Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

AllForIt wrote: »

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

*edit: I forgot to say, as a result of this, there are some who I see as being extremely touchy for any kind of criticism of the Left whatsoever (not the first time I've seen that on this forum) and that explains for me how psychologically an intelligent person could misinterpret points and the character of the point maker, and use it as an opportunity to soapbox.

I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

All the above tells me is that, as indicated previously, your reason for getting involved in the abortion debate is solely to push a hard right wing agenda and has little to do with the care of babies or pregnant women. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the two poster boys for right wing politics in the developed world look and act like they're auditioning for a remake of 'Dumb and Dumber'. As clearly shown in recent referendums, the people of this country clearly reject this greedy nonsense opting instead for kindness and egalitarianism. Regardless of your politics, the one thing the current crisis is showing us is the importance of a caring, inclusive and responsible society and the true value of those who work on the front lines of that society over those that reap the largest benefits. Going forward it seems apparent that we need to change our society such that we encourage many more of the next generation to work in caring professions and reward them for doing so. The right wing in the anti-abortion debate seems hell bent on punishing women as part of a broader agenda to maintain an anti-egalitarian status quo that protects the small minority of wealthy people who largely contribute nothing of value back to society.

Abortion: New laws come into force in Northern Ireland

aloyisious wrote: »

So your point was more about presumed leftists going after certain majorities merely because they are majorities [maybe what is presumed to be right-ish because of the particular protest campaign they're involved in] and not because of the stated POV of those majorities or reasons or causes the majorities might be protesting about?

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

*edit: I forgot to say, as a result of this, there are some who I see as being extremely touchy for any kind of criticism of the Left whatsoever (not the first time I've seen that on this forum) and that explains for me how psychologically an intelligent person could misinterpret points and the character of the point maker, and use it as an opportunity to soapbox.

I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm dumbfounded how you managed to extrapolate from what I said to infer my point was about minority rights infringing on majority rights.

I could make a good case for it, let's say, diversity quota's, but that wasn't what I was getting at at all.

So your point was more about presumed leftists going after certain majorities merely because they are majorities [maybe what is presumed to be right-ish because of the particular protest campaign they're involved in] and not because of the stated POV of those majorities or reasons or causes the majorities might be protesting about?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

I'm dumbfounded how you managed to extrapolate from what I said to infer my point was about minority rights infringing on majority rights.

I could make a good case for it, let's say, diversity quota's, but that wasn't what I was getting at at all.

Bannasidhe

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

The interesting thing is this weird perception that saying a minority group who have been denied xxxx will now be granted the exact same xxxx as the majority enjoy somehow means a)the minority now have an 'advantage', and b) the xxxx available to the majority is diminished.

When as SSM has shown us what actually happens is the minority get a watered down version of xxxx (ask any married LBGT+ parents if they are equal to married heterosexual parents) and a small majority ask them why they still need ... oh...a Pride March for example.... :rolleyes:

ancapailldorcha

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

It's pathetically transparent and a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority. Human rights aren't a zero sum game.

Mr. CooL ICE

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hah my journey to pro choice was a little different to yours I think. I did not know what I was on the issue for a long time. But since I was what people would call "Atheist".... though I do not use that label myself all that much.... I was expected to be pro-choice. And I hated that. I hated people thinking they knew what my position should be based on something else entirely.

So one day I said F-this. I am going to go and TALK at length with those people outside the Central Bank in Dublin with all the pictures of fetuses who were so against abortion. I was just gonna walk up, entirely open minded, and hear their argument and be entirely open to them and finding out I was against abortion too. I was literally there for the taking. Biased by teenage rebelliousness TOWARDS being converted.... due to my ire from being assumed to be pro-choice by default without even asking me.

So I set aside an entire afternoon expecting to talk to them for hours. I rocked up, said I was interested in their message, and asked them what their issues against abortion were. I wanted the WHOLE manifesto.

"look at the photos" I was told. I said yes they were indeed unpleasant photos, but I wanted to hear their arguments and points and so on.

"Look at the pictures maaahhhnnn" I was told again in a mindless drawl. So I moved on to a completely different person at the booths (different in both age and gender) and got exactly the same thing. And I realised very quickly they had nothing. Literally. Nothing.

I have been asking them on and off line ever since for arguments against the morality and ethics of abortion. I was about 15/16 then. I am 41 now. So it is no short amount of time. They STILL got nothing. One resident poster on these threads for example has nothing much more than his excitement about the way the tongue on the fetus moves about and his idea of a counter argument on the subject is looking up your posts from 10 years ago to see if you used a different word then than you do now when talking about these things. Because seemingly if you do not use the EXACT same words for everything 10 years on, the your position on the matter is void.

Yet over the years the pro choice side have given me loads of arguments and points. Many of which I rejected. For example I never use the incest or rape arguments myself when arguing pro choice. I do not find them good arguments, and in fact self defeating in some ways.

