Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[Gough]

If they hate abortion because the bible says so, then they're gonna hate what it says about perjury. Not that they really care

I've always thought that spoof horror film based on the bible has enormous potential.

 

[Gruffles]

Why are you talking about it, like the article is false? That OBGYN Caitlin Bernard is a liar?
We all know that she cannot give out personal details of patients, maybe she's already in trouble for what she's done so far.



Birdy made a statement. I responded with a link to support my response. You called out my response.

I'm sorry if you feel me replying with a subsequent news article was 'shaming you', that wasn't the intention. Rather the intention was to just show doubt was out there which had led to Birdy mentioning it.

I get it, this is a highly emotive subject but at no time have I said anything personal about anyone here. This is part of the reason I've generally stayed away from these discussions lately as it does feel like people are hunting for an argument rather than actual discussion, and I'm still fairly drained from the exhausting covid discussions over the last 2 years!

Also, I don't feel that I've spoken about the article like it is false. Do I doubt the story? I actually don't, but was it right to report it without further investigation, not in my opinion.

 

[CM86]

Rather the intention was to just show doubt was out there which had led to Birdy mentioning it.

Birdy stated it was important to know that it appears to be completely made up.

You keep reframing it as 'questioning', or 'showing doubt'.

I understand what the point you're trying to make is. I just don't understand why you're doing it in a dishonest way.

I think we should leave it there.

 

[Gruffles]

Birdy stated it was important to know that it appears to be completely made up.

You keep reframing it as 'questioning', or 'showing doubt'.

I understand what the point you're trying to make is. I just don't understand why you're doing it in a dishonest way.

I think we should leave it there.

Birdy's words aren't mine and it's completely disrespectful to say I'm being dishonest, when I'm clearly stating my opinion, and then have the gall to state we should leave it. I agree we should leave it... But how about doing it in a reasonable way?

You've jumped on some words that irk you in regards to someone else's statement (meanwhile, completely ignoring they've said 'appears to be') and are projecting that irk onto me.

This 'jumping down people's throats' when they enter the discussion just pushes people away from the discussion. From what I can see, we are both pro-abortion but all you've done is be combative towards me, making a suite of assumptions, rather than progress the discussion respectfully as Gralin did.

If you'd prefer not to have the pointless circular discussion that happens between the same 6 contributors for days on end then can I suggest shifting your approach?

 

[CM86]

Birdy's words aren't mine and it's completely disrespectful to say I'm being dishonest, when I'm clearly stating my opinion, and then have the gall to state we should leave it. I agree we should leave it... But how about doing it in a reasonable way?

You've jumped on some words that irk you in regards to someone else's statement (meanwhile, completely ignoring they've said 'appears to be') and are projecting that irk onto me.

This 'jumping down people's throats' when they enter the discussion just pushes people away from the discussion. From what I can see, we are both pro-abortion but all you've done is be combative towards me, making a suite of assumptions, rather than progress the discussion respectfully as Gralin did.

If you'd prefer not to have the pointless circular discussion that happens between the same 6 contributors for days on end then can I suggest shifting your approach?

You keep referencing Birdy's words, and when you do, you change what was actually said.

You also don't actually respond to what is being said, you just make statements that could be a response to most posts.


But, fair enough. Maybe you are good faith, and we are just talking past each other. Sorry.


Could you elaborate your position on the story?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but I've taken it as you saying you don't believe it's false, but that we should be sceptical of it?

 

[Gruffles]

also Gruffles my other issue with focusing on the extreme situations like the 10 year old, is it creates a how much misery is acceptable position for the other side.

Another statement I completely agree with and another unfortunate media issue on only reporting the 'extreme shock' stories.

This is where I feel the sheer power of something like what Chanel Contos did by collecting an unbelievable number of stories far outweighs the short term impact of the 'shock' story.

 

[Gruffles]

You keep referencing Birdy's words, and when you do, you change what was actually said.

I'm sorry... but by you ignoring the words "appears to be" and bolding the final part of the statement, I am not the one changing what was actually said. You cannot selectively quote a sentence as every word carries some level of weight in the overall meaning.

You also don't actually respond to what is being said, you just make statements that could be a response to most posts.

I am absolutely aware that my posts are wordy and I try and cut them back as much as possible, but I struggle as I don't want to lose what I think makes the statements clear (but maybe I'm completely wrong there!). But, I don't feel at any point that I'm not responding to what is actually being said. If you can point me to that, then I'd happily respond to those statements.

