quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: You put relatively too little stock into the things I care a great deal about.
Again, Bob, you don't have enough information to say that.
I wish you'd at least respond to the reasoning I provided above instead of trying to tell me what I care about and how much.
Here it is symbolically:
We have two bad consequences, X and Y, and a binary policy choice, A and ~A. We have two evaluators of consequences, B and D.
B(Y) > B(X), therefore A.
D(X) > D(Y), therefore ~A.
This is all we know about the amount of stock each of up put into things.
It tells us nothing about whether B(Y) is greater than or less than D(Y).
So please, either explain why you feel qualified to evaluate how much stock I put in things you care about or desist doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deal with it Dag. You can't have it both ways. If you put enough stock in the things I care about, you'd agree with me. The very fact that you disagree with me indicates that you care less about those things than I do, and are putting other things before them.
consider it a rank order of prioritizations and I think you'll probably get closer to the way I view this.
If I put death a fetus and freedom of women to choose exactly equal, and you give death of a fetus even one more "strength" point, then you are giving too little value to women's freedom IN MY OPINION.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: We'll see when/if that ever comes up for a vote.
It is, I think, worth noting at this point that, of course, this topic has *never* been put to vote, even in congress, much less in the booth...
...and then passing on, because, of course, everyone here is aware of that and it's a whole 'nother argument.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deal with it Dag. You can't have it both ways.
Bull crap.
I took three years off from a 6 figure salary, spent $80,000 on tuition, and will make less than a third of my previous salary in large part because I want to help women get out the situations you find to be so horrible. I've seen it. I've helped them do it. I've put people in jail to try to stop them from victimizing women. And I'll do it again.
You don't think I put too little stock in these things. You think I put too much stock in something else. This is a simple, basic concept, and I will not let you fart around with it like this:
quote:If you put enough stock in the things I care about, you'd agree with me. The very fact that you disagree with me indicates that you care less about those things than I do, and are putting other things before them.
Deal with it? Why don't you start being honest. This isn't a matter of your opinion. It's a matter of my opinion.
quote:consider it a rank order of prioritizations and I think you'll probably get closer to the way I view this.
Yeah, I get how YOU view it. In YOUR OPINION, my prioritization should be different.
quote:If I put death a fetus and freedom of women to choose exactly equal, and you give death of a fetus even one more "strength" point, then you are giving too little value to women's freedom IN MY OPINION.
No. If the "strength" points I give to women's freedom is the same as yours, but I give an additional strength point to the death of a human being during the gestational period, then it means I'm giving too much value to the life of the human being during the gestational period IN YOUR OPINION.
I'm glad you fight for women and help them get out of bad situations.
I don't agree with you about abortion. I'm not likely to any time soon. Your style and mine do not mesh on this issue. I can't talk to you about it and make myself understood because I just get too frustrated with what I see as you being overly sensitive about word usage.
I've obviously offended you and I obviously didn't mean to. I not apologizing because I still think this is just not even an argument worth making. I've already said that from our individual perspectives the other person has their priorities out of whack.
You yell at me for a whole post and then say the same thing I said 5 posts ago.
I'll talk with you about other stuff, if you still want to.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't talk to you about it and make myself understood because I just get too frustrated with what I see as you being overly sensitive about word usage.
Criminy.
Do you really think this is about word usage? I give the **** up.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, but your way of discussing this stuff sounds mostly to me like you hate the way I use certain words. I keep thinking if only I could pick le mot juste, you would undestand my position to the point where you:
a) wouldn't take personal offense b) wouldn't ascribe motives to me that I clearly haven't stated or adhere to c) wouldn't get so angry d) wouldn't keep lecturing
I'm sorry you are frustrated. I am too.
I really think it best if we just don't discuss this topic with each other anymore.
I'm sure it'd do my blood pressure a world of good.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think this is about word usage? I give the **** up.
Ah, welcome to my world, Dag.
quote:I've obviously offended you and I obviously didn't mean to. I not apologizing because I still think this is just not even an argument worth making. I've already said that from our individual perspectives the other person has their priorities out of whack.
Do you believe both of your perspectives are equally valid, or do you believe there is some reason why your perspective is more accurate than his? Or do you think your perspective is more accurate for no communicable reason?
quote:If I put death a fetus and freedom of women to choose exactly equal, and you give death of a fetus even one more "strength" point, then you are giving too little value to women's freedom IN MY OPINION.
