's health or a severe fetal abnormality.
Parental Consent: Parental consent is not required for abortions up to 12 weeks.
Procedure: Abortions are typically performed in hospitals or clinics.

Germany:

Abortion in Germany is illegal except to save the life of the mother but is nonpunishable during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy upon condition of mandatory counseling. The same goes later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

Switzerland:

In Switzerland, abortion is legal under certain conditions. The following are the key provisions of the Swiss abortion laws:
Time Limit:Abortion is permitted up to 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP).
Consent: The woman's informed consent is required for an abortion.
Counseling: The woman must receive counseling from a medical professional before an abortion.
Distress: The woman must declare that she is in a state of distress due to the pregnancy. This distress can be physical, psychological, or social.
Exceptions: After 12 weeks, abortion is only permitted in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is in serious danger or when there is a severe fetal abnormality.

Norway:

Currently, women in Norway can have an abortion after the 12th week but only with the approval of a medical committee. Norway's parliament on Tuesday, December 3, adopted legislation extending the legal limit for abortion from 12 to 18 weeks in the Scandinavian country.

Hey isn't that interesting!  I wasn't expecting that!  Now, I'm in no way shape or form an expert on Swiss abortion laws, so take the above with a grain of salt.  Like I said, it's just what Google AI told me when i searched for "[X Country]'s abortion laws."  That said, as far as I can tell, all of those countries' laws are considerably more restrictive on abortion than the US's pre-Dobbs rules (up around 24ish weeks) -- and they're also all considerably more restrictive than Sweden's:

Sweden has liberal abortion laws, allowing women to terminate a pregnancy up to 18 weeks of gestation without restriction.
Key Provisions:
Time limit: Abortion is permitted up to the end of the 18th week of pregnancy.
Request: Women have the right to request an abortion without having to provide any specific reason.
Procedure: Abortions can be performed in a hospital or health center by a doctor or midwife.
Cost: Abortions are covered by the Swedish healthcare system.
Exceptions: After 18 weeks, abortions may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is at risk or if the fetus has a severe malformation.

65

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 10:57:11 AM »

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of maternity/paternity leave.  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

We could do that for heavily Catholic countries, why are El Salvador so high? Columbia? (27 per 1000), Panama (30 per 1000)? Puerto Rico? Mexico (31). Sweden is 18 to US 14.4. That's pretty close. My take? Is ask what/where are those abortions coming from. Are they due to "I don't want a kid" or are they coming from the incidents of "requiring" one? I think looking at infant mortality provides some of this answer. Sweden for example is super low, 2.6, US is 6.3. Add those numbers together you get a suspiciously close number to the same infant death rate. Which makes me think, that we're probably near the bottom no matter what we do. Sweden is being, proactive, if you want to say it that way. And also Sweden's healthcare is leaps and bounds better, so they are actually giving those who are born a better chance. So then it comes down to, what are we trying to do to reduce it more? At least try and give yourself the chance to do it that way, but we probably are near the limit the lowest amounts you're going to have. I still never see that coming from pro-life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

22% more abortions isn't "pretty close," imo.  That's a significant difference. 

And I'm not saying improving education and social policies (e.g. parental leave) wouldn't help. I think economics and education and all that have lots to do with whether someone decides to have a baby or seek an abortion (hence the Central American rates you listed).  But if the goal is "maximally reduce abortions," massively increasing social policies/education etc. isn't really a panacea, and I think Sweden proves that.

I don't follow your discussion on the infant mortality rate at all.  Are you crediting Sweden's higher abortion rate for their lower infant mortality rate?  I think that's pretty tenuous.  I may be totally missing the point there.

66

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 10:29:59 AM »

Viability as a human is a pretty good litmus test as to if something has become human.  Pain is a great litmus test for humanity. 

I continue to bring religion to this as it should be kmportant to both of us that political policy not be created around religious beliefs.  Surely you can admit that you would not like to live under such policies of other religions.

You haven’t addressed my questions regarding the soul.

What do you mean by viability though?  My 4 month old would die pretty quickly if we stopped giving him food.  Is he viable?  There are dozens of premature babies over at children's mercy that are only surviving with the help of machines and nurses and doctors.  Are they viable?  Are people in comas who can't feel pain humans? There are people who have a condition called "congenital insensitivity to pain."*  Are they humans?  That's why I don't think "viability" and "sensitivity to pain" are very good litmus tests.

On the topic of viability, I think as of today, the earliest born human to survive was at 21 weeks and 1 day.  An interesting (at least I think it's interesting) thing to think about is this: let's say tomorrow, there's some medical breakthrough where an artificial womb is invented that makes it so fetuses can be extracted at...I don't know, 4 weeks and survive and grow in the artificial womb.  Would you be willing to lower the abortion threshold to 4 weeks in that hypothetical?

Yes, we agree that religion (Christianity or otherwise), in and of itself, isn't a good basis to create policy.  I don't think there should be a law requiring any particular religious belief or requiring people to go to church or to pray or whatever.  We definitely agree on that.

