- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Republicans Fail to See the Biggest Issue Costing them Undecided Voters
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:44 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
the exception for rape as an exception is based on an emotional argument rather than a logical one.
Only if you frame some very important variables of the argument.
quote:
There is no good reason a child should have to be killed in those cases but such an action is justified by either emotional trauma of the mother in the first instance or the possible physical and mental deformity of the child in the second (which then touches on eugenics)
I was right.
Your assumption is that at that stage it's a child. Remove this framing and it becomes emotional to oppose the exceptions.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:45 am to RFK
It’s a state issue . It has nothing to do with the president.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:47 am to FooManChoo
quote:
When, exactly does it become a child, then?
That is the question, indeed.
quote:
From where I'm sitting, when a new life is conceived inside its mother
And that's your opinion. Clearly, it's the minority opinion in the US today.
quote:
Essentially what you're saying is that life and value are conferred based on how developed a human being is.
No. He's saying development determines when those cells become a human being. You choose conception for this.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:48 am to tjv305
quote:
It’s a state issue . It has nothing to do with the president.
Trump is the head of the GOP and has the bully pulpit.
He's currently using this to attack states like Alabama and their insane IVF policy.
No reason why he can't lay out an abortion policy for the party/states to follow.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:51 am to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Keep pushing that being the only exception when 80-90% of the country disagrees..
80-90% of the country disagreeing has no bearing on the moral correctness of their opinion.
Not unless you think morality = popularity contest, in which case you have to admit that slavery in 1860 was 100% moral.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:51 am to RFK
I know the same kind of women. But as others have said Trump is the most pro choice candidate you're going to get in the GOP; he's not in favor of a ban. And there are now more abortions than before Dobbs. Trump's recently announced IVF policy is also aimed at these women. There isn't much more you can do. These women are too dumb to reach unfortunately. No offense to your family.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And that's your opinion. Clearly, it's the minority opinion in the US today.
And in 1860 the idea that black people were fully human was a minority opinion.
So what?
The people who opposed that point of view were willing to go to war over it, which is a hell of a lot more commitment than taking political damage over it.
We're they suckers and rubes?
This post was edited on 8/30/24 at 10:57 am
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Your assumption is that at that stage it's a child.
That's not an assumption.
It's a self evident observation.
If it's not a child, what is it?
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:55 am to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion.
But you do want to codify a glaring societal exceptional standard without any good reason.
Obviously, that's what he's referring to.
If there was a faction of the US who wanted to decriminalize rape, would, "Don't believe in rape, fine, don't commit one" compel you toward that point of view?
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:57 am to wackatimesthree
Last I checked, most states allow abortion under certain circumstances.
Now not all allow a 9 month old to be dismembered with forceps. Is that the issue you are referring to.
These broads are selfish... and heartless.
Now not all allow a 9 month old to be dismembered with forceps. Is that the issue you are referring to.
These broads are selfish... and heartless.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 10:59 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
O.k., but are women not expected to take any responsibility for the consequences of choosing to have sex at all?
Is the unborn human expected to bear the consequence for all of them?
Men and women should be taking responsibility for the pregnancy and I'm not in favor of abortion out of convenience but legislating all this and coming up with ways to cover for all the myriad of issues that can come up in a pregnancy is hard work. Define what constitutes a severe enough birth defect to end a pregnancy. Define what health issues are severe enough, percentage risk of an unviability. Give the doctors too much leeway and the more staunch pro lifers will balk....give too little and the others will balk.
This is going to take years to work out and well it may cost Republicans elections for a while but thats the consequences of the Republican dog catching that abortion car.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:00 am to Tall Tiger
quote:
These women are too dumb to reach unfortunately. No offense to your family.
There is not a single EU country that allows an abortion in the third trimester.
But in the US, there are currently six states that do.
And Minnesota, for example, has documented after-birth abortions on the books.
As Einstein pointed out, the world operates on "stupidity, fear and greed."
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:07 am to wackatimesthree
Last I checked, most states allow abortion under certain circumstances.
