Alabama bans abortion

[Darth Wedgius]

The Reagan administration included actively ignoring the AIDS crisis for the sake of wiping out gays

Any evidence of that motive?

I mean they laughed as the it killed people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... a99877bafb

People laugh at tragedies all the time.

People don't laugh at tragedies? When I was in high school I heard jokes about victims of the Ethiopian famine, by people who didn't evince any hostility toward famine victims or Ethiopians in general.

[Darth Wedgius]

The Reagan administration included actively ignoring the AIDS crisis for the sake of wiping out gays

Any evidence of that motive?

I mean they laughed as the it killed people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... a99877bafb

People laugh at tragedies all the time.

People do laugh at tragedies all the time though. Ever heard of dark humour?

And in this case the joke is that they actively hindered the research and response to AIDS until it had started crossing over to white suburbanites by which point it had become a pandemic.

References?

[Darth Wedgius]

I really don't understand that, but I have heard how getting a no-fault divorce was hell. It's a matter of civil rights to me, someone should be free to divorce if they want, who the fuck are we to be passing judgment?

In fact, it didn't have much long-term effects on the divorce rate.

I have no objection to people divorcing at will, though I do think fault should factor into the distribution of marital assets. As to who we are to be passing judgement, who do we have to be?

What I was objecting to was your assumption as to motives. Assuming people who don't agree with you are evil and then, instead of considering their actual actions, objecting to the motives that are just your assumption will lead nowhere. I've been saying that again and again and you don't get it. It might be that you'll never be able to get out of your own preconceived notions and into the real world, but I thought I'd give it one more try.

If we were arguing about race-based affirmative action and I said that you just hate white people and that's horrible, I'd be doing what you're doing. It wouldn't be very helpful, would it?

Do you now understand?

[Draco Dracul]

The Reagan administration included actively ignoring the AIDS crisis for the sake of wiping out gays

Any evidence of that motive?

I mean they laughed as the it killed people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... a99877bafb

People laugh at tragedies all the time.

People do laugh at tragedies all the time though. Ever heard of dark humour?

And in this case the joke is that they actively hindered the research and response to AIDS until it had started crossing over to white suburbanites by which point it had become a pandemic.

References?

The article I linked actually references that it was initially treated as a nonissue despite having, at the time of the press conference, a 33% mortality rate because it was the "gay plague".

Reagan didn't begin responding in earnest until it was given a face in Ryan White a young hemophiliac from Indiana. And even then it was focused more on moral crusading than actual research in to treatment with those at the CDC being told "Look pretty and do as little as possible"

[Yukaphile]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me, or maybe we just both have different ways of looking at the world. I don't think those disagreeing with me are evil, but I do think what they did in Alabama is wrong, and that if you wanna rules-lawyer this, yeah, of course we can't speak to their motives, but we can safely guess it. Even ignoring that, I just see this as the first step to more active oppression on women and reproductive issues, which out-of-touch lawmakers, religious groups, or anyone else shouldn't ever touch. It's like with Prohibition. I guess the only question is where it gets funded from, because if I maintain that lawmakers and religious groups and outsiders shouldn't regulate family planning, then who funds it? The government would mean lawmakers get a say because they're paying for it. A corporation would mean business suits should have some say because they're paying for it. That's where I think it becomes very complicated, but I still have my own subjective opinions on this, as do you.

