International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

bruto 23rd July 2022 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13861971)
To all the anti-choice men: I don't care what your opinion on abortion is. Until you have to face the same decisions that pregnant under any circumstance women and girls have to make or when you have legislators telling you that you have no autonomy over your own body, then I'll care. Until then, your opinion on this has zero relevance so ST*U.

While I get what you're saying I must beg to differ. I think it is possible for a person with thought and reason and an ability to understand other people's dilemmas, to understand some things without having had personally to face them. I think to suggest otherwise rather trivializes the ability of many people to think well and do the right thing, and also, in a sense, dismisses the religious blindness, bias and error of those who think badly as simply a systemic deficiency, rather than an evil for which they are entirely responsible.

Being a man, and being separated from the immediacy of choice is, I'm sure, a contributing factor, as are religion, ignorance and emotional baggage, but to require some kind of qualification for opinion is a dangerous invitation to discrediting criticism in general, not all that different in substance from the argument war hawks like Dean Rusk rallied against anti-war protestors a couple of generations ago.

Let the anti-choice critics shut up, by all means, not just because they're men but because they are wrong.

Stacyhs 23rd July 2022 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13862030)
While I get what you're saying I must beg to differ. I think it is possible for a person with thought and reason and an ability to understand other people's dilemmas, to understand some things without having had personally to face them. I think to suggest otherwise rather trivializes the ability of many people to think well and do the right thing, and also, in a sense, dismisses the religious blindness, bias and error of those who think badly as simply a systemic deficiency, rather than an evil for which they are entirely responsible.

Being a man, and being separated from the immediacy of choice is, I'm sure, a contributing factor, as are religion, ignorance and emotional baggage, but to require some kind of qualification for opinion is a dangerous invitation to discrediting criticism in general, not all that different in substance from the argument war hawks like Dean Rusk rallied against anti-war protestors a couple of generations ago.

Let the anti-choice critics shut up, by all means, not just because they're men but because they are wrong.

We'll have to disagree on this one and I rarely disagree with you. Anti-choice men need to shut up because they will never, ever be faced with this and I'd bet if a bunch of women legislated removing their right to the autonomy of their own bodies, they'd be having fits. Can you imagine women legislating that men have to have a vasectomy or that they can't have one if they so choose?

bruto 23rd July 2022 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13862038)
We'll have to disagree on this one and I rarely disagree with you. Anti-choice men need to shut up because they will never, ever be faced with this and I'd bet if a bunch of women legislated removing their right to the autonomy of their own bodies, they'd be having fits. Can you imagine women legislating that men have to have a vasectomy or that they can't have one if they so choose?

We're probably more in agreement than not even so, though I do think it possible (at least i damned well hope so) for a man to be pro choice and for the right reasons, without having a scalpel brandished at his private parts. And, of course, it's also quite possible for women to be anti-choice as well. But I do think that much of the current problem is a matter of a misguided sense of male privilege, that presumes that there is something especially different about certain parts of a woman's body that removes it from the common idea of what ownership of one's self means, and I do think if they had to face a similar issue in their own bodies, they would come to think differently.

I don't recall when or where I first heard it, and probably many times, but agree that if men got pregnant, abortion would be in the bill of rights.

I just don't think it's the only reason for being wrong, nor that role reversal is the only way to understand it.

slyjoe 23rd July 2022 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13862052)
We're probably more in agreement than not even so, though I do think it possible (at least i damned well hope so) for a man to be pro choice and for the right reasons, without having a scalpel brandished at his private parts. And, of course, it's also quite possible for women to be anti-choice as well. But I do think that much of the current problem is a matter of a misguided sense of male privilege, that presumes that there is something especially different about certain parts of a woman's body that removes it from the common idea of what ownership of one's self means, and I do think if they had to face a similar issue in their own bodies, they would come to think differently.

I don't recall when or where I first heard it, and probably many times, but agree that if men got pregnant, abortion would be in the bill of rights.

I just don't think it's the only reason for being wrong, nor that role reversal is the only way to understand it.

