Tiassa trolls a thread about abortion

Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread:
Most Americans say abortion should be legal

-------

I find myself recalling the time when two threads over the course of something like sixteen months explored the personhood proposition, and none of the anti-abortion participants would acknowledge the humanity or human rights of women.

• • •​

Dave, do you acknowledge and affirm that women are human beings and have human rights?

• • •​

James, it's inherent in the argument: DaveC426913, Seattle, and James R expressed reservations; Billvon acknowledges those reservations.

Do we really need to keep score? At that point, it's four to two at best, with three unknown.

Pretending unawareness and incomprehension, as the two sentences of your reply to Cluelesshusbund did, only undermines you.

James, do you acknowledge and affirm that women are human beings and have human rights?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course they are and no one implied otherwise. In fact, most everyone seems to be in favor of a woman's right to choose under all but the most extreme scenario and some are even arguing that that extreme scenario doesn't actually exist so it would seem that everyone fully supports a woman's right to choose.

Why is there even any pushback here? What is there to push back on?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None.
Eight votes none against.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet, you can't actually come out and say it. The reason I can't make that guess for you is just as obvious, James: "I voted the same way, for the same reason," you said. That reservation is the argument against saying it for you.

I know the turnabout feels good, James, but it doesn't work when it's just your make-believe: It's not a matter of unawareness and incomprehension, but that the reservation challenges, even precludes, affirmation.

 

Win/win for him. If you answer literally he can say "it's sad that you think you have to actually say that" and if you don't, he can say "you can't come out and say it."

 

Is the problem that you can't, or simply won't?

• • •​

There is something severely wrong with you if you think the human rights of women are a trap.

 

Human rights for women are straightforward. It's your use of them for your own agenda that is the trap. You like nothing better than hitting someone here with a "GOTCHA!"

Sad that for you, women's rights are a rhetorical game that you can use to slam people with.

 

What about affirming the human rights of women frightens you so badly that you need to make believe, Bill?

 

Tiassa, have you and Bells run out of things to be outraged by? Everyone in here voted virtually the same way, for a woman's right to choose.

 

I rest my case.

 

That you need to reduce the discussion to something so ridiculous only underscores the point: You're a dude circusmcribing the human rights of a woman, apparently because of some hypothetical dude.

You even set up a poll for the sake of a word game.

The question you refuse to answer↑ is only reinforced: James, do you acknowledge and affirm that women are human beings and have human rights?

It's one thing to scoff at the question, or chide its asking, but you're down to word games. Maybe there's a reason you're afraid to answer it.

 

No, James, your position on a woman's right to choose as long as her decision meets your critera is quite clear.

The question was whether you acknowledge and affirm a woman's humanity and human rights. Simply saying yes would have required far fewer words than you have spent on fallacy and prevarication.

When your argument is that your argument is not circumscribing rights because you're "not a lawmaker", neither are you a comedian, though clearly not to be taken seriously.

Because Gallup doesn't trade in one-day crackpottery. Taking it up with Gallup, as you have it, is fallacious.

Again, it would take far fewer words to say yes. Or no, if that's what the problem is.

†​

Anecdote; we can look up the detail, later. There was a time, a bit over a decade ago, one of our neighbors scoffed at certain danger of anti-abortion rhetoric because, as they explained, that sort of problem would only come about if people like me were in charge.

Anyway, the episode comes to mind because the Alabama State Supreme Court has brought that danger to bear with its IVF ruling.

Still, though, I can actually tell you how those judges are like me: We know something about how the abortion discussion goes, i.e., we know a particular argument, a rhetorical construction, exists.

I know it exists because conservatives have been telling us it's what they want; these conservative judges know it exists because it is what they want. It doesn't actually work, but creates a circumstance literally impossible for any responsible government to properly abide. That it doesn't work doesn't matter to them; they're in charge and think they have a chance to make it stick. And conservatives have been telling us since long before our neighbor scoffed at the dangers of the argument.

Seriously, the only reason the decison might be surprising is that they actually went and did it. The only reason they didn't do this before has to do with the dignity of the Court, because the argument doesn't actually work. But inasmuch as they can actually inflict in the meantime, they don't see any reason not to, at this point. The Supreme Court of the United States is making it up as they go, so any state courts similarly inclined have no reason to not.

But, yeah, these days there is a saying going 'round: When they tell you who they are, believe them.

They've been telling us for a long time.

 

You're right, James, there has never been any question that you are unwilling to explicitly acknowledge and affirm the human rights of women.

 

He has on several occasions, and you know this. Shame on you for trolling.