Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS - Page 47

gnome · 9th August 2022, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I would bet most people here deny that traditional view of free will

Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

acbytesla · 9th August 2022, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

"Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you."

Do you agree with that statement?

Excellent analogy.

catsmate · 9th August 2022, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

"Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you."

Do you agree with that statement?

Might I suggest ignoring (or Ignoring) the childish, pseudo-libertarian trolling?

BobTheCoward · 9th August 2022, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Excellent analogy.

I agree. very good analogy.

cosmicaug · 9th August 2022, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

From https://jessica.substack.com/p/abortion-every-day-8822#details

Quote:

This is distressing: A Nebraska woman is facing felony charges for helping her teenage daughter obtain an abortion earlier this year. Her daughter, who was 17 years-old at the time and 22 weeks pregnant (abortion is illegal in the state after 20 weeks), is also being charged. She will be tried as an adult. I’m looking to get more details on the case, but a couple of noteworthy items: Law enforcement not only went through the girl’s medical records, but got a warrant for her Facebook messages. That’s where the mother and daughter allegedly talked about how to properly take abortion medication—the prosecutor is also using a message where the teen expressed not wanting to be pregnant as evidence.

'

Much better and informative piece on that:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/teens-jailing-shows-exactly-how-facebook-will-help-anti-abortion-states/

Quote:

[...]

What happened?
According to court documents, Burgess was 28 weeks pregnant when her mother, Jessica Burgess (who is also being charged), helped her mail-order abortion pills in April to terminate the pregnancy.

An abortion at 28 weeks breaks Nebraska law, which hasn't changed since the Dobbs decision, but prevents abortion after 20 weeks.

McBride says his investigation started when he learned that the mother and daughter had buried a child after claiming the baby was stillborn. Immediately, McBride sought medical records to find out when Celeste miscarried, and when he interviewed the teen about the day of her miscarriage, he noticed that she consulted her Facebook Messenger app to determine the exact date.

This led McBride to believe that there was more evidence in the case stored on Facebook owner Meta's servers. So, even though the final autopsy report said the cause of the baby's death was undetermined, McBride still sought evidence to confirm that Celeste had an abortion. He says in his affidavit that Celeste sharing her messages with him was a turning point that led him to believe that "there will be more messages."

His request to Meta cited suspicions that the tech company was keeping evidence of a crime under Prohibited Acts with Skeletal Remains, not abortion. To support his case, he sought every photo of mother and daughter, plus every photo they'd been tagged in, all their private messages, and location data via their IP logs.
[...]

Stacyhs · 9th August 2022, 03:22 PM

This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this.

slyjoe · 9th August 2022, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this.

Exactly right. I learned early on in my career that ANY communications system can be tapped and/or monitored. ANY.

If you stick with that assumption, you won't be surprised when your communications ARE tapped or monitored. Lawfully or not.

bruto · 9th August 2022, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Just because something is hard to prosecute the person that hurt you is not grounds to criminalize those who did not hurt you

Do you, though? What is criminalized is not the absence of a vaccination, but the social interaction done by those who are unvaccinated. You can argue that the handicap here is so great that it amounts to the same thing, but tantamount does not equal "the same."

gnome · 9th August 2022, 06:16 PM

More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent.

BobTheCoward · 9th August 2022, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent.

Deleted....replying why you are incorrect will just go off topic.

BobTheCoward · 9th August 2022, 06:52 PM

With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder.

acbytesla · 9th August 2022, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder.

No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it.

It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells.

BobTheCoward · 9th August 2022, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it.

It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells.

I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome.

gnome · Yesterday, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time.

Otherwise known as "laws". What significant conclusion can you draw from "laws exist"? Is your argument there truly "some things are prohibited, so why object to this being prohibited?"

Suddenly · Yesterday, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by gnome

Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

I mean, questioning the idea of absolute free will is arguably the best indicator that a person is capable of abstract thought. These sorts of criticisms are kind of a giveaway.

shuttlt · Yesterday, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by gnome

Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it.

Upchurch · Yesterday, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it.

But most are. The kind of determinism you're talking about is known as soft determinism. That isn't what Bob was referring to wasn't soft determinism.

acbytesla · Yesterday, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome.

Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

BobTheCoward · Yesterday, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

...which is why I wrote "(ish)"

catsmate · Today, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad.

JoeMorgue · Today, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate

I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad.

Yeah I doubt any other state is going to put abortion to a popular vote again.

