Jump to content


Photo

Right Wing War Against Pro Choice.


  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#1 ralis

ralis

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Qigong

Posted 15 February 2012 - 04:34 PM

A number of Republican state legislatures, composed of control freak goons, are introducing bills that would make it illegal for a woman to choose termination of a pregnancy. Right wing Republicans assume a pretense of; smaller government, while instituting draconian measures against privacy. Roe v Wade is settled law and what right wing authoritarian fundamentalists fail to intellectually grasp, is that the ruling was in regards to a woman's privacy.




http://www.rhreality...ginia-and-texas

http://www.rawstory....-to-iowa-house/

Edited by ralis, 15 February 2012 - 04:39 PM.


#2 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:00 AM

Talk about a straw man - looks like the democrats will do damn near anything to avoid discussing Obama's record and the direction he's taken the country. They even betrayed Stephanopolous' being in bed with them still by bringing this question "out of nowhere" when jeez, the administration had already planned this and had their media lackeys segue the national conversation right there for them!

Truly pathetic.

And while I'm at it, let me ask a very blatant question - how in the hell can this honestly be framed with the verbiage "we need to make sure people have access to bc" which is a crock of shit - we all "have access" - why in the mind of progressives and democrats does

Access = Government provided, free of charge

*shakes head* ridiculous.

Always relying on a jacked up context. Arguing these points are like fighting a guerrilla war, the progressives can never stand up and let their points be shown light on even par with other ideas. Run out from behind a building, take a shot, run to another building, take a shot, run away and hide, go plant a bomb so that when it goes off you dont have to be there for it... :rolleyes:

#3 ralis

ralis

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Qigong

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:06 AM

Talk about a straw man - looks like the democrats will do damn near anything to avoid discussing Obama's record and the direction he's taken the country. They even betrayed Stephanopolous' being in bed with them still by bringing this question "out of nowhere" when jeez, the administration had already planned this and had their media lackeys segue the national conversation right there for them!


Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Further, what does this have to do with a woman's right to privacy as settled law in the case of Roe v Wade?



Always relying on a jacked up context. Arguing these points are like fighting a guerrilla war, the progressives can never stand up and let their points be shown light on even par with other ideas.


You have some strange notion that all ideas must be treated on equal footing. All ideas are not the same and fall into what Korzybski termed the 'structural differential'. E.g. creationists argue that creationism (falsely framed as creation science) must be treated as equal to evolution and therefor must be taught in public schools as scientific fact. Creationism is biblical myth and has no scientific grounding and therefor can never be equated with rigorous scientific inquiry.

You have a very bad habit of derailing threads and continue to posit specious arguments! My point was a women's right to privacy and the Republican agenda to deny those rights. Are you denying there is a right wing movement against a woman's right to privacy?

Edited by ralis, 16 February 2012 - 08:30 AM.


#4 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:23 AM

Yes indeed, what does all of this have to do with roe vs wade?

Here's a hint: its not Obama's record! A straw man argument creates a new argument, a new focus, to shift focus away from an argument that someone does not want to have.

You think Obama promoters want to talk about his record? :lol: The piles of debt, the terrible results, the necessarily skyrocketing gas prices, the huge increases of welfare and food stamps, undermining the second amendment with fast & furious, undermining the first amendment here dictating what a religious institution should provide for its members, "the secretary shall determine" a thousand times over?

You have got me be kidding me! Seriously man, the only transparent thing about the Obama administration has been the lies, everything else is obfuscation to "change the fundamentals" of the country. He's damn near campaigning on getting people addicted to government assistance.


Hannan put it pretty presciently: there's but a few of us here in europe that are trying to halt us going over the cliff, and we look in our rear view mirror to find the USA with its foot firmly on the accelerator coming after us!



#5 ralis

ralis

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Qigong

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:41 AM

Yes indeed, what does all of this have to do with roe vs wade?

Here's a hint: its not Obama's record! A straw man argument creates a new argument, a new focus, to shift focus away from an argument that someone does not want to have.


No! A straw man fallacy is to substitute a distorted version which is a misrepresentation of the original point.

As usual you are way off topic and your narrative is replete with non sequiturs.

#6 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:01 AM

No! A straw man fallacy is to substitute a distorted version which is a misrepresentation of the original point.

As usual you are way off topic and your narrative is replete with non sequiturs.

wiki:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
---

I dont pretend to assume you'd understand how something logically follows. You cant logically follow the course of progressivism, so you're already five legs down.

#7 ralis

ralis

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Qigong

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:13 AM

wiki:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
---

I dont pretend to assume you'd understand how something logically follows. You cant logically follow the course of progressivism, so you're already five legs down.



I am well versed in logic and math which is based in logic. I am not interested in your condescending attitude and derailment of my thread.

#8 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:22 AM

Sounds like a deal to me, you stop posting contrived misinformation and I'll stop coming in and debunking it ^_^ You might assert your understanding of logic but then you come up with illogical things bent on serving a particular purpose, most of which relies on spreading misinformation in order to further a political ideology.

Fact of the matter is, there is no "right wing conspiracy to deny people access to contraceptives." The argument is that people should not be forced to purchase it if they dont wish, it has absolutely zero to do with "access" unless of course "access" means "government supplied" which is not access, it is forced subsidization...