I don't get how the two are the same past really quibbling over semantics. I mean, I've already conceded to you that on a pure hardcore technicality, since we don't know their motives, we can't say what it is. But I feel it's safe to speculate given it's a red state, a state with strong religious beliefs, and in the South. Is that discrimination? Yeah, to some degree, but I've spoken with many hardcore extreme right-wingers, of all ilk, don't get me wrong, not just men, women, and also a few minorities, who don't want women and even men to choose when they have children. It's not even those people I'm attacking so much as this mindset, that we gotta regulate morality, we gotta ban contraceptives because of a religious mindset (those kicking up the biggest fuss are, indisputably, people who think it's either abortion or just think we should keep multiplying "as per the good book," or that people should wait to get married before having sex, all sorts of ignorant nonsense they have no business forcing onto others), we gotta ban abortion, it's murder, and so on. There has been a movement ever since the 1970s to not only repeal Roe v Wade, but to ban birth control services and stuff that basically prevents pregnancy, because of all sorts of pseudo-moral/religious reasons, and it's gaining strength with certain lawmakers who, for whatever reasons you wanna think, give in and pass those laws. You maintain they're legitimately worried about the child. I think there's a strong strain of misogyny in there. They are not sensitive to the fact this is a woman's body, and she will have to do all the hard work, regardless of men, and they even go so far as to think a rape victim shouldn't get an abortion, or somehow convince themselves that birth from rape is not possible (refer to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment to get a clear idea as to this). I don't get why this is so upsetting for you for me to say that, past the fact I am not a right-winger, not particularly religious, and I'm strong on women's rights and civil rights. As I said, I don't think it makes those disagreeing with me evil, because I legitimately have a friend who is a left-wing Socialist, a "dirty red" as he calls himself, who is pro-life. Not anti-choice, here. I distinguish the two. Pro-life. The idea of wiping out a potential future life that could do so much good is very upsetting to him. I feel as if his concerns are more in favor of the potential of life and a child that could grow up to do so much good. Anti-choice, imo, carries a lot of religious judgment to it, moral crusading, and misogyny. Pinpointing which is hard, since from what I just described, I feel as if Fuzzy would call my friend anti-choice. The difference, I think, lies in the political motivations. He's a left-winger who is not a fan of capitalism, and believes in intersectionality, and has opposed attacks on women before. Those in the right wing pushing these lies or passing them tend to be very old-fashioned, older people, and... bear with me here, you'll probably call this an assumption, but I've met a few like this... are anti-SJW, hate political correctness, and think white men are the real victims now, while women and minorities are super privileged and favored by our society. I think that view is an extreme, as much as claiming white men are the devil. Granted, not everyone who is anti-choice or "pro-life" thinks that way, you can't boil down everyone to that mindset, but as you go further right and further left, you do tend to share a lot of similar views, it's how that ideological spectrum goes. And as I said, I'm not a hard leftist or righter. Is a lot of this making assumptions? Perhaps, but from my own past experience in dealing with a handful of them, and how their leaders discuss this in the political sphere. I ultimately hate the mindset, not the people. And I do hate how we're going backwards on women's rights at lightning speed.

[Darth Wedgius]

The Reagan administration included actively ignoring the AIDS crisis for the sake of wiping out gays

Any evidence of that motive?

I mean they laughed as the it killed people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... a99877bafb

People laugh at tragedies all the time.

People do laugh at tragedies all the time though. Ever heard of dark humour?

And in this case the joke is that they actively hindered the research and response to AIDS until it had started crossing over to white suburbanites by which point it had become a pandemic.

References?

The article I linked actually references that it was initially treated as a nonissue despite having, at the time of the press conference, a 33% mortality rate because it was the "gay plague".

Reagan didn't begin responding in earnest until it was given a face in Ryan White a young hemophiliac from Indiana. And even then it was focused more on moral crusading than actual research in to treatment with those at the CDC being told "Look pretty and do as little as possible"

That reference indicate that the Reagan administration was motivated by wanting limited government, not by "hate." There's a difference between "they should do more to save group X" and "they hate group X."

[Darth Wedgius]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me, or maybe we just both have different ways of looking at the world. I don't think those disagreeing with me are evil, but I do think what they did in Alabama is wrong, and that if you wanna rules-lawyer this, yeah, of course we can't speak to their motives, but we can safely guess it. Even ignoring that, I just see this as the first step to more active oppression on women and reproductive issues, which out-of-touch lawmakers, religious groups, or anyone else shouldn't ever touch. It's like with Prohibition. I guess the only question is where it gets funded from, because if I maintain that lawmakers and religious groups and outsiders shouldn't regulate family planning, then who funds it? The government would mean lawmakers get a say because they're paying for it. A corporation would mean business suits should have some say because they're paying for it. That's where I think it becomes very complicated, but I still have my own subjective opinions on this, as do you.