9th August 2022, 02:29 PM	#1841
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,143	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I would bet most people here deny that traditional view of free will Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.
	__________________

9th August 2022, 02:33 PM	#1842
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 30,790	Originally Posted by gnome "Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you." Do you agree with that statement? Excellent analogy.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th August 2022, 03:03 PM	#1843
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,191	Originally Posted by gnome "Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you." Do you agree with that statement? Might I suggest ignoring (or Ignoring) the childish, pseudo-libertarian trolling?
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

9th August 2022, 03:13 PM	#1845
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,864	Originally Posted by cosmicaug From https://jessica.substack.com/p/abortion-every-day-8822#details Quote: This is distressing: A Nebraska woman is facing felony charges for helping her teenage daughter obtain an abortion earlier this year. Her daughter, who was 17 years-old at the time and 22 weeks pregnant (abortion is illegal in the state after 20 weeks), is also being charged. She will be tried as an adult. I’m looking to get more details on the case, but a couple of noteworthy items: Law enforcement not only went through the girl’s medical records, but got a warrant for her Facebook messages. That’s where the mother and daughter allegedly talked about how to properly take abortion medication—the prosecutor is also using a message where the teen expressed not wanting to be pregnant as evidence. ' Much better and informative piece on that: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/teens-jailing-shows-exactly-how-facebook-will-help-anti-abortion-states/ Quote: [...] What happened? According to court documents, Burgess was 28 weeks pregnant when her mother, Jessica Burgess (who is also being charged), helped her mail-order abortion pills in April to terminate the pregnancy. An abortion at 28 weeks breaks Nebraska law, which hasn't changed since the Dobbs decision, but prevents abortion after 20 weeks. McBride says his investigation started when he learned that the mother and daughter had buried a child after claiming the baby was stillborn. Immediately, McBride sought medical records to find out when Celeste miscarried, and when he interviewed the teen about the day of her miscarriage, he noticed that she consulted her Facebook Messenger app to determine the exact date. This led McBride to believe that there was more evidence in the case stored on Facebook owner Meta's servers. So, even though the final autopsy report said the cause of the baby's death was undetermined, McBride still sought evidence to confirm that Celeste had an abortion. He says in his affidavit that Celeste sharing her messages with him was a turning point that led him to believe that "there will be more messages." His request to Meta cited suspicions that the tech company was keeping evidence of a crime under Prohibited Acts with Skeletal Remains, not abortion. To support his case, he sought every photo of mother and daughter, plus every photo they'd been tagged in, all their private messages, and location data via their IP logs. [...]
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

9th August 2022, 04:01 PM	#1847
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,240	Originally Posted by Stacyhs This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this. Exactly right. I learned early on in my career that ANY communications system can be tapped and/or monitored. ANY. If you stick with that assumption, you won't be surprised when your communications ARE tapped or monitored. Lawfully or not.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

9th August 2022, 03:12 PM	#1844
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,424	Originally Posted by acbytesla Excellent analogy. I agree. very good analogy.

9th August 2022, 03:22 PM	#1846
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 25,936	This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this.

9th August 2022, 05:12 PM	#1848
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 32,776	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Just because something is hard to prosecute the person that hurt you is not grounds to criminalize those who did not hurt you Do you, though? What is criminalized is not the absence of a vaccination, but the social interaction done by those who are unvaccinated. You can argue that the handicap here is so great that it amounts to the same thing, but tantamount does not equal "the same."
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

9th August 2022, 06:16 PM	#1849
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,143	More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent.
	__________________ Last edited by gnome; 9th August 2022 at 06:19 PM.

9th August 2022, 06:20 PM	#1850
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,424	Originally Posted by gnome More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent. Deleted....replying why you are incorrect will just go off topic.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 9th August 2022 at 06:22 PM.

9th August 2022, 06:52 PM	#1851
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,424	With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder.

9th August 2022, 07:25 PM	#1852
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 30,790	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder. No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it. It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th August 2022, 07:40 PM	#1853
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,424	Originally Posted by acbytesla No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it. It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells. I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome.

Yesterday, 06:05 AM	#1854
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,143	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Otherwise known as "laws". What significant conclusion can you draw from "laws exist"? Is your argument there truly "some things are prohibited, so why object to this being prohibited?"
	__________________ Last edited by gnome; Yesterday at 06:06 AM.

Yesterday, 06:48 AM	#1855
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,964	Originally Posted by gnome Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around. I mean, questioning the idea of absolute free will is arguably the best indicator that a person is capable of abstract thought. These sorts of criticisms are kind of a giveaway.

Yesterday, 07:04 AM	#1856
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,479	Originally Posted by gnome Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around. This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,479

Yesterday, 08:31 AM	#1857
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,049	Originally Posted by shuttlt This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it. But most are. The kind of determinism you're talking about is known as soft determinism. That isn't what Bob was referring to wasn't soft determinism.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Yesterday, 08:52 AM	#1858
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 30,790	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome. Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

Yesterday, 09:00 AM	#1859
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,424	Originally Posted by acbytesla Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over. ...which is why I wrote "(ish)"

Today, 01:06 AM	#1860
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,191	Originally Posted by acbytesla Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over. I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

Today, 05:25 AM	#1861
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,590	Originally Posted by catsmate I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad. Yeah I doubt any other state is going to put abortion to a popular vote again.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.