Stacyhs, sorry but I think I have to agree with bruto here. Because I'm a man I need to STFU on abortion? I don't think so. There are a lot of things that you can conscientiously weigh in on without having to experience those things.

Stacyhs 23rd July 2022 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13862052)
We're probably more in agreement than not even so, though I do think it possible (at least i damned well hope so) for a man to be pro choice and for the right reasons, without having a scalpel brandished at his private parts. And, of course, it's also quite possible for women to be anti-choice as well. But I do think that much of the current problem is a matter of a misguided sense of male privilege, that presumes that there is something especially different about certain parts of a woman's body that removes it from the common idea of what ownership of one's self means, and I do think if they had to face a similar issue in their own bodies, they would come to think differently.

I don't recall when or where I first heard it, and probably many times, but agree that if men got pregnant, abortion would be in the bill of rights.

I just don't think it's the only reason for being wrong, nor that role reversal is the only way to understand it.

Not the only way, but about as close as is possible although I don't think that men and women can truly understand what it's like to be the opposite sex.

Women can be anti-choice, but at least they do it from a female perspective and their bodily autonomy is not being denied them.

Stacyhs 23rd July 2022 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13862058)
Stacyhs, sorry but I think I have to agree with bruto here. Because I'm a man I need to STFU on abortion? I don't think so. There are a lot of things that you can conscientiously weigh in on without having to experience those things.

If you are anti-choice, then yes. If you're not, then you're not denying me the right to control my own body.

Regnad Kcin 23rd July 2022 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 13861901)
TLDR: I supported Roe v Wade, but every abortion is an “execution” by a terrible personnel who absolutely should be punished.
And I’m a conservative who thinks government should trump individual rights.

Don’t be so highly partisan.

Skeptic Ginger 23rd July 2022 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13862052)
We're probably more in agreement than not even so, though I do think it possible (at least i damned well hope so) for a man to be pro choice and for the right reasons, without having a scalpel brandished at his private parts. And, of course, it's also quite possible for women to be anti-choice as well. But I do think that much of the current problem is a matter of a misguided sense of male privilege, that presumes that there is something especially different about certain parts of a woman's body that removes it from the common idea of what ownership of one's self means, and I do think if they had to face a similar issue in their own bodies, they would come to think differently.

I don't recall when or where I first heard it, and probably many times, but agree that if men got pregnant, abortion would be in the bill of rights.

I just don't think it's the only reason for being wrong, nor that role reversal is the only way to understand it.

For men who believe a zygote is a human being there are much better ways to decrease abortion than criminalizing it.

With that in mind, Stacy is exactly right, they need to ST*U unless it's to promote constructive ways to decrease abortion.

Skeptic Ginger 23rd July 2022 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13862058)
Stacyhs, sorry but I think I have to agree with bruto here. Because I'm a man I need to STFU on [criminalizing] abortion? I don't think so. There are a lot of things that you can conscientiously weigh in on without having to experience those things.

ftfy

It's not about experiencing it like a white person can still talk about racism. It's about a bunch of men making criminals out of women and they have no clue what that is actually about.

Stacyhs 24th July 2022 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13862125)
ftfy

It's not about experiencing it like a white person can still talk about racism. It's about a bunch of men making criminals out of women and they have no clue what that is actually about.

A white person can never truly understand racism the way a person of color in this country can. They'll never face it just as a man will never face being told he has no control over her own body. That's why white people need to ST*U when they tell people of color that there is no systemic racism and that they are treated equally in this country.

Upchurch 24th July 2022 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13862210)
That's why white people need to ST*U when they tell people of color that there is no systemic racism and that they are treated equally in this country.

...and listen.

Folks always seem to forget that last part. "STFU and listen"

Beelzebuddy 24th July 2022 11:46 AM

"You're not allowed to argue because you're a man" is quite possibly the most short-sighted argument for abortion rights I've ever heard.

RolandRat 24th July 2022 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13862495)
"You're not allowed to argue because you're a man" is quite possibly the most short-sighted argument for abortion rights I've ever heard.