I don't get how the two are the same past really quibbling over semantics. I mean, I've already conceded to you that on a pure hardcore technicality, since we don't know their motives, we can't say what it is. But I feel it's safe to speculate given it's a red state, a state with strong religious beliefs, and in the South. Is that discrimination? Yeah, to some degree, but I've spoken with many hardcore extreme right-wingers, of all ilk, don't get me wrong, not just men, women, and also a few minorities, who don't want women and even men to choose when they have children. It's not even those people I'm attacking so much as this mindset, that we gotta regulate morality, we gotta ban contraceptives because of a religious mindset (those kicking up the biggest fuss are, indisputably, people who think it's either abortion or just think we should keep multiplying "as per the good book," or that people should wait to get married before having sex, all sorts of ignorant nonsense they have no business forcing onto others), we gotta ban abortion, it's murder, and so on. There has been a movement ever since the 1970s to not only repeal Roe v Wade, but to ban birth control services and stuff that basically prevents pregnancy, because of all sorts of pseudo-moral/religious reasons, and it's gaining strength with certain lawmakers who, for whatever reasons you wanna think, give in and pass those laws. You maintain they're legitimately worried about the child. I think there's a strong strain of misogyny in there. They are not sensitive to the fact this is a woman's body, and she will have to do all the hard work, regardless of men, and they even go so far as to think a rape victim shouldn't get an abortion, or somehow convince themselves that birth from rape is not possible (refer to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment to get a clear idea as to this). I don't get why this is so upsetting for you for me to say that, past the fact I am not a right-winger, not particularly religious, and I'm strong on women's rights and civil rights. As I said, I don't think it makes those disagreeing with me evil, because I legitimately have a friend who is a left-wing Socialist, a "dirty red" as he calls himself, who is pro-life. Not anti-choice, here. I distinguish the two. Pro-life. The idea of wiping out a potential future life that could do so much good is very upsetting to him. I feel as if his concerns are more in favor of the potential of life and a child that could grow up to do so much good. Anti-choice, imo, carries a lot of religious judgment to it, moral crusading, and misogyny. Pinpointing which is hard, since from what I just described, I feel as if Fuzzy would call my friend anti-choice. The difference, I think, lies in the political motivations. He's a left-winger who is not a fan of capitalism, and believes in intersectionality, and has opposed attacks on women before. Those in the right wing pushing these lies or passing them tend to be very old-fashioned, older people, and... bear with me here, you'll probably call this an assumption, but I've met a few like this... are anti-SJW, hate political correctness, and think white men are the real victims now, while women and minorities are super privileged and favored by our society. I think that view is an extreme, as much as claiming white men are the devil. Granted, not everyone who is anti-choice or "pro-life" thinks that way, you can't boil down everyone to that mindset, but as you go further right and further left, you do tend to share a lot of similar views, it's how that ideological spectrum goes. And as I said, I'm not a hard leftist or righter. Is a lot of this making assumptions? Perhaps, but from my own past experience in dealing with a handful of them, and how their leaders discuss this in the political sphere. I ultimately hate the mindset, not the people. And I do hate how we're going backwards on women's rights at lightning speed.

The problem is that much of your argument has been bewailing the supposed motives of people, not the positives or negatives of the bill. You don't know the motives, so you're arguing against phantoms.

And I'm repeating this, but that some people on the right say or do X doesn't mean that these people on the right are passing this bill because they believe X. Not everyone on the right holds all the same beliefs, and you should know that.

Arguing against the bill is fine, though arguing that it's a woman's body so it's her choice seems to me to presuppose that the unborn are not people who are involved. Like if I said I could punch anyone in the face because my fist is part of my body, and no one should tell me what to do with my body. But at least that's arguing against the bill.

[Draco Dracul]

The Reagan administration included actively ignoring the AIDS crisis for the sake of wiping out gays

Any evidence of that motive?

I mean they laughed as the it killed people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... a99877bafb

People laugh at tragedies all the time.

People do laugh at tragedies all the time though. Ever heard of dark humour?

And in this case the joke is that they actively hindered the research and response to AIDS until it had started crossing over to white suburbanites by which point it had become a pandemic.

References?

The article I linked actually references that it was initially treated as a nonissue despite having, at the time of the press conference, a 33% mortality rate because it was the "gay plague".

Reagan didn't begin responding in earnest until it was given a face in Ryan White a young hemophiliac from Indiana. And even then it was focused more on moral crusading than actual research in to treatment with those at the CDC being told "Look pretty and do as little as possible"

That reference indicate that the Reagan administration was motivated by wanting limited government, not by "hate." There's a difference between "they should do more to save group X" and "they hate group X."

That's a reasonable assumptions, unless you start taking action when the same incident starts affecting group y and your efforts are primarily focused on helping group y despite group X being hit harder. Which is exactly what happened during the AIDS crisis.

[Yukaphile]

And you make assumptions too, assuming the bill has positives, that it isn't all negative. Unless you're suggesting state Democrats compromised with them? Which is possible. I'm also not "bewailing the supposed motives of people," I just think this is a huge step backwards and whatever tiny costs we might have theoretically gained are going to be drowned out by all the bad it unleashes. Even if you wanna argue their motives aren't bad, the end result will lead to a worse world, with more people suffering, and a specific type of people among that. I have every right to feel upset about that.

I do. Again, this is depressing, and I'm not even attacking people here, just a mindset I hate that's going to make the world a darker place where more people suffer.

The unborn can't make sentient decisions. The woman, her partner, can. I think the potential for a new child to live should be superseded by the mother who is already here. And her partner, yes. And punching people is not a good comparison. This is about childbirth and pregnancy, people who wanna regulate it, for whatever motives and reasons we wanna debate, and how childbirth is a huge burden and trauma on women. We gotta be more sensitive to that kinda stuff.