I don't think your opinion is correct, in that case. There are really three possibilities here: A) Dag is giving less value to a women's rights than you'd give it B) Dag is giving more value to the life of the fetus than you would c) Both A and B
I think the only way to figure out which of these is true is to compare the value of both of these things in other situations. Can you think of a case, other than abortion, where you think women's rights should be most important, yet Dag would not? He has suggested that in other cases of victimization he is consistently in support of women's rights - as much so as you would be. Thus, I would wager that he does not value women's rights less than you.
If that is true, then the disagreement would have to be over how important the life of the fetus is. And then the question would be: why? I think Dag has offered a reasonable explanation - that he considers a fetus to be more of a true person than you do. Is this true? How much of a person do you consider a fetus? Do you consider it to have just as many rights as a born human being would? If I said that you had to choose between killing a fetus or killing a baby, would you consider it to be more moral to kill the unborn fetus, or would you consider the two to be exactly equally bad?
Or, it might be helpful to consider the case of a test tube baby in which no mother is involved, and thus where women's rights do not factor into the issue. Would it ever be acceptable to abort a fetus growing in some sort of artificial womb? Would such a fetus have the exact same right to life as you or I?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he was in your world Tres, he would have defined the terms in a manner that no one else agreed with, then spent the whole time chiding the entire thread for not accepting his terms as the standard usage. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I think what is happening here is simple to explain. We are talking about relative values.
Dag sees X as the most valuable thing, which doesn't mean he discounts the value of Y. You do th opposite. It doesn't mean that either of you discounts the value of the other sides arguments, but that neither of you feels his side is getting enough credit/consideration.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your priorities doesn't mean he doesn't discounts the other sides arguments completely....it just means that TO THEM those arguments don't outweighs their own.
Call it a plus on their side, or a minus on yours, either way the outcome is different for them than for you, all because of personal perspective.
That is why I don't like these type of arguments...and why I mentioned earlier in this thread that
quote: it is all too easy to lose the individual tragedy in the large principles and arguments about abortion, and that is just a shame.
The original topic was a very personal, horrible story about unacceptable medical care.
How many of these pages of posts refer to the original topic at all? It has already happened, the personal tragedy has been lost in pages of squabbling and rhetoric. I was a large part of losing it as well, even though it never left my mind....but my posts drifted further and further from what happened to spur this thread.
I think this was the thing people were referring to earlier, only without targeting either side of the abortion debate specifically.....that the political views and agendas eclipse the actual events, and the people behind the story get lost in it...and that is a real shame.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems pretty simple to me. Dagonee values protecting and assisting women out of tough situations such as unwanted pregancies at, say, a dozen pearls. However he values the life he believes is sacrificed in an abortion at, say, a dozen diamonds. I think he's made that abundantly and repeatedly clear. I don't see how it can be said he values protecting and assisting women out of tough situations less than anyone else, unless you're looking at value from a totally relativistic perspective.
Which I don't think it can be, in this situation. It seems to me that in this situation, 'value' is defined by what we'd be willing to do and/or give up to obtain it. What would each of us be willing to do to criminalize or keep legalized abortion, and more importantly what would we be willing to insist others must do?
Either of you I imagine would call the police and attempt to physically restrain a rapist if you saw the man raping someone. Would either of you be willing to murder another innocent human being in order to stop this crime of violence and coercion? Obviously not. But to some, the latter is very close, even identical to the act of abortion. Does the one who would perform the latter value the woman's safety and rights more than the other? In one way, yes. In another way, definitely not.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't change you even if I could. I value your opinions and I dare say I've learned a lot from you both as a discussant and as an occassional adversary in those discussions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems pretty simple to me. Dagonee values protecting and assisting women out of tough situations such as unwanted pregancies at, say, a dozen pearls.
However, there is more than one way out of tough situations, even unwanted pregnancy. There are other options besides killing the fetus.
If Bob does believe it's a human life, I dont understand why he still thinks abortion is vital for women's freedom. If a woman doesn't want to raise a child she has other options besides abortion. She can 1) not have sex or 2) give the baby up for adoption.
I don't buy your argument, Bob, that abortion is an essential part of women's freedom. If the price for sexual freedom is that I have to see millions of babies slaughtered, I'd rather not, thank you. Besides, I think I have plenty of freedom now - I'm free to choose who to sleep with and under what circumstances and so is every other woman (excepting cases of rape or incest). Legal abortion didn't give me that.