The rest of the arguments I have refined and improved on and adopted over time.

ancapailldorcha

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We even had one user around boards who was completely pro choice.... almost extremist pro choice in advocating termination right up until birth and that a child has no rights until it travelled the birth canal..... up until around the time the referendum was announced.

At which point he not only SUDDENLY turned completely anti-abortion.... but he also advocated for the removal of social welfare and single parent allowance from such women too.

The reason given for not letting them have abortion or welfare? Apparently he as a privileged middle/late aged male thinks that lower class women need unwanted pregnancies and financial hardship in order to be motivated to better themselves in life. And therefore allowing them to have access to abortion is actually a form of oppression because it keeps them unmotivated to improve their lot in life. I kid you not.

Where women would be without guys like that who know whats good for them, and are willing to give it to them whether they want it or not, I do not know. It is a wonder any of them survive without such a good and enlightened male guiding hand to show them the right way to live.

I think I know who you are talking about.

Ten years ago, I would have been on the anti-choice side. I just couldn't see it as anything other than morally wrong. As time went on, my position became more nuanced and I wouldn't have objected to things like legalising it for incest, rape, mental health issues, etc...

However, since then we've seen the culture war and are still mired in it. On the left, you have aggressive climate change activists, Antifa and so on but the modern libertarian right are just so much worse IMO. They just seem to loathe everyone who isn't a white male and even then they'd probably oppose measures targeted at the white working classes which I think are needed. LGBT people, BAME people, women, liberals and so on. It was pretty clear from the SSM referendum what their motivation was and still is.

When I was going through my libertarian phase years ago, it was at least a consistent ideology. You might not have liked it but they were consistent across issues like gun ownership, drugs, abortion and same sex marriage. Then it became big state for me, small state for everyone else.

I would have voted to repeal the eighth and I'm glad the Irish electorate chose this, if for no other reason than abusing the constitution like this for political ends is utterly disgraceful and actively harmed the lives of several people.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We even had one user around boards who was completely pro choice.... almost extremist pro choice in advocating termination right up until birth and that a child has no rights until it travelled the birth canal..... up until around the time the referendum was announced.

At which point he not only SUDDENLY turned completely anti-abortion.... but he also advocated for the removal of social welfare and single parent allowance from such women too.

The reason given for not letting them have abortion or welfare? Apparently he as a privileged middle/late aged male thinks that lower class women need unwanted pregnancies and financial hardship in order to be motivated to better themselves in life. And therefore allowing them to have access to abortion is actually a form of oppression because it keeps them unmotivated to improve their lot in life. I kid you not.

Where women would be without guys like that who know whats good for them, and are willing to give it to them whether they want it or not, I do not know. It is a wonder any of them survive without such a good and enlightened male guiding hand to show them the right way to live.

The person you are talking about, if I remember them correctly, is still around and posting from under their bridge in other threads

nozzferrahhtoo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It became patently obvious to me that anyone who considered themselves "pro-life" but wasn't advocating for better support for hard-up mothers and their children was just arguing disingenuously.

We even had one user around boards who was completely pro choice.... almost extremist pro choice in advocating termination right up until birth and that a child has no rights until it travelled the birth canal..... up until around the time the referendum was announced.

At which point he not only SUDDENLY turned completely anti-abortion.... but he also advocated for the removal of social welfare and single parent allowance from such women too.

The reason given for not letting them have abortion or welfare? Apparently he as a privileged middle/late aged male thinks that lower class women need unwanted pregnancies and financial hardship in order to be motivated to better themselves in life. And therefore allowing them to have access to abortion is actually a form of oppression because it keeps them unmotivated to improve their lot in life. I kid you not.

Where women would be without guys like that who know whats good for them, and are willing to give it to them whether they want it or not, I do not know. It is a wonder any of them survive without such a good and enlightened male guiding hand to show them the right way to live.

AllForIt wrote: »

So you admit then that some of the protesters do care about the unborn above any other personal religious/political objective.

edit: I was only making an analogy by the way.

I dare say there are a few, but the majority of vocal pro-life advocates tend also to be either hard right and/or religious conservatives. To my mind they care first and foremost about themselves and pushing their agenda, and are selfishly using and fueling the abortion debate as a means to an end.

ancapailldorcha

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, I don't actually believe that many of those pushing a pro-life agenda do care about babies. I think they care solely about pushing their entirely unpleasant agenda.

Exactly what caused me to move away from the anti-choice side. It became patently obvious to me that anyone who considered themselves "pro-life" but wasn't advocating for better support for hard-up mothers and their children was just arguing disingenuously.

Salary Negotiator

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

Serious victim complex on the part of the oppressors.

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

Though this wouldn't be exclusive to this topic. For example the Left care about minorities, especially of late LGBT issues. Now, do they really care, or as I think, they're more motivated to going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority.

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

smacl wrote: »

More about intolerance to all sorts of discrimination and bullying that have been endemic in our society for generations. I do care about these things having suffered them and not wanting my kids to suffer them.