Isn't the position more like "you shouldn't be allowed to dictate what I do with my body because you have absolutely no idea what I'm going through"?

Delphic Oracle 24th July 2022 12:22 PM

It's also somewhat in the context of decades of examples of committee meetings, hearings, and Sunday morning news roundtables with literally all male participants and an entirely reasonable outburst of frustration.

Beelzebuddy 24th July 2022 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolandRat (Post 13862503)
Isn't the position more like "you shouldn't be allowed to dictate what I do with my body because you have absolutely no idea what I'm going through"?

That's what's meant, yes, but that's not what's said. It's a ridiculous self-own that plays right into bigoted gender politics.

BobTheCoward 24th July 2022 01:02 PM

There isn't a position on the issue espoused by a woman that isn't also espoused by at least one man. It doesn't seem to solve the issue by listening to women. Women may be able to provide specific anecdotes, but anecdotes are not good data.

lionking 24th July 2022 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13862527)
That's what's meant, yes, but that's not what's said. It's a ridiculous self-own that plays right into bigoted gender politics.

Are you in the right thread? What has Roe vs Wade got to do with gender politics?

bruto 24th July 2022 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolandRat (Post 13862503)
Isn't the position more like "you shouldn't be allowed to dictate what I do with my body because you have absolutely no idea what I'm going through"?

I think this is the point, and one I probably more agree with than disagree with in my spat with StacyS. I think a man can argue, but if that argument comes from a failure to understand or to respect what he cannot know, then indeed, he should shut up.

By the way, not to start another post I will add that I was reading a little bit from Science News, and a statistical reminder that about 50 percent of fertilized eggs do not, under natural conditions, implant. One of the reasons they may not has to do with hormonal conditions.

If the "moment of conception" folks are right, can anyone taking that position say why it would not, therefore, be within the scope of their mission to dictate to women who are, or might become, pregnant, a prescribed hormonal supplement, or likewise to forbid any action that might impede the action of the appropriate hormones?

Opponents of the IUD have already extended the potential mother's duty to include provision of a hospitable uterus. Where does a potential mother's duty to host a completed pregnancy begin and end?

Stacyhs 24th July 2022 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolandRat (Post 13862503)
Isn't the position more like "you shouldn't be allowed to dictate what I do with my body because you have absolutely no idea what I'm going through"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 13862505)
It's also somewhat in the context of decades of examples of committee meetings, hearings, and Sunday morning news roundtables with literally all male participants and an entirely reasonable outburst of frustration.

Yes, to both.

Last night I was perusing Prime Video looking for something to watch. Just by coincidence, I ran across a French film titled "Flashback". It was very apropos to this discussion:

"Charlie is a high-ranking, cynical female lawyer who believes in nothing but herself. After another winning plea*, she meets with an unconventional driver, Hubert. Driving her back in time from the French revolution, to the Glorious Thirties and the First World War, he will confront Charlie with a lot of historical characters she would have never been able to meet (Marie Curie, Jeanne d’Arc, Gisèle Halimi), witnessing the biggest milestones in women rights achieved and fought for in order to experience freedom in the 20th** century."

*She uses the "wearing sexy lingerie on a date means she was looking to have sex with the man so he can't be convicted of rape" defense.

** 21st century

It was a lighthearted comedy but it had a serious message: women are sick and tired of being dominated and controlled by men. We aren't going to take it anymore.

The are more than a few men who need to watch it. Sadly, there are women who need to, also. Like Charlie, they've forgotten women's history and need to be reminded.

Stacyhs 24th July 2022 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
"You're not allowed to argue because you're a man" is quite possibly the most short-sighted argument for abortion rights I've ever heard.
Tough. Like I said, I really don't care what your opinion is for the reasons I stated. Suck it up, buttercup.

Stacyhs 24th July 2022 02:39 PM

THIS is what I'm talking about. Matt Gaetz yesterday on abortion rights:


Quote:

"Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions?" Gaetz said. "Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb."

