ACLU apparently wants abortion fair to all humans in the procedure not just women??

[Belk]

So can I. Anyone or any agency is perfectly capable of defining anything in any way that pleases them. But shouldn't I and those States and anyone do so in a manner that is logical and reasonable rather than a way that suits a particular interest group, political goal or ideology in direct contradiction to logic and reason? Aren't I, States and everyone morally responsible to define things in the most reasonable and logical way rather than in some way that gets us something we want, takes something from someone else we don't want them to have or hides from others something we don't want them to see?

It's an interesting question. I don't know of any moral requirement to define things in a logical way. Definitions tend to be fluid and follow human thought patterns. I would say it is less a moral requirement and more of a consensus of what we all mean when we say a word.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They are very invested in enabling a delusion then?

Delusion or not, there are places in the US where one can legally be male while still possessing female reproductive organs (and vice versa). For an organization that deals with legal issues surrounding civil liberties, such distinctions are important.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, no, not really. The problem is that we need words that are used for legal purposes, and laws can vary from state to state. Each state needs to make definitions for words that clarify their laws. Making definitions uniform would infringe heavily on states' rights.

So the nouns "person" and "human" are not synonymous.

They are synonymous to any person or human that thinks clearly. For politicians and bureaucrats more interested in the pursuit of their political agenda a or political self interest, defining words in a deceptive manner is one of the favorite ways to manipulate the voting public. Consistently redefining and misdefining is an effective way to confuse the voters.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's an interesting question. I don't know of any moral requirement to define things in a logical way. Definitions tend to be fluid and follow human thought patterns. I would say it is less a moral requirement and more of a consensus of what we all mean when we say a word.

Would you then say that trying to deceive and manipulate people through the use of confusing and illogical definitions is not morally reprehensible to you?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Delusion or not, there are places in the US where one can legally be male while still possessing female reproductive organs (and vice versa). For an organization that deals with legal issues surrounding civil liberties, such distinctions are important.

I wasn't aware that having one's delusions enabled by others was a civil right.

 

[Belk]

Would you then say that trying to deceive and manipulate people through the use of confusing and illogical definitions is not morally reprehensible to you?

No, I would question how a "confusing and illogical" definition would be used to manipulate someone but if, hypothetically speaking, one was to do so I would likely find it wrong.

 

[Yttrium]

For politicians and bureaucrats...

And lawyers. Don't forget the lawyers. Shady bunch, the lot of them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I wasn't aware that having one's delusions enabled by others was a civil right.

We have the freedom to practice religion in this country, do we not? Many would call that a delusion, and yet it's protected by by the government.

Just because you think something is delusional does not mean that it is.

 

[grasping the after wind]

We have the freedom to practice religion in this country, do we not? Many would call that a delusion, and yet it's protected by by the government.

Just because you think something is delusional does not mean that it is.

If it was a matter of my opinion you would be correct but it is not my opinion is a matter of biological science. Just because one believes they are something does not mean that they are.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If it was a matter of my opinion you would be correct but it is not my opinion is a matter of biological science. Just because one believes they are something does not mean that they are.

As I already pointed out, the US government has made it a legal right for your gender identity to not match your genitals. As an organization interested in defending the legal rights of Americans, the ACLU has chosen to make a statement that encompasses the possibility of a legal man needing an abortion because he still possesses a vagina. There's nothing more to it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

As I already pointed out, the US government has made it a legal right for your gender identity to not match your genitals. As an organization interested in defending the legal rights of Americans, the ACLU has chosen to make a statement that encompasses the possibility of a legal man needing an abortion because he still possesses a vagina. There's nothing more to it.

In the past the ACLU stood up for rights in opposition to the opinion of the US government. Becoming a spokesperson for government opinion was not their primary goal. A man never needs an abortion. For that matter a woman doesn't need an abortion either. Abortion is a choice not a necessity. A man cannot physically have an abortion or a vagina not even by government edict.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

In the past the ACLU stood up for rights in opposition to the opinion of the US government.

They do that as well when they believe that the government isn't doing enough to protect our rights. In this case, their issue is with state governments and private citizens.

A man never needs an abortion. For that matter a woman doesn't need an abortion either. Abortion is a choice not a necessity. A man cannot physically have an abortion or a vagina not even by government edict.

Clearly the ACLU disagrees. If you want to argue about it, you'll have to talk to them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

They do that as well when they believe that the government isn't doing enough to protect our rights. In this case, their issue is with state governments and private citizens.


Clearly the ACLU disagrees. If you want to argue about it, you'll have to talk to them.

I have numerous avenues to make my disagreement known. This forum is one of them.