[Draco Dracul]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me, or maybe we just both have different ways of looking at the world. I don't think those disagreeing with me are evil, but I do think what they did in Alabama is wrong, and that if you wanna rules-lawyer this, yeah, of course we can't speak to their motives, but we can safely guess it. Even ignoring that, I just see this as the first step to more active oppression on women and reproductive issues, which out-of-touch lawmakers, religious groups, or anyone else shouldn't ever touch. It's like with Prohibition. I guess the only question is where it gets funded from, because if I maintain that lawmakers and religious groups and outsiders shouldn't regulate family planning, then who funds it? The government would mean lawmakers get a say because they're paying for it. A corporation would mean business suits should have some say because they're paying for it. That's where I think it becomes very complicated, but I still have my own subjective opinions on this, as do you.

I don't get how the two are the same past really quibbling over semantics. I mean, I've already conceded to you that on a pure hardcore technicality, since we don't know their motives, we can't say what it is. But I feel it's safe to speculate given it's a red state, a state with strong religious beliefs, and in the South. Is that discrimination? Yeah, to some degree, but I've spoken with many hardcore extreme right-wingers, of all ilk, don't get me wrong, not just men, women, and also a few minorities, who don't want women and even men to choose when they have children. It's not even those people I'm attacking so much as this mindset, that we gotta regulate morality, we gotta ban contraceptives because of a religious mindset (those kicking up the biggest fuss are, indisputably, people who think it's either abortion or just think we should keep multiplying "as per the good book," or that people should wait to get married before having sex, all sorts of ignorant nonsense they have no business forcing onto others), we gotta ban abortion, it's murder, and so on. There has been a movement ever since the 1970s to not only repeal Roe v Wade, but to ban birth control services and stuff that basically prevents pregnancy, because of all sorts of pseudo-moral/religious reasons, and it's gaining strength with certain lawmakers who, for whatever reasons you wanna think, give in and pass those laws. You maintain they're legitimately worried about the child. I think there's a strong strain of misogyny in there. They are not sensitive to the fact this is a woman's body, and she will have to do all the hard work, regardless of men, and they even go so far as to think a rape victim shouldn't get an abortion, or somehow convince themselves that birth from rape is not possible (refer to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment to get a clear idea as to this). I don't get why this is so upsetting for you for me to say that, past the fact I am not a right-winger, not particularly religious, and I'm strong on women's rights and civil rights. As I said, I don't think it makes those disagreeing with me evil, because I legitimately have a friend who is a left-wing Socialist, a "dirty red" as he calls himself, who is pro-life. Not anti-choice, here. I distinguish the two. Pro-life. The idea of wiping out a potential future life that could do so much good is very upsetting to him. I feel as if his concerns are more in favor of the potential of life and a child that could grow up to do so much good. Anti-choice, imo, carries a lot of religious judgment to it, moral crusading, and misogyny. Pinpointing which is hard, since from what I just described, I feel as if Fuzzy would call my friend anti-choice. The difference, I think, lies in the political motivations. He's a left-winger who is not a fan of capitalism, and believes in intersectionality, and has opposed attacks on women before. Those in the right wing pushing these lies or passing them tend to be very old-fashioned, older people, and... bear with me here, you'll probably call this an assumption, but I've met a few like this... are anti-SJW, hate political correctness, and think white men are the real victims now, while women and minorities are super privileged and favored by our society. I think that view is an extreme, as much as claiming white men are the devil. Granted, not everyone who is anti-choice or "pro-life" thinks that way, you can't boil down everyone to that mindset, but as you go further right and further left, you do tend to share a lot of similar views, it's how that ideological spectrum goes. And as I said, I'm not a hard leftist or righter. Is a lot of this making assumptions? Perhaps, but from my own past experience in dealing with a handful of them, and how their leaders discuss this in the political sphere. I ultimately hate the mindset, not the people. And I do hate how we're going backwards on women's rights at lightning speed.

The problem is that much of your argument has been bewailing the supposed motives of people, not the positives or negatives of the bill. You don't know the motives, so you're arguing against phantoms.

And I'm repeating this, but that some people on the right say or do X doesn't mean that these people on the right are passing this bill because they believe X. Not everyone on the right holds all the same beliefs, and you should know that.

Arguing against the bill is fine, though arguing that it's a woman's body so it's her choice seems to me to presuppose that the unborn are not people who are involved. Like if I said I could punch anyone in the face because my fist is part of my body, and no one should tell me what to do with my body. But at least that's arguing against the bill.

Okay, one of the negatives of the bill are that 12 year old girls raped by their fathers are going to have the career their child-siblings to term despite the extreme risk associated with pregnancy at that age.