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)

ponderingturtle 26th July 2022 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13863842)
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

Like refusing to treat black patients at white hospitals and leaving them to die, best medical practice for the time.

There is a small difference, please show a FDA regulation that had no input from doctors in regards to best practices.

Suddenly 26th July 2022 06:23 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.

Aside from the fairly obvious observation that civil liability for a failure to commit a crime isn't really a thing, I guess there are gray issues as to when specific exceptions to an abortion ban exist. Did they wait a bit too long? When was the life in danger, etc.

As soon one of them comes to a head we can expect a law granting blanket immunity from suit for a doctor deviating from best medical practices because of a good faith belief it would be otherwise illegal or, for extra points, against religious belief.

psionl0 26th July 2022 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13863114)
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?

There has to be a better justification for your POV than "you are an anti-choice man therefor you are not entitled to make an argument". If that is all you have then you are going to have difficulty in justifying your position.

cosmicaug 26th July 2022 07:40 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.

But is it proper? Is the "defect" really equally applicable to both sides?

She might be making the argument based on inside knowledge that males do not have. However, both sides that she is responding to are not the same. It is not like the forced birthers are telling women to do one thing and pro choice folk telling women to do another. One side is constraining, the other is not.

Some males say "You've got the parts, you can make the babies (and, indeed you may have made the babies). I cannot directly experience that or know it in the way that you do. You now better. You get to decide.". Other males say "You've got the parts, you can make the babies (and, indeed you may have made the babies). I cannot directly experience that or know it in the way that you do. Nevertheless, I'm going to tell you what to do with your own body.".

Do you really think the two are the same? Do you really think that both positions follow equally well or equally badly from the presupposition of "I cannot directly experience that or know it in the way that you do"?

Darat 26th July 2022 07:45 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.

That "But" doesn't work. If what Stacyhs posted was reasonable it remains reasonable no matter if she is then " trying to suppress opposing opinions" or not.

psionl0 26th July 2022 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13863925)
That "But" doesn't work. If what Stacyhs posted was reasonable it remains reasonable no matter if she is then " trying to suppress opposing opinions" or not.

It works for me. Stacyhs weakens her argument if she is not willing to defend it. And why does it not apply to anti-choice women?

cosmicaug 26th July 2022 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13863925)
That "But" doesn't work. If what Stacyhs posted was reasonable it remains reasonable no matter if she is then " trying to suppress opposing opinions" or not.

Yeah, throw the wheat with the chaffe. It kind of sounds like a mild version of those jackasses claiming to have been very liberal until a point where someone said or did something they did not like and then they were forced to become a Nazi. Or really, like the way Warpie here claims antiabortion politics works: no one was particularly inclined to overturn Roe vs. Wade until uncompromising libs made the SCOTUS do it.

Darat 26th July 2022 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863933)
It works for me.

Then you are being illogical.


Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863933)
Stacyhs weakens her argument if she is not willing to defend it.

No it doesn't. An argument is weakened if it is shown to be erroneous or illogical etc or is based on false premises.
Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863933)

And why does it not apply to anti-choice women?

Again has nothing to do with the part of your post before the "but" not connecting to the part after it.

psionl0 26th July 2022 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13863934)
It kind of sounds like a mild version of those jackasses claiming to have been very liberal until a point where someone said or did something they did not like and then they were forced to become a Nazi.

Of course! Only a Nazi would point out a weakness in an argument. :rolleyes:

Delphic Oracle 26th July 2022 08:02 AM

This is all yet another variation of the paradox of tolerance; the endless appeals to "civility" we're expected to maintain towards hostile, regressive ideologies.

psionl0 26th July 2022 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 13863950)
This is all yet another variation of the paradox of tolerance; the endless appeals to "civility" we're expected to maintain towards hostile, regressive ideologies.

I do not "appeal to civility". A poster can be as hostile to a dissenting opinion as they want. But if hostility is all they have then they will have difficulty in persuading those who would like to think that they are critical thinkers.

cosmicaug 26th July 2022 08:16 AM

You miss the point. You may not have intended to sound like this, but it sounded like you were saying she sounded very reasonable saying x, y but I did not like z therefore I must reject x, y & z.

Delphic Oracle 26th July 2022 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13863958)
I do not "appeal to civility". A poster can be as hostile to a dissenting opinion as they want. But if hostility is all they have then they will have difficulty in persuading those who would like to think that they are critical thinkers.