So you admit then that some of the protesters do care about the unborn above any other personal religious/political objective.

edit: I was only making an analogy by the way.

AllForIt wrote: »

Though this wouldn't be exclusive to this topic. For example the Left care about minorities, especially of late LGBT issues. Now, do they really care, or as I think, they're more motivated to going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority.

More about intolerance to all sorts of discrimination and bullying that have been endemic in our society for generations. I do care about these things having suffered them and not wanting my kids to suffer them.

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, I don't actually believe that many of those pushing a pro-life agenda do care about babies. I think they care solely about pushing their entirely unpleasant agenda.

Though this wouldn't be exclusive to this topic. For example the Left care about minorities, especially of late LGBT issues. Now, do they really care, or as I think, they're more motivated to going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority.

smacl wrote: »

What the above implies is that when someone says they're "praying for you" they're really just doing something for themselves. The problem comes where prayer is confused with taking positive action. It's a bit like homeopathy, harmless until you start using it as an alternative to necessary medical intervention.

yes, i would agree, certainly with your comparison to homeopathy.
i couldn't agree or disagree with the first part as i don't know if someone who says they will pray for me would actually be doing it for me or themselves unless they specifically tell me, i would just have to take their word for it unless i receive something to show otherwise.

end of the road wrote: »

some may be doing it for that reason, again i'm personally not going to know either way.
i would think that for those who do do it, praying doesn't have to specifically contribute anything to the common good, but rather give comfort to those who do it who get whatever they get from it, it's not something i do nor have interest in doing given i don't have a religious bone in my body, but i would speculate that giving comfort and a sense of purpose may be what prayers get from praying to their god or gods.

What the above implies is that when someone says they're "praying for you" they're really just doing something for themselves. The problem comes where prayer is confused with taking positive action. It's a bit like homeopathy, harmless until you start using it as an alternative to necessary medical intervention.

robindch wrote: »

They could also be doing it because, like praying, it's essentially a very simple activity - all you've to do is stand around the place without actually contributing anything useful to the common good.

some may be doing it for that reason, again i'm personally not going to know either way.
i would think that for those who do do it, praying doesn't have to specifically contribute anything to the common good, but rather give comfort to those who do it who get whatever they get from it, it's not something i do nor have interest in doing given i don't have a religious bone in my body, but i would speculate that giving comfort and a sense of purpose may be what prayers get from praying to their god or gods.

robindch

end of the road wrote: »

people will spend their time doing something about an issue they care about in a way they feel is the most productive i would imagine.

They could also be doing it because, like praying, it's essentially a very simple activity - all you've to do is stand around the place without actually contributing anything useful to the common good.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

we were talking about individuals jumping on a protest to push another agenda.
it was they who i was suggesting may be a minority, and that it isn't something unique to abortion.

protesting outside medical facilities does tend to be a uniquely anti-abortion thing.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what makes you think it is only a small number given the objection of the religious right to abortion?

we were talking about individuals jumping on a protest to push another agenda.
it was they who i was suggesting may be a minority, and that it isn't something unique to abortion.

eviltwin wrote: »

What's their objective then? Do you think they expect to change a woman's mind? Seems a bit of a risk trying to encourage a change of mind as she's walking into her appointment. And wouldn't they have a greater chance of success if the message was a bit kinder? Pictures of foetuses and "abortion is murder" placards don't exactly scream care and support.

i would expect they are trying to encourage one to seek an alternative to ending the life of their unborn yes.
ultimately i am not going to be in a position to know as to whether their messages and information will be effective or not, only they can know that i would expect.
i also couldn't say with any sort of certainty whether they would or wouldn't have any success by doing something different.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

it is likely yes that there are a small number who are of that exact position, however unless they specifically admit to it, we are never going to truely know they are of that position, or even the numbers involved.
certainly a minority of people latching on to an issue to push an agenda is nothing new and is not unique to abortion.

What's their objective then? Do you think they expect to change a woman's mind? Seems a bit of a risk trying to encourage a change of mind as she's walking into her appointment. And wouldn't they have a greater chance of success if the message was a bit kinder? Pictures of foetuses and "abortion is murder" placards don't exactly scream care and support.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

it is likely yes that there are a small number who are of that exact position, however unless they specifically admit to it, we are never going to truely know they are of that position, or even the numbers involved.
certainly a minority of people latching on to an issue to push an agenda is nothing new and is not unique to abortion.

what makes you think it is only a small number given the objection of the religious right to abortion?

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, I don't actually believe that many of those pushing a pro-life agenda do care about babies. I think they care solely about pushing their entirely unpleasant agenda.

it is likely yes that there are a small number who are of that exact position, however unless they specifically admit to it, we are never going to truely know they are of that position, or even the numbers involved.
certainly a minority of people latching on to an issue to push an agenda is nothing new and is not unique to abortion.