[RD] Abortion, once again

[Gorbles]

This is the second time you post something where you wish harm onto people.

I didn't realise you'd be into moral purity as a concept. This opens up so much debate, for example: do you think the ruling in this case was incorrect in any way?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I didn't realise you'd be into moral purity as a concept. This opens up so much debate, for example: do you think the ruling in this case was incorrect in any way?

Advocating death is something that various forums have different rules on. Advocating suicide/self-harm toward a fellow forum member, for example, is against the rules. Advocating those toward a politician, judge, cop, or snitch? Not sure where that falls into the rules here. It's one of those iffy things.

 

[Theov]

I didn't realise you'd be into moral purity as a concept.

Thanks, it's nice to see you realise something from time to time.

This opens up so much debate, for example: do you think the ruling in this case was incorrect in any way?

If I read correctly, the mother got sentenced for illegal tampering with a dead body, and false reporting (for not reporting a stillbirth I assume).
I think it makes sense for those things to be illegal.
What do you think?

 

[Gorbles]

If I read correctly, the mother got sentenced for illegal tampering with a dead body, and false reporting (for not reporting a stillbirth I assume).
I think it makes sense for those things to be illegal.
What do you think?

I don't think you read it correctly at all. Nor do I think you understand the causal chain that drives cases like these. I think you are blaming the victims; indeed, justifying the harm done to them, by failed state policies.

Which is why I find it interesting you're into moral purity, you see.

 

[Theov]

I don't think you read it correctly at all. Nor do I think you understand the causal chain that drives cases like these. I think you are blaming the victims; indeed, justifying the harm done to them, by failed state policies.

Which is why I find it interesting you're into moral purity, you see.

Where did I misread anything?

"Jessica Burgess initially plead not guilty to five charges, for which she faced eight years in prison. On Friday, she plead guilty to three charges (tampering with human skeletal remains, false reporting, and abortion after 20 weeks gestation) and the state dismissed the other two (concealing the death of another person and abortion by someone other than a licensed physician). She now faces up to two years in prison."​

Of course, I understand that your actual question was whether I think there should have been an abortion clinic available for the daughter.
And whether that should be legal.
But you didn't ask that.

Your question was if I found the ruling correct.
And when I didn't give the answer you liked, you extrapolated that I'm "blaming the victims" and categorize me into a box you think I belong in.
Which made you question my morality.

The issue is too deeply routed to have a simple opinion about.
When women or parents don't feel like they can or want to raise their children, I think those are signs of a failed society.

 

[Gorbles]

When women or parents don't feel like they can or want to raise their children, I think those are signs of a failed society.

And I think that's you inserting your moralising onto a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body.

Your question was if I found the ruling correct.

Wrong. I asked you if you found it incorrect in any way. I didn't ask for a legal defense of the legal ruling, because that's such an easy thing to provide I could probably ask my 6yo to give the corresponding logic.

I was asking you for what you thought about it. Defaulting to "well the case says these things happened, and these are bad" is tautalogical. It shows either a lack of understanding, or a lack of willingness to understand. If it's a lack of understanding, you shouldn't be opining so strongly, and if it's a lack of willingness, then whatever "box" you think I'm assigning it probably correct.

Of course, I understand that your actual question was whether I think there should have been an abortion clinic available for the daughter.
And whether that should be legal.
But you didn't ask that.

So it was a lack of willingness to understand, all so you could play a game of semantic gotcha. Wow-ee. Truly, that box is inaccurate
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[Theov]

And I think that's you inserting your moralising onto a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body.

I'm more concerned about what happens to the baby.
Getting pregnant, or having sex for that matter, comes with a responsibility.
I also think pregnant women shouldn't smoke or drink (or worse). I'd support a law for that. Yeah, that's me 'telling' a woman what to do, but it's rooted in the protection of the unborn child.

Wrong. I asked you if you found it incorrect in any way. I didn't ask for a legal defense of the legal ruling, because that's such an easy thing to provide I could probably ask my 6yo to give the corresponding logic.

I was asking you for what you thought about it. Defaulting to "well the case says these things happened, and these are bad" is tautalogical. It shows either a lack of understanding, or a lack of willingness to understand. If it's a lack of understanding, you shouldn't be opining so strongly, and if it's a lack of willingness, then whatever "box" you think I'm assigning it probably correct.

So it was a lack of willingness to understand, all so you could play a game of semantic gotcha. Wow-ee. Truly, that box is inaccurate

You should next time ask the question you want the answer to.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm more concerned about what happens to the baby.

Yes, we know you don't care about women and don't see them as fully human. Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J This is why I think violence is completely justified in protecting women from people like you.

Yeah, that's me 'telling' a woman what to do, but it's rooted in the protection of the unborn child.

Just to be clear, this is you advocating for the systematic use of state violence against pregnant women. Violence can be legitimately resisted with violence

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yes, we know you don't care about women and don't see them as fully human

It's this

 

[sophie]

I love when dudes say their concern is with the well-being of the baby, and immediately follow it up with some statement about consequences or responsibility. Like you aren’t even disguising it that well. Seeing a child as an instrument of retribution belies a concern for the personhood of the child and shows that it’s actually just about punishing a woman for what you view as her sinful behavior.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm more concerned about what happens to the baby.

So when you went off about how I was "putting you in a box", here you are explicitly saying that harm to the mother comes second. Again, I feel like the box was accurate then. Ta.

