How to win

[redleghunter]

Good point. The vague question seems as if it's about the Handmaiden's Tale practically -- should a woman have any control of her own body at all.

It seems the Handmaiden's Tale (a work of fiction) is the plank for some of the 2020 candidates. I would exclude Joe Biden as he probably does not have HULU nor cares to learn how to use a Smart TV or tablet.

The "woman's right to choose" phrase usually invokes a fear of some kind of militant ideologues that would try to impose something like an end to birth control, for example. It's a fear situation.

Are you saying the Democratic presidential candidates are using fear tactics to keep their base?

 

[civilwarbuff]

should a woman have any control of her own body at all.

Should a woman have total control over another human being's body? When Cain slew Able and God confronted him Cain asked 'am I my brothers keeper'. God said 'you're darn right you are.' Then how much more is a woman responsible for the life she carries within her that she helped create? She is her baby's keeper.....

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the Democrats dropped their militant pro-choice stance

Militant? Are Democratic operatives bombing adoption services?

 

[LoAmmi]

Should a woman have total control over another human being's body? When Cain slew Able and God confronted him Cain asked 'am I my brothers keeper'. God said 'you're darn right you are.' Then how much more is a woman responsible for the life she carries within her that she helped create? She is her baby's keeper.....

If a baby needed a kidney transplant and the father was the only match, should the father be bound by law to give the kidney?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Militant? Are Democratic operatives bombing adoption services?

Atta boy @essentialsaltes go get him....point out the errors of way......drag him back into the true democrat fold.....LOL

 

[civilwarbuff]

If a baby needed a kidney transplant and the father was the only match, should the father be bound by law to give the kidney?

so far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever transplanted a kidney in utero so it is a moot question. However, any parent who loves their child would be willing to make any sacrifice to ensure their child's survival....something only a parent would understand.

 

[redleghunter]

If a baby needed a kidney transplant and the father was the only match, should the father be bound by law to give the kidney?

That's really avoiding the central issue. An organ is a subset of a human being. Meaning a distinct human being developing the womb is not an organ. What you propose is a false equivalence.

But once again this is a digression from the main point:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

 

[LoAmmi]

so far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever transplanted a kidney in utero so it is a moot question. However, any parent who loves their child would be willing to make any sacrifice to ensure their child's survival....something only a parent would understand.

I don't care about things only a parent would understand. I pretty much view parents are mostly illogical when it comes to stuff involving their child anyway.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's really avoiding the central issue. An organ is a subset of a human being. Meaning a distinct human being developing the womb is not an organ. What you propose is a false equivalence.

But once again this is a digression from the main point:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Premise #1: It is wrong to force people to use their bodies in ways they don't want to.
Premise #2: Pregnancy can force people to use their bodies in ways they don't want to.
Conclusion: ?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't care about things only a parent would understand. I pretty much view parents are mostly illogical when it comes to stuff involving their child anyway.

Whew.....Glad I am not your kid.....LOL

 

[essentialsaltes]

Atta boy @essentialsaltes go get him....point out the errors of way......drag him back into the true democrat fold.....LOL

I don't need to drag him anywhere. "a third of Democrats, 34 percent, identify as pro-life. … Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time"

However, using loaded language like 'militant' is worth pointing out.

 

[Speedwell]

So, are you suggesting that 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are somehow more acceptable because of......? What? That killing a 15 week old human being is not as bad as killing a 30 week old human being? That a 32 week old human being gets a pass but not an 8 week old human being? You do see the operative word here, right?......Human being?

Because late term abortions are almost always the result of some dire medical emergency where lives hang in the balance.

 

[Halbhh]

So, are you suggesting that 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are somehow more acceptable because of......? What? That killing a 15 week old human being is not as bad as killing a 30 week old human being? That a 32 week old human being gets a pass but not an 8 week old human being? You do see the operative word here, right?......Human being?

