I welcome a specific counter example, but to my best recollection no one replied saying that the literal meaning I advanced was absurd, as indeed I grant it was.
If the majority of responders to my post read it that way, they still responded with abuse rather than any analytical answer which would have clued me in to the disconnect.
Still, my fault for using a phrase which danced with hyperbole.
Quite so. And further, lest this go uncorrected, I have no objections to non-coercive, non-mandatory efforts to reduce the incidence of abortion, such as:
-sex education, to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted/unexpected pregnancies
-related to the above, distribution and/or subsidizing of birth control devices and medications, with no barriers to access by minors, as it would be foolish to assume that none are sexually active
-Social Security-style assistance to pregnant women, enhanced maternity leave programs, educational bursaries, and other benefits available to women who see their pregnancies to term.
I’m open to other suggestions, so long as participation is voluntary. If these reduce the elective abortion rate to zero, my only objection might be to the taxpayer expense, if excessive.
I call bullshit on your claim of hyperbole. Post 671:
You concede MaxTheVool (to whom this reply was directed) was not terrified, but maintain without a hint of irony that “others” are indeed terrified, as well indicated by their vitriol.
Searchable records are no friends of yours.
You didn’t actually say “terrified that fewer abortions would be performed”:
That’s pretty specific as to what pro-choice people are supposedly terrified about.
Here are some of the first replies to your “terrified” post:
Your response:
Does anyone here have any problem acknowledging that some people do indeed perceive a fetus as a human baby? Anyone scared of the existence of such a perception?
No. This is the elementary courtesy that they owe us…and we owe them. The entire fundamental perception of reality is different. They and we disagree.
We must not say, “Your opinion is stupid.” We should not say “You hate women.” We shouldn’t say, “You are hypocritical.” They aren’t. They believe what they believe. And, likewise, they don’t get to say, “You want to kill babies.”
Where it breaks down, in my opinion, is that they are trying to use the force of law to compel us to behave according to their opinions, whereas we’re saying, everyone may follow his own conscience, and neither side should have access to legal compulsion. Pro choice.
I don’t think that this thread is the right venue to get into a full analysis of your history of argument-by-accusation-of-hypocrisy, particularly as I’ve started entire threads on that topic (well, at least one). My point about Lobohan’s post 1524 is that if he was seriously trying to make an argument, it was a preposterous one; but if he was playing gotcha by randomly accusing you of hypocrisy and thus turning the tables, then I at least see where he was coming from… and if all he was doing was yanking your chain, then who cares if the details were identical or not?
Oh, I think we can, and indeed we should, since the “you want to kill babies” claim isn’t vanishing anytime soon.
You do realize that there are tens of laws that you agree with that are exactly forcing people to behave according to their opinions?
Name one that comes even close to mandating an unwanted pregnancy continue. Show me a law I favor that entails the loss of personal bodily integrity.
I opposed the draft for that reason. I oppose mandatory public service.
I do favor default organ-donation, but with an opt-out process.
Name just one law that is comparable to denying a woman the right to an abortion.
I clearly understand the very (if not the most) special position of abortion in this regard.
However, as a general rule (therefore beyond only abortion) saying “everyone may follow his own conscience, and neither side should have access to legal compulsion.” is the highway to chaos.
Nobody actually belives that phrase. We may want it for a the things we want, but never as a general rule.
We want speed limits.
We want building codes.
We want testing on drugs.
We want clean elections.
You can say that all of those things affect others whereas abortion (in your opinion) doesn’t. That is still, however, your conscience telling you that it is relevant for the discussion whetether or not the involvement of others matters.
Whay if my conscience says “Screw others, hard”?
The problem with your examples is that those things have a clear objective line delineating fact from belief. You can believe you’re safe going at the speed you want, but on average, there’s a safe limit given the cars and roads we have.
Abortion is the only thing where the very nature of the thing we’re discussing is up for debate.
And don’t handwave away the fact that abortion doesn’t affect anyone else. That’s absolutely true and so that’s a perfectly valid reason to base a pro-choice opinion on. Have one or don’t have one, it makes no difference to me, it will never affect me, and whatever mental change you take from knowing some people are out there having abortions certainly does not rise to the degree to violate someone else’s bodily sovereignty
You may think that there is a speed that makes sense to you, because you have (correct me if i’m wrong) the goal of making roads safe.