 

[Lexicus]

I love when dudes say their concern is with the well-being of the baby, and immediately follow it up with some statement about consequences or responsibility. Like you aren’t even disguising it that well. Seeing a child as an instrument of retribution belies a concern for the personhood of the child and shows that it’s actually just about punishing a woman for what you view as her sinful behavior.

Another giveaway on this is that as soon as the child is born its welfare is suddenly no longer society's responsibility.

 

[sophie]

Another giveaway on this is that as soon as the child is born its welfare is suddenly no longer society's responsibility.

Well sure how else would we instill in the mother that she’s an irredeemable, dishonorable harlot for having sex out of wedlock?

 

[Wastl]

Yes, we know you don't care about women and don't see them as fully human. This is why I think violence is completely justified in protecting women from people like you.

Beyond this there tends to be another point to add: all this talk bout "protecting the baby" goes completely out of the window the moment the baby is born. Postnatal care, giving time off to the parents after birth, accessible healthcare, education, preventing school-shootings, all that stuff is something that would help a child and its parents, yet it's the very thing that those who pretend to be "pro-life" try to prevent or get rid off. Showing just how hypocritical any statements about "caring about the baby" truly are. It's not about the baby. People who say this stuff don't care one bit about it. It's solely about forcing your will onto others, or more precisely: onto women.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's fun how fast this basic bully brigade builds up a head of strawman steam, isn't it Theov?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling, for the above sentence and others within this post. The_J

Take heart. If you ever find yourself nodding along with the late-term elective abortion and pro-surrogacy-for-profit crowd, you should probably reexamine your life - because you're doing something terribly wrong. There really isn't much depth to understand here. It's a pretty simple liberal argument par excellence, the self is king. Even when it comes down to something so basic as to approach non traditional family building - does the adoptive child merit consideration of the content of their character, or is the primary impetus the content of the correct gonads? That should sound pretty familiar, we've all run into it before. So, yes, should you find yourself agreeing with that company take up some other habit, even if it's only barely less loathesome. Like maybe putting on a big dunce cap and dancing around in your bedsheets.

And yes, before the selective illiteracy club chimes in, the implication is indeed that the Klu Klux Klan is about as far from good as you can get. But in 2023, amazingly enough, you can still get under it if you try hard enough.

 

[Lexicus]

It's fun how fast this basic bully brigade builds up a head of strawman steam, isn't it Theov?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling, for the above sentence and others within this post. The_J

Take heart. If you ever find yourself nodding along with the late-term elective abortion and pro-surrogacy-for-profit crowd, you should probably reexamine your life - because you're doing something terribly wrong. There really isn't much depth to understand here. It's a pretty simple liberal argument par excellence, the self is king. Even when it comes down to something so basic as to approach non traditional family building - does the adoptive child merit consideration of the content of their character, or is the primary impetus the content of the correct gonads? That should sound pretty familiar, we've all run into it before. So, yes, should you find yourself agreeing with that company take up some other habit, even if it's only barely less loathesome. Like maybe putting on a big dunce cap and dancing around in your bedsheets.

And yes, before the selective illiteracy club chimes in, the implication is indeed that the Klu Klux Klan is about as far from good as you can get. But in 2023, amazingly enough, you can still get under it if you try hard enough.

You say "the self is king" like that's a bad thing, but then that doesn't seem compatible with the evident view that everyone else on Earth should to make the correct reproductive choices to please your self.

As an aside, I guess it's just my poorly functional brain struggling to comprehend something very nuanced and sophisticated, but I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up on when the self is king and when it isn't. I sort of thought that when it comes to paying estate tax or being legally required to wear a seatbelt, the self was king, but I guess refusing to wear a seatbelt is actually, on some level I don't understand, an act of deep sacrifice for others?

 

[Angst]

The issue is too deeply routed to have a simple opinion about.

it's really not

When women or parents don't feel like they can or want to raise their children, I think those are signs of a failed society.

this is loaded. "can or want" is carrying a hell of a lot here.
society indeed fails if parents can't raise their children.
but society isn't failing if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant at every single point of her life. she has other things to concern herself with than population metrics, such as (and this is important) avoiding the long-lasting bodily drain and dangers of pregnancy

 

[Lexicus]

When women or parents don't feel like they can or want to raise their children, I think those are signs of a failed society.

Okay, so to fix our failed society you want to see cradle-to-grave welfare, universal payments to caregiving parents, free public child care, and free quality public education, right? Right?

 

[Angst]

You say "the self is king" like that's a bad thing, but then that doesn't seem compatible with the evident view that everyone else on Earth should to make the correct reproductive choices to please your self.

As an aside, I guess it's just my poorly functional brain struggling to comprehend something very nuanced and sophisticated, but I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up on when the self is king and when it isn't. I sort of thought that when it comes to paying estate tax or being legally required to wear a seatbelt, the self was king, but I guess refusing to wear a seatbelt is actually, on some level I don't understand, an act of deep sacrifice for others?

self is king is when it's individual stuff we don't like, destroying the individual is when it's societal stuff we don't like :^)

 

[Theov]

Yes, we know you don't care about women and don't see them as fully human. Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J This is why I think violence is completely justified in protecting women from people like you.

So you think violence is bad, unless you do it. How convenient.

Why would women need your protection? That is so patriarchal of you.
Why do you speak on their behalf? Bigot.
Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. The_J

Just to be clear, this is you advocating for the systematic use of state violence against pregnant women. Violence can be legitimately resisted with violence

You are straw manning here, because what violence am I advocating for?