"A dissenting opinion" often being a vague, innocent-sounding way of describing a position in favor of violating people's bodily autonomy or a transparent attempt to move the discussion away from the issue and focus on someone's hurted widdle feewings.

Is hostility really "all they have" or did it come after months/years/decades of good faith efforts met only with intransigence?

Oh no, someone who has curiously selective outrage at which "hostility" they object to might think less of someone else's status as a "critical thinker."

The plethora of emotional manipulation techniques experienced daily are both fascinating and horrifying to me anymore.

W.D.Clinger 26th July 2022 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13863922)
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.

But is it proper? Is the "defect" really equally applicable to both sides?

She might be making the argument based on inside knowledge that males do not have. However, both sides that she is responding to are not the same. It is not like the forced birthers are telling women to do one thing and pro choice folk telling women to do another. One side is constraining, the other is not.

She might have intended to put forth an argument that involves the fact that some are constraining while others are not.

If you examine the actual argument she put forth, however, you will find no mention of that fact. In the argument as expressed by Stacyhs, anti-choice men are supposed to STFU simply because they have not or cannot "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". That argument applies equally to pro-choice men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13863922)
Some males say "You've got the parts, you can make the babies (and, indeed you may have made the babies). I cannot directly experience that or know it in the way that you do. You now better. You get to decide.". Other males say "You've got the parts, you can make the babies (and, indeed you may have made the babies). I cannot directly experience that or know it in the way that you do. Nevertheless, I'm going to tell you what to do with your own body.".

Do you really think the two are the same? Do you really think that both positions follow equally well or equally badly from the presupposition of "I cannot directly experience that or know it in the way that you do"?

You are outlining the beginnings of a sensible argument. The argument you are outlining might well be the argument Stacyhs intended to make or thought she was making. It was not, however, the argument Stacyhs actually made, and Stacyhs was given multiple opportunities to repair her argument in response to legitimate criticisms of the argument she actually made.

Suddenly 26th July 2022 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 13863950)
This is all yet another variation of the paradox of tolerance; the endless appeals to "civility" we're expected to maintain towards hostile, regressive ideologies.

Not to mention stupid claims made about difficult issues by people with no expertise.

"Well we've heard from some medical ethicists, medical practitioners, and Aquinas scholar Cardinal Smith about abortion. What we really need now is some middle aged guy who has been sucked down a rabbit hole by the youtube algorithm and thinks abortion is a racist plot."

Darat 26th July 2022 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13863962)
You miss the point. You may not have intended to sound like this, but it sounded like you were saying she sounded very reasonable saying x, y but I did not like z therefore I must reject x, y & z.

That is the exact logic they used.

psionl0 26th July 2022 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13863962)
You miss the point. You may not have intended to sound like this, but it sounded like you were saying she sounded very reasonable saying x, y but I did not like z therefore I must reject x, y & z.

You are the one who is missing the point. If z (pure hostility) is the only reason for x and y then the foundation for x and y is weaker than I thought.

psionl0 26th July 2022 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 13864047)
"A dissenting opinion" often being a vague, innocent-sounding way of describing a position in favor of violating people's bodily autonomy or a transparent attempt to move the discussion away from the issue and focus on someone's hurted widdle feewings.

Is hostility really "all they have" or did it come after months/years/decades of good faith efforts met only with intransigence?

Oh no, someone who has curiously selective outrage at which "hostility" they object to might think less of someone else's status as a "critical thinker."

The plethora of emotional manipulation techniques experienced daily are both fascinating and horrifying to me anymore.

There is nothing wrong with arguing against a dissenting opinion this way. It is better than "STFU".

Beelzebuddy 26th July 2022 10:42 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.

I am a pro-choice man and Stacyhs herself has told me to STFU, just above.

That's why the argument is short-sighted. It casts an important issue into petty squabbling about gender, so far for two pages and counting. It divides people who should be on the same side, while allowing other people to shift from being on the defensive with their throwback positions on abortion to the offense, clutching their pearls over sexism. Meanwhile it accomplishes nothing that couldn't have been done with a much simpler "I'm not going to engage you."

Satisfying though it may have been in the moment, it was and is a damn stupid argument to put forth.

cosmicaug 26th July 2022 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13864119)
You are the one who is missing the point. If z (pure hostility) is the only reason for x and y then the foundation for x and y is weaker than I thought.

