What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
French Rage said:
His argument is because there is a diffusion membrane between the mother's body and the placenta that it counts as two separate people. By that reasoning, isn't my entire digestive tract another person that runs from my mouth to my butthole? (Sorry, I know by saying "mouth to butthole" I've summoned Jeb's mom.)
Click to expand...

You owe me a coffee.
 
So, I'm experimenting with a way to try to trace political stances back to values, potentially as a way to get people who disagree to have a common rational ground of discourse.

The idea (still murky) is like diagramming a sentence. Start with the end point: what a concrete policy (P) you support. Then trace back through direct linage to the assertions (A) you hold about facts, and eventually terminate back in your values (V) which are free-standing. Ideally, we would all ground back in the same essential democratic republican (small d, small r) values:

V1: equality before the law is preferred
V2: equality of opportunity is preferred
V3: freedom of conscience is preferred
V4: freedom from coercion is preferred


So, for example, my chain to support my position on abortion:

P1: the right to abortion should be protected
A1: reproductive rights should be protected
A2: bodily autonomy is preferred
V4: freedom from coercion is preferred

Maybe doing something like this can draw the toxicity out of the argument. Maybe it can locate exactly where disagreements are, allowing progress and even compromise. Arguments would then be about the validity of assertions, or challenging the connection between steps.

Obviously this only works with sincere interlocutors. You could not do this analysis with an Alex Jones, say, let alone a Dump.
 
Last edited:
You cant do it it with abortion in general because of the God factor...but otherwise it is a good idea.
 
Holy Hannah. I read that tweet and wanted to bleach my brain. My immediate thought- I would like to see that a55hole try to tell a woman who feeling overly pregnant that the fetus is 'floating' in the womb. Pretty sure a few I knew would have reached down his throat, bypassed his tonsils and ripped his balls out from the inside. This must be a direct result of banning actual health class that explains reproduction.
 
I absolutely love that he doubled down on that too. He's like... the entire MAGA pathos distilled into one execrable piece of garbage.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
This makes me shake with rage. These fuckers were told this was going to happen.

now when a real woman is has to pass her baby in a toilet and lose her uterus and maybe go septic - now they have issues???

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1562093978488639489?s=21&t=PlzxlXA2cS3XRVg8lDyTOQ
Click to expand...

They knew what they were voting for and they didn't care. They don't care now. I don't buy the "I was ignorant" defense they are attempting here. They knew. They know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top