Abortion

Umbran · Jul 6, 2015

goldomark said:
Just reality. If women are forced to stay pregnant, then they take involontary risks to their health and life. Plain and simple.

The claim of mind-reading isn't based on that logic, but on the characterization that someone is "disregarding" the risk. The common implication of that wording is that someone is dismissing or ignoring the risk, not considering it fully.

So (rhetorical questions), if they didn't outright tell you, how do you know they are ignoring the risk, as opposed to carefully weighing the risk, and finding it acceptable? How did you determine this without mind-reading?

We should, especially in political discussions, avoid asserting what's going on in other people's heads.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 6, 2015

Exactly.

Kramodlog · Jul 6, 2015

Umbran said:
The claim of mind-reading isn't based on that logic, but on the characterization that someone is "disregarding" the risk. The common implication of that wording is that someone is dismissing or ignoring the risk, not considering it fully.

Depends on context. If you say that someone cannot be forced to give blood because there are risks associated to it and risks need to be taken volontarely, but then say that pregnancy/labour can be forced even with the risks associated with those, it does appear risks are disregarded in that specific case. Especially if we consider that pregnancy and labour have more risks of death and injury than giving blood.

It might not be the case, but then the rational needs to be explained. Well, if the person still wants to participate. "Need" is relative.

I fully understand that conversations about politics need to be done carefully, but if there are contradictions in someone's reasoning, saying so ain't mind reading and pointing it out isn't necessarely rude.

Umbran · Jul 6, 2015

goldomark said:
If you say that someone cannot be forced to give blood because there are risks associated to it and risks need to be taken volontarely, but then say that pregnancy/labour can be forced even with the risks associated with those, it does appear risks are disregarded in that specific case. Especially if we consider that pregnancy and labour have more risks of death and injury than giving blood.

Then you can say, "it appears that...," or "it looks like..." or "you seem to be saying...".

Leaving space for your own misinterpretation goes a *long* way.

Enkhidu · Jul 6, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
...The problem is, of course, nobody ever thinks about the problems of the transitional period. What happens to society as the hundreds of thousands and of workers losing their jobs to automation today become hundreds of millions? It probably won't be pretty.

Add in the "who gets to quit first" problem, and you have a ready made violent uprising by those still working.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 6, 2015

Enkhidu said:
Add in the "who gets to quit first" problem, and you have a ready made violent uprising by those still working.

I was thinking less in terms of quitting, more in terms of layoffs. ESPECIALLY in those cultures/countries where the social safety net is weak.

MechaPilot · Jul 7, 2015

If a man wants the baby carried to term and the woman doesn't, he can carry it in his own uterus.

sabrinathecat · Jul 7, 2015

It's the woman's decision.
Period.
Hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but if you won't trust her with a choice, why trust her with a child? (Oh, I know, there's the option of putting the kid up for adoption...)
Too many times, attempts to restrict or limit abortion are used as tools to leverage restrictions.
I would love to live in a world where abortion wasn't necessary. But we don't, and it is. Stop trying to limit or restrict access.

Way too many of the arguments are based on religious bias or prejudice, or on "morality" arguments that I find highly dubious.
Honestly, unless you are directly involved, it is none of your business, any more than it is someone else's business what you do.

I truly wish people would take the time and energy they devote to what goes on in other people's bedrooms and focus it on what goes on in their own. They'd be a lot better off, and the world in general would be a better place.

Enkhidu · Jul 7, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
I was thinking less in terms of quitting, more in terms of layoffs. ESPECIALLY in those cultures/countries where the social safety net is weak.

I think unequal quitting would result in more long term damage to society. Unequal layoffs end up meaning that the "haves" have jobs. Unequal quitting mean the "have nots" are the only workers.

Enkhidu · Jul 7, 2015

sabrinathecat said:
It's the woman's decision.
Period.
Hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but if you won't trust her with a choice, why trust her with a child? (Oh, I know, there's the option of putting the kid up for adoption...)
Too many times, attempts to restrict or limit abortion are used as tools to leverage restrictions.
I would love to live in a world where abortion wasn't necessary. But we don't, and it is. Stop trying to limit or restrict access.

Way too many of the arguments are based on religious bias or prejudice, or on "morality" arguments that I find highly dubious.
Honestly, unless you are directly involved, it is none of your business, any more than it is someone else's business what you do.

I truly wish people would take the time and energy they devote to what goes on in other people's bedrooms and focus it on what goes on in their own. They'd be a lot better off, and the world in general would be a better place.