As to your question, my personal belief is that someone get's a soul when their life begins.  I still don't know how that has anything to do with what we're talking about -- since the concept of a soul has nothing to do with any point I've made about why I think abortion is wrong. 

*https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3564101/#:~:text=Congenital%20insensitivity%20to%20pain%20and%20anhydrosis%20(CIPA)%20is%20a%20very,that%20receive%20the%20pain%20messages.

67

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 10:18:12 AM »

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws, with 6000 kids up for adoption, and almost 30,000 in the foster care system. I wonder how many of the people who pushed for such strict abortion laws are licensed to foster? Or tried to adopt? Or at the very least, donated time/money to helping kids get adopted?

I recognize that it’s a bad thing that those 36,000 kids don’t have good situations with stable, loving families.  The community and government ought to do a better job taking care of them.

But I cannot reconcile that it would be a better result if those 36,000 kids were dead.- I think it’s good they’re alive, even if their circumstances may be unimaginably rough right now.

Doing stuff like supporting education, sex ed, childcare, paid paternity/maternity leave, universal healthcare etc etc etc is a great rough ridin' place to start then essentially condemning them to a life of being told they're not worth it. Which is what pubs do every. rough ridin'. Time.

I want all those things.  But more than all those things, I want those kids not to be killed.  If it’s a choice between the two (and it apparently is, for now) I opt for not killing them.

But that's my point, I never hear any of those options ever spouted. Cause to me, and I tend to agree with you on this, my ideal world is 0 abortions. But how do you get there? Simply telling people to either not have sex or have the child cruelly also completely ignores the woman.

Will the pregnancy kill her? Is the fetus even viable? Was she raped? Why isn't she allowed to get BC? Why don't we teach proper sex ed? Why do we not hold men accountable for their actions in this too? I think what pro-life people want is admirable, but completely unrealistic in how they want it done. I think they overarchingly see it as people wanting unwanted pregnancies and just will nilly doing it cause "oops, I am a young woman who simply don't want to be a mom and I got knocked up by some dude on a random one night stand, YOLO".

I think of my cousin who very much wanted to be mom, and grew up Catholic. She still calls herself that. But when her and her husband found out their child was basically going to die hours after being born, or else live a painful and short life, they made the very hard decision of terminating it. Should they have done that? Are you going to be the one to tell her to do that? Do you think that maybe her and her husband should make that decision without you and others telling her what she should or should not do? I also only say this on here cause she went very public with it during the Kansas vote a few years back cause it mattered that much to her.

These are the realities. Think about how forcing yourself, or anyone into that decision making process sounds. You willing to tell people what they can or cannot do in that situation.

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of paid maternity and paternity leave (480 days total).  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

68

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 09:33:48 AM »

If I was a person who was forming policy, I would be open to using the time that a fetus is able to live outside the womb. I would also be open to using the timeline for when pain could be felt which seems to be either at 12 weeks according to some studies and 24-25 weeks according to OBs and Gynos professional association.

You are intelligent enough to understand that your experiences to date heavily help inform your view of the world. You are intelligent enough to understand that the subconscious mind does quite a bit of our decision making for us. Faith will, at very least, subconsciously help form opinions utilizing the scaffolding provided as a component of that faiths religion. If we are going to have a conversation about this, honestly, you have to acknowledge that.

Why is viability your demarcation line? 

Of course faith helps inform my view.  All sorts of things help inform my view and your view.  But what informs our respective views doesn't really impact the conversation if we're not appealing to them in the conversation.  What informs our view doesn't invalidate our ultimate point.  If Rusty brought up the violinist thought experiment and said he found that convincing, it would be nonsense for me to respond with "you only bring that up because you lived in libville San Francisco for so long."  Him having lived in SF for a while may have informed his view, but it's completely irrelevant to things like bodily autonomy.  Likewise, yeah, my view is impacted by my faith and upbringing, but when I say "I think (1) killing innocent humans without proper justification is wrong, (2) beings in the womb are human, and therefore (3) it's wrong to kill them without proper justification" that's not an appeal to Christianity per se.  It's an appeal to the general mo

69

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 08:47:51 AM »

To your point CNS, I believe very much that the pro-abortion rights people (and you, specifically) haven’t thought the issue through very much.  I base that on you dismissing every anti-abortion rights argument as “religious” when I haven’t appealed to religion at all.  I’m willing to follow the thread and have a secular discussion on this if you are.

A human (or fertilized egg or zygote or whatever you want to call it) has a dozen cells about 3-4 days after conception.  I think that “thing” is a human because it was conceived by human parents, has human dna, and is growing.  Why don’t you think it’s a human?

You start this discussion with belief. 

Those cells have zero chance of survival removed. This discussion you want to have has been had by people for a long time and leads nowhere because belief. What governs your belief. What informs that?  Scientifically?  Uninformed belief is either faith or ignorance.

FYI, I am all for a limit on abortion. One that isn’t absolute. One that recognizes a viable fetus.  One that limits timelines scientifically.

You and I can’t honestly have this convo because you will never have evidence enough to overcome your faith from a gE conversation. 