The effect of the political propaganda is that positions that people do not have are painted onto them.

Don't accidentally fall into repeating that.

Example using a more neutral topic: in Brazil (or Mexico, or France, or Switzerland, etc.) there are some criminals.

True would be to say "Brazil has some criminals".
False and slanderous would be to say "Brazilians are all criminals"

In other words, don't assume the worst about a group of people because you heard it claimed about them somewhere.

Christ said instead John 7:24 Stop judging by outward appearances, and start judging justly."

What makes 2nd term abortions any better?

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Hi friend.

Do you sincerely and honestly think your Democratic neighbors want to 'kill innocent human beings'? I ask rhetorically, because we both know that answer is no. If you want to change their minds about abortion, you would have to love them and begin to talk, in love, with them about when a conception becomes a human being equal to an already born person. Many would answer (believe it or not) at some certain point (which would vary), but hardly any would agree that contraception should be outlawed, for instance. I point out this extreme instance as a helpful point -- if we ascribe the most extreme views onto people (before we find out precisely what their actual views are in detail), we forestall, or prevent, the conversation. They simply get offended in that case.

Update -- see the post just below.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't need to drag him anywhere. "a third of Democrats, 34 percent, identify as pro-life. … Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time"

However, using loaded language like 'militant' is worth pointing out.

Very useful. I was just searching for more info on the polling.

Sixty-one percent of Democrats identified as pro-choice, but a majority favored restrictions on abortion. Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time while 13 percent said it should be legal within the first six months of the pregnancy.
Poll: More Democrats Are Pro-Life - The Resurgent

 

[redleghunter]

Premise #1: It is wrong to force people to use their bodies in ways they don't want to.
Premise #2: Pregnancy can force people to use their bodies in ways they don't want to.
Conclusion: ?

Premise 1 is invalid as pregnancy is a natural occurrence of procreation.

Premise 2 becomes invalid because who forced a woman to get pregnant? Again, the Handmaiden's Tale is on HULU and is fiction.

Therefore, we cannot come to a logical conclusion as at the very least, Premise 1 assumes Premise 2 is fact.

Will you address what I posited?

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

 

[LoAmmi]

Whew.....Glad I am not your kid.....LOL

I can't have children. But I've had friends pull children from schools because of the threat of a school shooter, but drive them around without a care in the world. You are far more likely to die of a car crash than a shooting. It's an illogical position to be terrified of one but fine with the other. People make stupid decisions and I also don't like how our culture almost views children as the property of the parents.

 

[LoAmmi]

Premise 1 is invalid as pregnancy is a natural occurrence of procreation.

Premise 2 becomes invalid because who forced a woman to get pregnant? Again, the Handmaiden's Tale is on HULU and is fiction.

Therefore, we cannot come to a logical conclusion as at the very least, Premise 1 assumes Premise 2 is fact..

Because you declare them to be so? I disagree.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The effect of the political propaganda is that positions that people do not have are painted onto them.

Don't accidentally fall into repeating that.

Example using a more neutral topic: in Brazil (or Mexico, or France, or Switzerland, etc.) there are some criminals.

True would be to say "Brazil has some criminals".
False and slanderous would be to say "Brazilians are all criminals"

In other words, don't assume the worst about a group of people because you heard it claimed about them somewhere.

Christ said instead John 7:24 Stop judging by outward appearances, and start judging justly."

Got nothing to do with what we are talking about....

 

[redleghunter]

Because late term abortions are almost always the result of some dire medical emergency where lives hang in the balance.

Paint me a scenario where a fully formed fetus (late term abortion third trimester) requires killing the soon to be infant?

 

[Speedwell]

What makes 2nd term abortions any better?

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

My point here was not to argue about whether abortion is (always) morally wrong. I don't think that abortion always kills a human being and still don't think it is morally right. But that is a discussion for another thread. Here what we are talking about is the political impact of the Democrats abandoning a (militant, if you like) pro-choice stance.