And do you really think outlawing abortion would increase rape and other crimes against women? What about women who are forced into abortions? They do exist, you know. I've talked to one of them. Her father forced her to abort her baby and it took four people to hold her down during the procedure. The one thing that stuck with me that I'll never forget the rest of my life is when she told us (she spoke to my church) with tears in her eyes "I know God forgives me but I can't forgive myself - I should have fought harder to save my baby." This is a case when legal abortion contributed to the abuse of a young girl and it still haunts her.
You can't turn a blind eye to millions of dead babies (and you admit that they are human lives, you've said so) and say it's because you think we have too many problems with abuse of women in this country. That's a cop out, IMO.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's one of the reasons I continue to support the availability of abortion in this country.
I didn't say it was the only one.
I also remain committed to the proposition that the pregnant woman is the one who should make the decision. Not me, and not the government on her (or my) behalf.
I consider the period of gestation a special case and do not, therefore, conclude automatically that the death of a fetus is murder.
If I thought it was murder, then I'd want the murder laws to apply, not a special law about abortion.
Since I don't thnk it's murder, and I don't want to see women who have an abortion treated as murderers, I arrive at the conclusion that I think of gestation as a special case.
Given that, I much prefer that the current "law" be made more explicit, tweaked if necessary, but that abortion not be banned. If a woman decides she wants one, then I think it should be available to her. And when/if she goes through with it, and is satisfied with her choice, I would support that decision as the right one for her at that time.
quote: If the price for sexual freedom is that I have to see millions of babies slaughtered, I'd rather not, thank you.
The last time this topic came up here, you said that you didn't use this sort of language because it wasn't productive in discussions. I'm not trying to nitpick you in particular here, but I really don't think language like this helps, and I remember you explaining to me why you refrained from using it.
It also offends me, which is why I'm posting about it. I hope you recognize, at least, that it's possible to understand your position and still reject it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twink, Belle was trying to demonstrate that the real disagreement was over the personness of a fetus, and not about women's rights. She was just pointing out that if the choice were between a nebulous ideal called "women's rights" and an ideal called "keeping babies alive", the vast majority of people would choose to keep babies alive. So the only reason we have a disagreement is because some people do not value fetuses as being comparable to babies.
So, to sum up. She didn't allege that abortion was infanticide. Instead, she alleged that pro-choice people would not accept infanticide as a fair cost for women's rights — an allegation I'm sure they would agree with.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is offensive, Twinky? That she said it, or that she might believe it? And if she believes it, is offending you a sufficient reason she shouldn't say it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I used a similar rhetorical technique in the last big abortion debate on this forum, ARND, to which Belle took deep and justified offence. I have not used it since she pointed out how offensive it was. That a rhetorical technique might be effective does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate; moreover, in this case, I don't think it was at all effective either in helping her to make her point or in fostering civil discussion (the same was true of the case with me last time).
quote:She was just pointing out that if the choice were between a nebulous ideal called "women's rights" and an ideal called "keeping babies alive", the vast majority of people would choose to keep babies alive. So the only reason we have a disagreement is because some people do not value fetuses as being comparable to babies.
I thought her point was quite clear before she used the word "slaughter." I don't see how it helps her argument; indeed, it hurts it by offending people like me.
quote:She didn't allege that abortion was infanticide.
I don't see how "slaughtering babies," when used to refer to abortion, could possibly imply anything else.
quote:Which is offensive, Twinky? That she said it, or that she might believe it?
I don't see how that's relevant, frankly, but it's the former. I'm aware that she believes it, but it's easy (and, I would argue, both more effective and more useful) to say it without using language that alienates people who don't agree.
quote: And if she believes it, is offending you a sufficient reason she shouldn't say it?
I haven't suggested that, nor would I. Should I then never open my mouth when something is said on this forum that offends me? She knows how I feel about it now and is free to either keep using "slaughter" in this context or refrain in the future. That's up to her, not me, and I wouldn't presume otherwise.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:MONTGOMERY, Ala., June 14 -- A Birmingham abortion clinic has surrendered its license amid allegations that a woman delivered a nearly full-term stillborn baby after a clinic staff member gave her an abortion-inducing drug and performed other medical treatments without a doctor present, health officials said Wednesday.
...
Wednesday's move avoids a hearing on June 20 in which the state would have presented its case against the center and sought to revoke its license.
"We got the same remedy we were trying to get in the hearing," Harris said.
posted
I hope there are still criminal procedings against the perpetrators in this case. I sincerely hope they can't just turn in their license and walk away from this.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article mentions that the AG is still investigating and not planning on dropping charges. No guarantee of criminal charges, but the decision today doesn't prevent it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