Do you believe in a soul?  At what point does your faith say a soul begins to inhabit a body? 

When have I discussed Faith as part of the abortion discussion?  I don’t. It’s irrelevant in my view.  If I was talking to Catholics/Christians about the theological morality of abortion, I’d talk faith, but I’m not so I’m not.  You’re the only one bringing God into this discussion. 

What kind of limit on abortion are you “all for” and why? Is the line you draw “viability”?

70

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 19, 2025, 07:32:22 AM »

To your point CNS, I believe very much that the pro-abortion rights people (and you, specifically) haven’t thought the issue through very much.  I base that on you dismissing every anti-abortion rights argument as “religious” when I haven’t appealed to religion at all.  I’m willing to follow the thread and have a secular discussion on this if you are.

A human (or fertilized egg or zygote or whatever you want to call it) has a dozen cells about 3-4 days after conception.  I think that “thing” is a human because it was conceived by human parents, has human dna, and is growing.  Why don’t you think it’s a human?

71

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Let's talk about Elon Musk

« on: February 18, 2025, 08:21:14 PM »

Justify? Clearly no, I just said that.

That’s not at all what you said. You referred to the ends, and made no mention of intent. What makes a good act a good act in your opinion?

Maybe I didn't understand you then. You asked:

Do you believe that good intentions justify any horrible outcome?

The end is what the intent wants to reach.  The means are how to get there.  Good intentions are perhaps seeking good ends, but a good end doesn't justify any process to get there.

We’re definitely wrestling with stuff here that humans have been wrestling with for an awful long time.

My personal preference is rule based utilitarian. We set up a framework that tries to maximize aggregate net benefit, and where resources allow we indulge in case by case examination. But, it’s an awful big damn country.

I suspected that you were a utilitarian. I have pretty big issues with utilitarianism and it's ability (IMO) to justify pretty horrendous atrocities. In fact I think all of the great atrocities I can think of were probably justified by the perpetrators as creating a net good for the world.

CS Lewis has a pretty great quote for this I like:

I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolutionary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations.

Wholly agree with this. I’m also a pretty big CS stan.

72

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 18, 2025, 07:43:38 PM »

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws, with 6000 kids up for adoption, and almost 30,000 in the foster care system. I wonder how many of the people who pushed for such strict abortion laws are licensed to foster? Or tried to adopt? Or at the very least, donated time/money to helping kids get adopted?

I recognize that it’s a bad thing that those 36,000 kids don’t have good situations with stable, loving families.  The community and government ought to do a better job taking care of them.

But I cannot reconcile that it would be a better result if those 36,000 kids were dead.- I think it’s good they’re alive, even if their circumstances may be unimaginably rough right now.

Doing stuff like supporting education, sex ed, childcare, paid paternity/maternity leave, universal healthcare etc etc etc is a great rough ridin' place to start then essentially condemning them to a life of being told they're not worth it. Which is what pubs do every. rough ridin'. Time.

I want all those things.  But more than all those things, I want those kids not to be killed.  If it’s a choice between the two (and it apparently is, for now) I opt for not killing them.

73

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

« on: February 18, 2025, 06:02:54 PM »

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws, with 6000 kids up for adoption, and almost 30,000 in the foster care system. I wonder how many of the people who pushed for such strict abortion laws are licensed to foster? Or tried to adopt? Or at the very least, donated time/money to helping kids get adopted?

I recognize that it’s a bad thing that those 36,000 kids don’t have good situations with stable, loving families.  The community and government ought to do a better job taking care of them.

But I cannot reconcile that it would be a better result if those 36,000 kids were dead.- I think it’s good they’re alive, even if their circumstances may be unimaginably rough right now.

74

The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Israel - Hamas peace process

« on: February 18, 2025, 03:27:42 PM »

like when you have to google "is this ACTUALLY a genocide" it might be time to reevaluate what you're doing

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=genocide%20definition,israel%20genocide&hl=en

Well I think a lot of pro-Palestinian people have declared it a "genocide" from the relatively early days.  So I think it's pretty reasonable to look it up.  Especially when this is considerably different in degree/substance from what people typically think of when they think "genocide" (i.e. systematic execution of non-combatants a la Rwanda/Holocaust, etc.). 

Regardless of whether or not this is actually a "genocide" (which is an interesting question, but besides the point) what's happening is awful and unjust in its disproportionality, if for no other reason.

DQ I promise I’m not trying to start crap, I’m asking in good faith:
What aspect of this conflict would make you unsure about whether or not “genocide” is an appropriate description of what’s been happening?

Typically when I think of "genocide" I think of systematic execution of non-combatants, whereas with this, it seems more akin to a "war," where there are armed combatants on both sides.  Like I said, I may have too narrow a view of what "genocide" means. 

75

Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Top 10 foods when it's cold outside

« on: February 18, 2025, 02:37:54 PM »

Is chowder soup? This question is for dlew

No, I'd consider chowder a chowder.  If someone offered me "Clam Soup," I would think picture something different than Clam Chowder. 

Soup=Brothy in my mind's eye.