Not really. What made you decide, initially, that x & y were reasonable; and after the fact that x & y were only premised on hostility?

It is unclear why a rational person would shift their "reasoning" like that.

psionl0 26th July 2022 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13864176)
What made you decide, initially, that x & y were reasonable; and after the fact that x & y were only premised on hostility?

There are some good arguments to be made in favour of pro-choice. I can't remember if Stachyhs made some of them earlier on (this is a long thread) but she isn't now.

wareyin 26th July 2022 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13864119)
You are the one who is missing the point. If z (pure hostility) is the only reason for x and y then the foundation for x and y is weaker than I thought.

Why assume that pure hostility is the only reason for x and y when other reasons for x and y were already presented?

eta: ninja'd.

wareyin 26th July 2022 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13864187)
There are some good arguments to be made in favour of pro-choice. I can't remember if Stachyhs made some of them earlier on (this is a long thread) but she isn't now.

That wasn't your prior claim:

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.


Stacyhs 26th July 2022 11:31 AM

I find it interesting that some people here think I have an obligation to continue defending and/or justifying my opinion. I gave my reasons for it and they haven't changed. Nor do I need to provide more justifications to you.

Delphic Oracle 26th July 2022 02:42 PM

"You know what, I was wrong."

"On further consideration, and with a more sober sense of perspective, given the gravity of the situation being discussed, I withdraw my objection and see how my personal feelings pale in comparison."

Don't mind me, I'm staring a collection of sayings that aren't ever heard.

thaiboxerken 26th July 2022 03:21 PM

I believe Stacy is kind of wrong and right at the same time. It is none of mens' business what women do with their own bodies. However, I also think it is none of other womens' business as well. "My body my choice" is how it should be, people should be free to make their own medical decisions without having government involvement.

Upchurch 26th July 2022 03:46 PM

A fundamental problem* is that some of us are speaking from a less involved position than others. It is easier to compartmentalize such a complex and personal issue when one does not have any skin in the game, as it were. I, for example, am one of those people. I have and will never be in a position where I will have to make a decision about whether I will, myself, have to carry a child or have an abortion. I have and will never have the experience of worrying about potentially being in such a position myself.

As such, I don't have the basis to tell anyone who has that potential or experience whether they should or should not have an abortion, even in the abstract or hypothetical, and I never have. So, when Stacy says people like me are not position to tell others whether they should or should not have an abortion, I happen to think she's right. I can certainly have my opinion, but also I understand my particular limitations on this particular topic and that question is best left to more qualified people.



* merely a problem, not the only problem.

Stacyhs 26th July 2022 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 13864394)
I believe Stacy is kind of wrong and right at the same time. It is none of mens' business what women do with their own bodies. However, I also think it is none of other womens' business as well. "My body my choice" is how it should be, people should be free to make their own medical decisions without having government involvement.

While I obviously agree that no one, women included, have the right to tell a woman that her body does not belong to her once she's pregnant and a non-sentient being now controls it, at least they can speak with some kind of female understanding/perspective.

On the other hand, I understand a woman being anti-choice even less due to our very long history of being dominated and controlled...including our bodies...both legally and societally by men. For millennia, there was no law against a man raping his wife as marital sex was his legal right with or without her consent. There was no law against rape at all except as a property crime that her father or husband could bring against the rapist. Even the resulting children were legally his. That is still true in some countries today. As late as the 1960's in the US, France and other countries, a woman could not have a bank account, get a credit card or hold a job without the written permission of her husband.

Stacyhs 26th July 2022 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13864415)
A fundamental problem* is that some of us are speaking from a less involved position than others. It is easier to compartmentalize such a complex and personal issue when one does not have any skin in the game, as it were. I, for example, am one of those people. I have and will never be in a position where I will have to make a decision about whether I will, myself, have to carry a child or have an abortion. I have and will never have the experience of worrying about potentially being in such a position myself.

As such, I don't have the basis to tell anyone who has that potential or experience whether they should or should not have an abortion, even in the abstract or hypothetical, and I never have. So, when Stacy says people like me are not position to tell others whether they should or should not have an abortion, I happen to think she's right. I can certainly have my opinion, but also I understand my particular limitations on this particular topic and that question is best left to more qualified people.



* merely a problem, not the only problem.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Skeptic Ginger 26th July 2022 04:55 PM

Moving on ... anti-abortionists are now harassing the doctor who legally performed the abortion on the pregnant 10 yr old. They are threatening her and her children.