Now not all allow a 9 month old to be dismembered with forceps. Is that the issue you are referring to.
These broads are selfish... and heartless.
Now not all allow a 9 month old to be dismembered with forceps. Is that the issue you are referring to.
These broads are selfish... and heartless.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:18 am to RFK
quote:
they feel should be their’s to make, whatever that choice may be.
Murder is murder...
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:19 am to Indefatigable
So why did the Supreme Court ban it then. If it’s not a federal issue?
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Important variables" (premises) are necessary to an argument. I'm happy to discuss those premises.
Only if you frame some very important variables of the argument.
quote:OK, and removing the framing assumption that slaves are human changes the argumentation against slavery. The question is whether or not the assumptions (premises) are accurate.
I was right.
Your assumption is that at that stage it's a child. Remove this framing and it becomes emotional to oppose the exceptions.
It's definitionally true the the human offspring inside the mother is her child and the child is a child (law of identify) based on accepted definitions of biological offspring being "children" of their parents. A child in the womb is the biological offspring of its parents, thus, it is a child of its parents, whether that be inside the womb or outside.
Even the word "fetus" provides clarity on this issue. While many use the word "fetus" as a value statement of the child rather than merely a technical term for development, the word, itself, is Latin for "offspring", which, again, is what a child is. So even the dehumanizing usage of the word "fetus" is simply saying that the child is a child in another language.
So back to the argument: if the argument is that abortion should be tolerated or even promoted in instances of rape (I believe it applies to incest, as well), and the only--or at least primary--argument provided is that it's cruel, mean, or "barbaric" to require a mother to carry the child of her rapist, then that doesn't provide a rational support for the exception. It's merely making a value judgement based on personal opinion. What one person believes is cruel, mean, or barbaric may not be considered cruel, mean, or barbaric to another. Therefore, the entire argument isn't based on a logical argument but a subjective and emotional one.
The entire argument is meant to attack the emotional sensibilities rather than the rational mind as few actually want to be perceived as a barbarian or mean for making someone do something unpleasant that they don't want to do.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:31 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
And in 1860 the idea that black people were fully human was a minority opinion.
So what?
Framing was involved for rhetorical advantages then, too.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:32 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
That's not an assumption.
Faming, assumption, take your pick.
Assumption was intended to be a euphemism to remove possible interpretations of allegations of intentional dishonesty (via framing)
quote:
It's a self evident observation.
Within your self-chosen framing.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:37 am to RFK
Abortion is not a topic for 2024.
This has now become the Democratic talking point, post Project 2025 not working, to being the next irrelevant topic to 2024.
Anyone with 2 brain cells know's exactly this is a State's Rights issue. That is where it needs to remain. No one is pushing for a Federal Abortion Law. Why would anyone who is a Constitutionalist want that topic to be back in the SCOTUS wheel house to regulate? Nobody would.
Democrats are just pissed about it being back in the State's because it removes POWER away from the Federal Government and places it more back into individuals controls.
2024 is THE ECONOMY. Kamala can't run from it or deflect from it no matter how hard all of her online BOTS try
This has now become the Democratic talking point, post Project 2025 not working, to being the next irrelevant topic to 2024.
Anyone with 2 brain cells know's exactly this is a State's Rights issue. That is where it needs to remain. No one is pushing for a Federal Abortion Law. Why would anyone who is a Constitutionalist want that topic to be back in the SCOTUS wheel house to regulate? Nobody would.
Democrats are just pissed about it being back in the State's because it removes POWER away from the Federal Government and places it more back into individuals controls.
2024 is THE ECONOMY. Kamala can't run from it or deflect from it no matter how hard all of her online BOTS try
This post was edited on 8/30/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 8/30/24 at 11:45 am to RFK
Abortion
I stand with the body that is in their body. Does the child have rights? Women have lost their soul and conscience. Same thing applies to the man.
I stand with the body that is in their body. Does the child have rights? Women have lost their soul and conscience. Same thing applies to the man.
Popular
Back to top



2