...and toss in the government attempting to dictate to religious institutions what they must do no matter if it goes against their very religion or not and you have yet another constitutional transgression by the admin,

and a straw man argument was contrived in order to create an issue for an ideology to rally around - one that steers well clear of relevant, important, issues of the day - and it is plainly transparent that this is simply a misdirection, away from the performance of the president's policies.

#9 ralis

ralis

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Qigong

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:28 AM

Sounds like a deal to me, you stop posting contrived misinformation and I'll stop coming in and debunking it ^_^ You might assert your understanding of logic but then you come up with illogical things bent on serving a particular purpose, most of which relies on spreading misinformation in order to further a political ideology.

Fact of the matter is, there is no "right wing conspiracy to deny people access to contraceptives." The argument is that people should not be forced to purchase it if they dont wish, it has absolutely zero to do with "access" unless of course "access" means "government supplied" which is not access, it is forced subsidization...

...and toss in the government attempting to dictate to religious institutions what they must do no matter if it goes against their very religion or not and you have yet another constitutional transgression by the admin,

and a straw man argument was contrived in order to create an issue for an ideology to rally around - one that steers well clear of relevant, important, issues of the day - and it is plainly transparent that this is simply a misdirection, away from the performance of the president's policies.


Did you bother to read the OP here? I am not talking about contraceptives. The post was in regards to abortion and a woman's right to privacy in making decisions in her own best interest. Several states are engaged in passing legislation to deny or interfere with that right. Virginia and Iowa are mentioned in the links I provided.

Edited by ralis, 16 February 2012 - 10:36 AM.


#10 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:37 AM

Well, I certainly wouldnt take such a narrow look at it as the "journalists" have done in writing - i.e. the rape correlation in the virgina consideration doesnt appear to be backed by the verbiage, and the Iowa one is quite devoid of information - a link to the actual bill would be helpful...unless of course if one read the entire bill one can come up with a different conclusion than the one asserted with such scant detail. It honestly seem odd that a bill would be introduced that would outlaw all abortions for any reason whatsoever in Iowa, but of course we dont know any of the other details from the OP because it was very careful in what was presented - because obviously that would go against roe vs wade, so it seems like there is more to the story than what is being presented...

...as usual.

#11 ralis

ralis

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Qigong

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:51 AM

Well, I certainly wouldnt take such a narrow look at it as the "journalists" have done in writing - i.e. the rape correlation in the virgina consideration doesnt appear to be backed by the verbiage, and the Iowa one is quite devoid of information - a link to the actual bill would be helpful...unless of course if one read the entire bill one can come up with a different conclusion than the one asserted with such scant detail. It honestly seem odd that a bill would be introduced that would outlaw all abortions for any reason whatsoever in Iowa, but of course we dont know any of the other details from the OP because it was very careful in what was presented - because obviously that would go against roe vs wade, so it seems like there is more to the story than what is being presented...

...as usual.


http://coolice.legis...se&hbill=HF2033

http://coolice.legis...se&hbill=HF2175

A little reading of the journalist's article in question would have given you the info. from the Iowa state legislature.

#12 Northern Avid Judo Ant

Northern Avid Judo Ant

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4531 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

anyone got a $20 on joeblast?

#13 konchog uma

konchog uma

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:-
    skygazing
    soothsaying
    swashbuckling

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:12 PM

anyone got a $20 on joeblast?


my money's on ralis
"All the philosophical theories that exist have been created by the mistaken dualistic minds of human beings. in the realm of philosophy, that which today is considered true, may tomorrow be proved to be false. No one can guarantee a philosophy's validity. Because of this any intellectual way of seeing whatsoever is always partial and relative. The fact is that there is no truth to see or to confirm logically; rather what one needs to do is to discover just how much the mind continually limits itself in a condition of dualism." -Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

#14 Northern Avid Judo Ant

Northern Avid Judo Ant

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4531 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:24 PM

haha you're on. so far, i do have to say this is going to be fun :lol:

#15 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:25 PM

http://coolice.legis...se&hbill=HF2033

http://coolice.legis...se&hbill=HF2175

A little reading of the journalist's article in question would have given you the info. from the Iowa state legislature.





House File 2033 - Introduced HOUSE FILE 2033 BY ROGERS A BILL FOR An Act establishing prerequisites to the performance of an abortion


H.F. 2033 Section 1. NEW SECTION . 146A.1 Prerequisites for abortion.
1 1. A physician performing an abortion shall certify in
2 the woman’s medical record all of the following prior to the
3 performance of an abortion:
4 a. That the woman has undergone an ultrasound imaging of the
5 fetus.
6 b. That the woman is given the opportunity to view the
7 ultrasound image of the fetus.
8 c. That the woman is given the option of hearing a
9 description of the ultrasound image and hearing the heartbeat
10 of the fetus.
11 2. A physician who does not comply with this section is
12 subject to license discipline pursuant to section 148.6.
13 3. For the purposes of this section, “abortion” means 14 abortion as defined in section 146.1.



sorry ralis, incorrect again.

it would help to read the links to be sure they cant be used as fodder against you before posting them.

this is a means to make a potential mother "look her fetus in the face" before killing it.

perhaps what isnt liked by the progressives is that it explicitly states that a cluster of cells = a human being. but that would be kinda contrary to the "compassionate" meme now wouldnt it?

#16 joeblast

joeblast

    Tao Bum!

  • The Tao Bums
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:26 PM

my money's on ralis

I'm sure hnjt will forgive you for making a decision based on the heart at the full exclusion of the mind "tempering" the decision :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users