NPR: Indiana doctor says she has been harassed for giving an abortion to a 10-year-old

So I guess we can expect these ******* vigilantes to continue with their threats:
Quote:

She has worried about her own safety and the safety of her family, ...

"It's honestly been very hard for me, for my family," Bernard said. "It's hard to understand why a political figure, a prominent figure in the state, would want to come after physicians who are helping patients every single day in their state."
This part is not getting enough attention from the media:
Quote:

But she did say she had received an "immense outpouring" of support from medical professionals in Indiana and across the country. ...

"What I've heard from my colleagues in Indiana and around the country is that we have been silent for too long, that we have not spoken out enough," she said. "So, no. I don't see that it will stop physicians. I think it will motivate them."
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

psionl0 26th July 2022 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13864190)
That wasn't your prior claim:

There's no inconsistency there.

pgwenthold 26th July 2022 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13864454)
Moving on ... anti-abortionists are now harassing the doctor who legally performed the abortion on the pregnant 10 yr old. They are threatening her and her children.

NPR: Indiana doctor says she has been harassed for giving an abortion to a 10-year-old

So I guess we can expect these ******* vigilantes to continue with their threats:


This part is not getting enough attention from the media:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

What i have found fascinating, for lack of a better description, is how people in Ohio are falling over themselves to claim that the 10 year old could have gotten an abortion in Ohio, despite the law, while these nuts in Indiana are falling over themselves trying to find a way to persecute the doctor who did it legally.

She was a pregnant 10 year old. And they are going after the doctor.

Stacyhs 26th July 2022 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13864494)
What i have found fascinating, for lack of a better description, is how people in Ohio are falling over themselves to claim that the 10 year old could have gotten an abortion in Ohio, despite the law, while these nuts in Indiana are falling over themselves trying to find a way to persecute the doctor who did it legally.

She was a pregnant 10 year old. And they are going after the doctor.

Because even they know going after the raped 10 year old is not a good look for them.

The Great Zaganza 26th July 2022 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13864553)
Because even they know going after the raped 10 year old is not a good look for them.

The issue isn't her age, it's the fact that she has no money you can sue her for.

psionl0 27th July 2022 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13864212)
I find it interesting that some people here think I have an obligation to continue defending and/or justifying my opinion. I gave my reasons for it and they haven't changed. Nor do I need to provide more justifications to you.

It depends on whether you are just whingeing or hope to dissuade anti-abortion laws where you live.

Your congressMAN will require a better argument than "STFU".

ponderingturtle 27th July 2022 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13864494)
What i have found fascinating, for lack of a better description, is how people in Ohio are falling over themselves to claim that the 10 year old could have gotten an abortion in Ohio, despite the law, while these nuts in Indiana are falling over themselves trying to find a way to persecute the doctor who did it legally.

She was a pregnant 10 year old. And they are going after the doctor.

Well she was too young to understand the severity of her actions at that age, the doctor should know better. Same reason the catholic church excommunicated the child's mother and doctor in this case. Of course raping a 9 year old does not get one excommunicated, think of what that would do to the clergy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_B..._abortion_case

Upchurch 27th July 2022 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13864617)
It depends on whether you are just whingeing or hope to dissuade anti-abortion laws where you live.

Your congressMAN will require a better argument than "STFU".

Well, thatís the fundamental problem I mentioned, isnít it? What makes a congressMAN, as you put it, qualified to make a decision for someone else that he will never have to make for himself? Sure, he has the power to do so, but should he?

The default position is pro-choice, as it does not force anything on anyone. It doesnít force abortions on people who donít want them and it doesnít prevent abortions from people who do. The anti-abortion congressMAN is making the decision from a position of incomplete knowledge and experience. Why does he get to force a choice on others that cannot be forced on him?

psionl0 27th July 2022 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13864634)
Why does he get to force a choice on others that cannot be forced on him?

Probably because he lives in a gerrymandered electorate and can't be voted out.

Upchurch 27th July 2022 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13864637)
Probably because he lives in a gerrymandered electorate and can't be voted out.

That only addresses why he has the power, not what makes him qualified to make that decision.

psionl0 27th July 2022 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13864638)
That only addresses why he has the power, not what makes him qualified to make that decision.

He doesn't need to be qualified. He can say "yea" or "nae" without knowing if his arse is on fire.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 PM.

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