But, fair enough. Maybe you are good faith, and we are just talking past each other. Sorry.


Could you elaborate your position on the story?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but I've taken it as you saying you don't believe it's false, but that we should be sceptical of it?

No problems, thanks for the apology!
I feel like I've explained my position over a couple of posts but I'll try and summarise:

• Firstly, the media not doing their job properly just adds fuel to the opposing fires as reports can be downplayed/discredited way too easily
• If stories are being reported incorrectly (whether that's completely or partially) and then used to support a position, then when these are shown to be incorrect that can be easily used to support opposing positions. (Sorry to go all Damian Barrett 'sliding doors' here!)

This is where I'm trying to say we should be wary about immediately and blindly jumping on an article to support a position, and then attacking anyone that questions it after further articles are published. Because now there's doubt over it (whether that's justified or not, and unfortunately the poor reporting makes it easy for people to justify), and that only fuels the opposing opinion rather than the story being a 'shining light' for the original opinion (and the attacking could push peoples opinion in the wrong direction).

For me, these forums are super informative and sometimes quite eye opening as to where people's opinions lie. However from my point of view (sorry Chief!), we're not changing any regular contributor's opinions here as those people generally have already formed their opinion and shifting that is next to impossible. Where any sort of change will occur will be educating (not attacking) those that are yet to form an opinion or shifting those teetering on the edge of opinion, and the media (unfortunately) plays a strong role in this.

 

[CM86]

I'm sorry... but by you ignoring the words "appears to be" and bolding the final part of the statement, I am not the one changing what was actually said. You cannot selectively quote a sentence as every word carries some level of weight in the overall meaning.


I am absolutely aware that my posts are wordy and I try and cut them back as much as possible, but I struggle as I don't want to lose what I think makes the statements clear (but maybe I'm completely wrong there!). But, I don't feel at any point that I'm not responding to what is actually being said. If you can point me to that, then I'd happily respond to those statements.


No problems, thanks for the apology!
I feel like I've explained my position over a couple of posts but I'll try and summarise:

• Firstly, the media not doing their job properly just adds fuel to the opposing fires as reports can be downplayed/discredited way too easily
• If stories are being reported incorrectly (whether that's completely or partially) and then used to support a position, then when these are shown to be incorrect that can be easily used to support to opposing position. (Sorry to go all Damian Barrett 'sliding doors' here!)

This is where I'm trying to say we should be wary about immediately and blindly jumping on a story to support a position. Because now there's doubt over it (whether that's justified or not, and unfortunately the poor reporting makes it easy for people to justify), and that only fuels the opposing side opinion rather than the story being a 'shining light' for our side.

For me, these forums are super informative and sometimes quite eye opening as to where people's opinions lie. However from my point of view (sorry Chief!), we're not changing anyone's opinions here as the people that drift to these threads generally have already formed their opinion and shifting that is next to impossible. Where any sort of change will occur will be educating those that are yet to form an opinion or shifting those teetering on the edge of opinion, and the media (unfortunately) plays a strong role in this.

Thank you. And sorry, but I'm specifically asking you about this story. Because it was this story in this thread that you started the conversation around faith in media.

Can you elaborate your position on this story?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but I've taken it as you saying you don't believe it's false, but that we should be sceptical of it? Because we should be sceptical of all media?

 

[Gruffles]

Thank you. And sorry, but I'm specifically asking you about this story. Because it was this story in this thread that you started the conversation around faith in media.

Can you elaborate your position on this story?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but I've taken it as you saying you don't believe it's false, but that we should be sceptical of it? Because we should be sceptical of all media?

Is that not the story that this whole discussion has been about? There was a subsequent news article, which I linked in my original reply to you (#2504) that queried it (mainly around it's reporting and how it is now being used).

Sorry, but I'm not sure how much clearer I can be in my post above and in my last statement in #2528, "Do I doubt the story? I actually don't, but was it right to report it without further investigation, not in my opinion." This statement is in reference to the original story... ie, I believe it, but don't think it should've been reported without further investigation by the reporter. I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on as I feel like I'll be saying the same things all over again and that would just be wasting everyone's time.

 

[CM86]

Is that not the story that this whole discussion has been about? There was a subsequent news article, which I linked in my original reply to you (#2504) that queried it (mainly around it's reporting and how it is now being used).

Sorry, but I'm not sure how much clearer I can be in my post above and in my last statement in #2528, "Do I doubt the story? I actually don't, but was it right to report it without further investigation, not in my opinion." This statement is in reference to the original story... ie, I believe it, but don't think it should've been reported without further investigation by the reporter. I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on as I feel like I'll be saying the same thing all over again and that would just be wasting everyone's time.