Gaetz went on to say that "these people are odious on the inside and out. They're like 5'2, 350 pounds and they're like 'give me my abortions or I'll get up and march and protest' and I'm thinking: 'March? You look like you got ankles weaker than the legal reasoning behind Roe vs Wade.' A few of them need to get up and march. They need to get up and march for like an hour a day, swing those arms, get the blood pumping, maybe mix in a salad."
Quote:

Trump gave Gaetz a shoutout Saturday, calling him "a great guy and a tough guy... what a wonderful guy."
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...s/10136955002/



It's a good thing that POS wasn't anywhere near me when he said that.

BobTheCoward 25th July 2022 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13862577)
THIS is what I'm talking about. Matt Gaetz yesterday on abortion rights:





https://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...s/10136955002/



It's a good thing that POS wasn't anywhere near me when he said that.

It doesn't even make sense. Who does he think are getting abortions other than people having sex?

catsmate 25th July 2022 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13859793)
1. Mandatory pregnancy.

Ah yes, enough of the "right kind" of children.

catsmate 25th July 2022 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13860696)
Speaking of, I've yet to get an answer from a certain member...or really any anti-choice member... as to why aborting 'babies' resulting from rape or incest is not considered murdering 'the most innocent among us'. Are these 'babies' guilty of something?

Because it's bad PR.

Regnad Kcin 25th July 2022 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13862577)
THIS is what I'm talking about. Matt Gaetz yesterday on abortion rights:

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...s/10136955002/

It's a good thing that POS wasn't anywhere near me when he said that.

A puff of air directed in his vicinity and the punk would fold like a paper airplane.

psionl0 25th July 2022 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13862572)
Tough. Like I said, I really don't care what your opinion is for the reasons I stated. Suck it up, buttercup.

I thought that much of what you have posted in this thread seemed reasonable. But now that you are trying to suppress opposing opinions, I'm not so sure.

Delphic Oracle 25th July 2022 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863064)
I thought that much of what you have posted in this thread seemed reasonable. But now that you are trying to suppress opposing opinions, I'm not so sure.

"Men with unoriginal, uninformed, and dismissive views are the real victims in all of this."

wareyin 25th July 2022 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 13863080)
"I'm the real victim in all of this."

Won't someone think of the men's opinions?

cosmicaug 25th July 2022 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863064)
I thought that much of what you have posted in this thread seemed reasonable. But now that you are trying to suppress opposing opinionsdismiss specified opinions in a specified context for specified reasons,

Fixed that for you.
Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863064)
I'm not so sure.

So you think she made sense and seemed reasonable on some things but now that she has written something that you object to you think it should all be dismissed?

Stacyhs 25th July 2022 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863064)
I thought that much of what you have posted in this thread seemed reasonable. But now that you are trying to suppress opposing opinions, I'm not so sure.

Someone who cares------------------------------------------->

Stacyhs 25th July 2022 02:23 PM

Elizabeth Stone recounts what her pre-R v W abortion was like and what it will be like again for many women now thanks to the SC and the GOP anti-choice state governments:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

pgwenthold 25th July 2022 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13862527)
That's what's meant, yes, but that's not what's said. I

I've just bounced into the last page of this thread and have read the comments by Stacy and Ginger, and, in fact, that is exactly what they have said.

Anti-choice men need to STFU. Your accusation that all men have to STFU just because they are men is a misrepresentation of what I have seen right here.

Stacyhs 25th July 2022 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
That's what's meant, yes, but that's not what's said.
Thank you for mansplaining what I 'meant' because I'm obviously incapable of expressing myself accurately.:rolleyes:

bruto 25th July 2022 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13863415)
I've just bounced into the last page of this thread and have read the comments by Stacy and Ginger, and, in fact, that is exactly what they have said.

Anti-choice men need to STFU. Your accusation that all men have to STFU just because they are men is a misrepresentation of what I have seen right here.

Yes, I went off on that, because I thought the initial post suggested that and reminded me too much of the "stay in your own lane" ideas by which warmongers and the like try to disqualify dissent, but got some clarification, and for my part I'm satisfied that the issue here is specifically anti-choice men who are unwilling to accept experiences that are not their own as being valid.