What if I don’t care about road safety? What if I want everyone to be able do 200 kph in the school zone?
What if I know I’m not safe or others are safe? You belief is that people being safe is better tan people not being safe. What if I didn’t agree.
What if my belief were that the best way to drive was “Drive as fast as you can, all the time”?
see that I say “best” not safest".
Not quite.
You’ve just accepted that the problem is the definition.
AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS “PACT OF SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA”
*Article 4. Right to Life
“does not rise to the degree…” is you own personal opinion, not a fact.
“In general” ? How spinelessly bold.
Article 21:3 “Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.”
“Usury” is certainly bad, all the Major Dudes agree on that. However, the miracle of compounded interest is not something to be trifled with.
That’s the point: abortion is different. There isn’t anything like it in law.
Personally, I oppose paying taxes to build nuclear weapons. I consider nuclear weapons to be as immoral as you consider abortion to be.
But I’m not out to sue the government to exempt me from paying for nukes. You, meanwhile, have won laws exempting tax money from paying for abortions.
Ready to fight to repeal those laws? If not, you’re a hypocrite. La.
What’s your point? To what part of the abortion debate is that analogy apt? I could just as easily say what if I don’t care about killing people as long as they are killed? This doesn’t add anything to the debate.
Looking back at the posts above, you came up with those 4 examples including speeding because you think that having people choose their conscience on that issue is somehow comparable to people doing it for everything. Like people have mentioned time and time again, speeding or building codes or drugs or elections affect other people, lots of other people. Other than in your own mind, a woman choosing an abortion affects nobody except her and her doctor, and even if we were somehow so opposed to that as to ban abortion, you still don’t touch upon body autonomy. In what sense should we forcibly make women carry an unwanted fetus to term because its somehow better than the alternative?
It doesn’t affect anyone else, so its fine to let people choose their conscience. Just like how your favorite color may be green and mine may be purple, it doesn’t affect anyone else so nobody should give a damn what people choose.
And you’ve just decided to accept that opinion as fact as well. These are not persons that rise to that level of protection, or else abortion would be illegal. Because factually in this country it is not illegal, then it is you who bears the burden in proving that fetuses are persons. My belief is not opinion, it is fact that we do not consider fetuses to be people.
Just wondering, what difference does it make to you if somebody gets an abortion anyway? Why are you so hung up about it?
Yup.
Ok.
Are you saying that if I don’t follow your beliefs (i.e. not suing the governement or trying to repeal laws) I’m a hypocrite?
Why would I want to repeal laws I like?
(As an aside, since I’m not American nor live in the US, US laws don’t affect me
To the whole “just let eveyone follow their conscience” stuff and my stating that such a policy leads to chaos.
You assume, as per your conscience, that the fact that they affect others is relevant. That is a belief, that is following your conscience and forcing others to do what you want.
Of course, a big chunk of the abortion debate is personhood. You have not solve it by declaring it finished.
I agree that legally in the US fetuses don’t have the exact same right as other people.
That in itself doesn’t make it a scientific fact, simply a legal fact.
The killing innocents usually doesn’t make me happy.
What difference does it make to you if your neighbour beats the crap out of her husband? Why are you so hung up about it?
I’s a sad day when the measure of a law is if it affects me directly.
I’m saying it’s hypocritical to favor laws that exempt your own moral minority from having to pay taxes to support something you oppose…but denying me the same moral exemption.
Why do I have to pay for nuclear weapons, yet people who oppose abortion are assured that no tax money ever goes for that? Why is their morality respected, but mine is not?
That’s hypocrisy.
Okay, fair enough. Didn’t know that. Imagine I’m addressing Randall Terry.
Perhaps a better analogy are states with helmet laws, which require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.
Question: for those arguing against Bricker:
1)How do you feel about helmet laws?
2) how would you feel about a law that allowed motorcycle riders to not wear a helmet only after they watched a video about head trauma in motorcycle accidents?