Thank you.

I think it's good and interesting that you have put faith into your article. I'll put faith into my article.

To me, the media creates the narrative, and in this case the narrative is that the story is shrouded in doubt, and can be dismissed.

It's impossible to verify the story. And in fact it shouldn't ever have been shared with the public in the first place.

I've chosen to believe it, because I understand it's a scenario that can happen, and probably has happened more than once.
The main thrust of the discussion should be around the story, even if it's treated as a hypothetical.
Rather than a discussion on why we should doubt the story. Or why we should hold one 'side' to account, while the other 'side' pumps out disinformation.

 

[Gruffles]

I think it's good and interesting that you have put faith into your article. I'll put faith into my article.

Neither of them are "my" article and you seem to be ignoring that I've repeatedly stated that I believe the story in the first article. I'm just showing that the poor reporting has created doubt, as seen in the second article, which hampers the situation rather than helps. You seem to be hunting for some hidden meaning in what I'm saying rather than just taking my statements as they're being said.

To me, the media creates the narrative, and in this case the narrative is that the story is shrouded in doubt, and can be dismissed.

It's impossible to verify the story. And in fact it shouldn't ever have been shared with the public in the first place.

I agree that the media are a big part of creating the narrative, and the fact that they're crap at their job is what's making the narrative a complete mess.
The bolded above is exactly what I've been saying this whole time!

I've chosen to believe it, because I understand it's a scenario that can happen, and probably has happened more than once.
The main thrust of the discussion should be around the story, even if it's treated as a hypothetical.
Rather than a discussion on why we should doubt the story. Or why we should hold one 'side' to account, while the other 'side' pumps out disinformation.

I don't doubt it's a scenario that could happen, but saying that it has probably happened more than once without any supporting information just adds a potential easy counter argument point. I try and stay away from statements that can't be supported as it doesn't strengthen the point and may, in fact, weaken it.

Discussing hypotheticals is helpful, but treating a news story as acceptable because it could hypothetically be true just points to how crap the news is being reported at the moment and goes back to my earlier statement of "if the media report on something the reader likes then they take it as fact ("prove it wrong!" being yelled at anyone who questions it), but if they report on something the reader doesn't like then they demand the truth ("where's their sources!" etc)". This just means that they can report anything because it will be accepted by one "side". Rarely is a news report not hypothetically possible, but this shouldn't fly in terms of our expectations here. So... in summary, all "sides" should be held to account.

 

[CM86]

Neither of them are "my" article and you seem to be ignoring that I've repeatedly stated that I believe the story in the first article. I'm just showing that the poor reporting has created doubt, as seen in the second article, which hampers the situation rather than helps. You seem to be hunting for some hidden meaning in what I'm saying rather than just taking my statements as they're being said.


I agree that the media are a big part of creating the narrative, and the fact that they're crap at their job is what's making the narrative a complete mess.
The bolded above is exactly what I've been saying this whole time!

I don't doubt it's a scenario that could happen, but saying that it has probably happened more than once without any supporting information just adds a potential easy counter argument point. I try and stay away from statements that can't be supported as it doesn't strengthen the point and may, in fact, weaken it.

Discussing hypotheticals is helpful, but treating a news story as acceptable because it could hypothetically be true just points to how crap the news is being reported at the moment and goes back to my earlier statement of "if the media report on something the reader likes then they take it as fact ("prove it wrong!" being yelled at anyone who questions it), but if they report on something the reader doesn't like then they demand the truth ("where's their sources!" etc)". This just means that they can report anything because it will be accepted by one "side". Rarely is a news report not hypothetically possible, but this shouldn't fly in terms of our expectations here. So... in summary, all "sides" should be held to account.

No, my point is the people casting doubt on the story, know that it can't be verified due to confidentiality. The OBGYN shouldn't be sharing information about a patient.

So demanding a source, when you know it's not possible, is deliberately setting a narrative of doubt and controlling the conversation. That's not acceptable reporting. The fact they are JAQing off, knowing the answer to their questions, is a problem.


Why is the legitimacy of the story, bigger than the initial story?

 

[Gruffles]

No, my point is the people casting doubt on the story, know that it can't be verified due to confidentiality. The OBGYN shouldn't be sharing information about a patient.

So demanding a source, when you know it's not possible, is deliberately setting a narrative of doubt and controlling the conversation. That's not acceptable reporting. The fact they are JAQing off, knowing the answer to their questions, is a problem.