And as I'm a man and not being told to shut up, the implication at least is that not all men must shut up (even though I'm sure there are a few around here who wish I would).

Stacyhs 25th July 2022 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13863463)
Yes, I went off on that, because I thought the initial post suggested that and reminded me too much of the "stay in your own lane" ideas by which warmongers and the like try to disqualify dissent, but got some clarification, and for my part I'm satisfied that the issue here is specifically anti-choice men who are unwilling to accept experiences that are not their own as being valid.

And as I'm a man and not being told to shut up, the implication at least is that not all men must shut up (even though I'm sure there are a few around here who wish I would).

Hell, no. This place would be much the poorer if you did.

kookbreaker 25th July 2022 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13862577)
THIS is what I'm talking about. Matt Gaetz yesterday on abortion rights:





https://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...s/10136955002/



It's a good thing that POS wasn't anywhere near me when he said that.

Also, Gaetz is just badly reversing a George Carlin bit done decades ago.

W.D.Clinger 26th July 2022 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13863415)
I've just bounced into the last page of this thread and have read the comments by Stacy and Ginger, and, in fact, that is exactly what they have said.

Anti-choice men need to STFU. Your accusation that all men have to STFU just because they are men is a misrepresentation of what I have seen right here.

Actually, that selective application is the problem with Stacyhs's argument. In her argument as she herself stated it, the reasons she gave for anti-choice men to STFU apply equally to pro-choice men. She doesn't want to listen when people mention that defect in her argument, but the defect remains regardless of whether she wants to hear it.

Here is her argument, in her own words, with her own bolding:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13861971)
To all the anti-choice men: I don't care what your opinion on abortion is. Until you have to face the same decisions that pregnant under any circumstance women and girls have to make or when you have legislators telling you that you have no autonomy over your own body, then I'll care. Until then, your opinion on this has zero relevance so ST*U.


As has been noted, that's a self-own:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13862495)
"You're not allowed to argue because you're a man" is quite possibly the most short-sighted argument for abortion rights I've ever heard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13862527)
That's what's meant, yes, but that's not what's said. It's a ridiculous self-own that plays right into bigoted gender politics.


The various attempts to redeem the argument have relied upon the same special pleading that Stacyhs literally bold-faced in her original statement of her argument. Here is an example of that special pleading:
Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13863463)
Yes, I went off on that, because I thought the initial post suggested that and reminded me too much of the "stay in your own lane" ideas by which warmongers and the like try to disqualify dissent, but got some clarification, and for my part I'm satisfied that the issue here is specifically anti-choice men who are unwilling to accept experiences that are not their own as being valid.

And as I'm a man and not being told to shut up, the implication at least is that not all men must shut up (even though I'm sure there are a few around here who wish I would).

The fact that Stacyhs has assured bruto that she does not want him to shut up simply highlights her selective application of her argument.

shuttlt 26th July 2022 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13863805)
Actually, that selective application is the problem with Stacyhs's argument. In her argument as she herself stated it, the reasons she gave for anti-choice men to STFU apply equally to pro-choice men. She doesn't want to listen when people mention that defect in her argument, but the defect remains regardless of whether she wants to hear it.

This goes back to the same ideas behind claims that somebody can be racially black, but not "politically" black. It's not as if there is unanimity amongst women on abortion. It's just that all women who are "politically" women, hold the approved beliefs. No true "political" Scotsman is pro-life.

ponderingturtle 26th July 2022 04:47 AM

Any idea how the discrepancies between these laws and best health care practices will play out in terms of liability? If you have to wait for a woman to be dying to abort her dead fetus that is medical malpractice as you are not following best medical practices.

BobTheCoward 26th July 2022 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13863826)
Any idea how the discrepancies between these laws and best health care practices will play out in terms of liability? If you have to wait for a woman to be dying to abort her dead fetus that is medical malpractice as you are not following best medical practices.

Best medical practice has always sat below the law. It is why you can't sue a doctor even when you can reasonably argue best medical practice would have been to violate FDA regulation (or any other regulation)....best medical practice automatically falls below the law


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.