Why is the legitimacy of the story, bigger than the initial story?

As you've already stated, and is my overall point, the story should never have been printed in the first place. Can I ask, have you actually read the article I linked from the Washington Post? It is not saying that the story is not true, but rather that it is next to impossible to fact check due to the limitations on the story.

And if you don't see the importance of legitimacy in news reporting then I don't know what else to say. If the initial story was anti-abortion would you not want to question it's legitimacy?

I can't remember if you were part of the covid discussions but a large component of it was fact checking the rubbish articles posted by those who were questioning the vaccines. The same should be expected, and welcomed, in return when posting any supporting articles.

 

[CM86]

As you've already stated, and is my overall point, the story should never have been printed in the first place. Can I ask, have you actually read the article I linked from the Washington Post? It is not saying that the story is not true, but rather that it is next to impossible to fact check due to the limitations on the story.

And if you don't see the importance of legitimacy in news reporting then I don't know what else to say. If the initial story was anti-abortion would you not want to question it's legitimacy?

That's strange. I feel I have been pretty clear. Did you really not understand my point?

 

[Gruffles]

That's strange. I feel I have been pretty clear. Did you really not understand my point?

I think we'll leave it there, particularly as there were 2 clear questions in my post that were posed to continue the discussion that you've decided to ignore.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

infants get free admission to those things and who is taking thier infant to a gig?

Except unders 2s already go free on those things. Price is determined by space taken up not number of brains. If there is one thing the usa is good at its rational capitalism.

A lot of places already do under 2 free. Eg I think planes where child is strapped to parent are free

Fair enough. I'm happy to have been educated on this point

 

[CM86]

Can I ask, have you actually read the article I linked from the Washington Post?

Yes.

If the initial story was anti-abortion would you not want to question it's legitimacy?

Yes.

 

[cartwright]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/07/11/ohio_attorney_general_not_a_whisper_about_10-year-old_denied_abortion_in_states_centralized_law_enforcement_system.html

Well it probably won't happen because a 10 year old taking a baby to term is clearly dangerous, and the exemption would apply in Ohio.

I guess it could happen if a doctor believed there was no exemption in place, which is why the truth is really important, regardless of views of the law in question.

I’m sorry, but it could happen, in the so-called United States where a child can be forced to carry a fetus and forced to contine with that pregnancy.

Asked specifically whether a 12-year-old child molested by a family member "should carry that pregnancy to term,” the GOP lawmaker replied, “That is my personal belief.”

And as things stand, Gunn’s personal belief is in line with Mississippi law.

Mississippi speaker: No abortions for 12-year-old incest victims

Asked whether a 12-year-old child molested by a family member should carry a pregnancy to term, Philip Gunn replied, “That is my personal belief.”

www.msnbc.com

 

[Gruffles]

Yes.


Yes.

So why is it acceptable in your eyes to discuss the legitimacy of one article but not the other?

I actually have concerns that the actions of the media (even if they are pro-abortion) are going to hinder the cause for positive change because, left unchecked, they will end up providing fuel for the opposition whether they intended to or not.

 

[CM86]

So why is it acceptable in your eyes to discuss the legitimacy of one article but not the other?

I actually have concerns that the actions of the media (even if they are pro-abortion) are going to hinder the cause for positive change because, left unchecked, they will end up providing fuel for the opposition whether they intended to or not.

It's always acceptable to discuss the legitimacy of articles. In good faith.

Do you accept that there are bad faith approaches to delegitimise articles?

I understand what you mean about hindering the cause. But there is a spectrum between legitimate criticism, and falling into the trap of making a bigger deal out of something than it needs to be.

I think it's fair to say that the anecdote is not evidence, and that it shouldn't be used as a story of something that actually happened.
But that it's a legitimate scenario, and that's what should be the focus of discussion.

Rather than discussing it as false, because it's so outlandish that it cannot be true.

It needs to be understood that as shocking as it sounds, it's a realistic scenario that may have or could happen. And that the outrage and shock is fair.
Instead it's being pushed aside as untrue, therefore unbelievable.

Do you see how you turning it into a bigger deal, and discussing it in their terms, "adds fuel for the opposition"?

 

[Gough]

So why is it acceptable in your eyes to discuss the legitimacy of one article but not the other?

I actually have concerns that the actions of the media (even if they are pro-abortion) are going to hinder the cause for positive change because, left unchecked, they will end up providing fuel for the opposition whether they intended to or not.

Vanilla ISIS remove a woman's right to proper healthcare and it's the media to blame. This is Trumpian in it's stupidity.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Asked specifically whether a 12-year-old child molested by a family member "should carry that pregnancy to term,” the GOP lawmaker replied, “That is my personal belief.”

And as things stand, Gunn’s personal belief is in line with Mississippi law.

Mississippi speaker: No abortions for 12-year-old incest victims

Asked whether a 12-year-old child molested by a family member should carry a pregnancy to term, Philip Gunn replied, “That is my personal belief.”

www.msnbc.com

Mississippi Law allows abortion up to 15 weeks.

It also has an exemption for medical emergencies.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2018/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1510SG.pdf

So a 6 week and 3 days pregnant person will be able to get an abortion in Mississippi.

In Arkansas a 10 year old will be able to get an abortion at any time due to the medical emergency exemption.

https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Acts/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2019R%2FPublic%2F&file=180.pdf&ddBienniumSession=2019%2F2019R

Of course, if your are going to raise hypotheticals which have significant differences to the story I was referring to then yes I guess those instances could happen.

 

[Gruffles]

Vanilla ISIS remove a woman's right to proper healthcare and it's the media to blame. This is Trumpian in it's stupidity.

I never said it was the media to blame. Read the comment again without trying to find some hidden meaning that just isn't there. I'm concerned the media's incompetence is going to make it more difficult for the right people to make the right change in establishing woman's rights to proper healthcare.

The amount of assumptive attack that goes on in these threads is completely and utterly ridiculous and only discourages people from fruitful discussion. That in itself is going to hamper progress! This continual "attack mentality" riddled with insults will end up pushing people who are undecided or teetering on decision in the wrong direction. Why would people side with someone's opinion if they are just attacked when they try to open up discussion? So, the net effect is actually 0 (or potentially even negative) with that approach and you end up not helping the cause at all.

 

[Gruffles]

It's always acceptable to discuss the legitimacy of articles. In good faith.

Do you accept that there are bad faith approaches to delegitimise articles?

Absolutely I do. This is not one of those times though.

I understand what you mean about hindering the cause. But there is a spectrum between legitimate criticism, and falling into the trap of making a bigger deal out of something than it needs to be.

I think it's fair to say that the anecdote is not evidence, and that it shouldn't be used as a story of something that actually happened.
But that it's a legitimate scenario, and that's what should be the focus of discussion.

Once again, I agree here. But the focus has only been pushed away by the attack approach to the discussion. All that was provided was what was currently out there being used by opposing opinions. Ignoring or dismissing it just further encourages those with opposing opinions. Disarming it by discussing it in good faith is much more effective.

Rather than discussing it as false, because it's so outlandish that it cannot be true.

It needs to be understood that as shocking as it sounds, it's a realistic scenario that may have or could happen. And that the outrage and shock is fair.
Instead it's being pushed aside as untrue, therefore unbelievable.

I can't see where this has happened at all in the discussion. At no point was it said that it is false or unbelievable (once again, I've said on multiple occasions that I think it IS true - a point you seem to continually ignore). At no point did I say that it was outlandish. At no point am I saying the story should be pushed aside as it is out there now so discussion around it is expected. These are your words that you are bringing into the discussion.

Outrage and shock towards this situation is absolutely fair and I would be disappointed in anyone who didn't feel any sort of shock to the story.

Do you see how you turning it into a bigger deal, and discussing it in their terms, "adds fuel for the opposition"?

I don't believe that I was the one that turned this into a "bigger deal" and if you can point me to where I've discussed it in "their" terms because that was not my intention. I'm not adding any fuel... the fuel is already out there. Ignoring the fuel will only allow the fire to burn for longer.

What has happened here is media's need to be the first to report, rather than reporting with integrity has created a situation where the opposition has fuel for their fire, as well as now putting the child who is already dealing with a horrendous situation into an even more horrendous situation where they've lost control of what I'm sure they hoped was a private situation and potentially now dealing with the fear of people trying to find out where and potentially who the article is referring to. This is completely irresponsible on all fronts.

In any case, this whole discussion is starting to completely derail the thread. I've only ever continued to reply here as I feel you've continually posted in a way that attempts to paint me in a bad light, rather than just discussing the information. I'll continue to defend my position if I feel the need to, but I don't believe the discussion ever needed to go this far if done appropriately.

 

[faible]

I see Gruffles is meeting SRP, where even if you're not supporting something people disagree with, they'll find a way to make it seem like you do.