Joe Rogan defends abortion in case of rape

[Roy]

One of the things I see quite frequently from the pro-choice side is someone claiming that they are for "reasonable restrictions" on abortions. At the same time, when that person is pressed on what is "reasonable," they literally can't come up with a single restriction they would stand behind.

Have you seen that happen here? If not, you're just proving my point.

[Roy]

Reasoned debate on abortion is impossible here because the anti-abortion posters assume that anyone who would permit any abortion at all,** even on medical or rape grounds, would permit abortion under any circumstances, ...

The Mississippi law that was used to overturn Roe V Wade is on par with France's current laws and yet the Left still was hysterical. Democrats refused to provide federal protection to abortion survivors. The Left wants abortion carte blanche and anything less is considered oppressive and draconian.

Yes, that's the attitude I was referring to. A total refusal to deal with any poster's actual views.

[Roy]

As soon as I saw H_A's question, I knew it wouldn't be answered. The only uncertainty was whether it would be ignored or dodged.

I learned how to do that from the mistress of ignore and dodge herself, HA. As you can see, she ignores and dodges most questions, including mine to her.

And I did answer it.

Bovine faeces. You did not.

[Cow Poke]

One of us is confused ...

why not both.gif

[Diogenes]

Yes, that's the attitude I was referring to. A total refusal to deal with any poster's actual views.

At no point have I refused to deal with any poster's actual views.

[CivilDiscourse]

Have you seen that happen here? If not, you're just proving my point.

I don't grace the abortion forum here.

[oxmixmudd]

You didn’t read my post. I said that unbelievers who believed evolution are worshipping a god, as are unbelievers who worship money or sex or, "the right of a woman to choose" or anything else instead of the Creator.

I specifically said I wasn’t referring to believers.

I don't see that, again, as reasonable. Not that unbelievers have other things they see as more important or more believable than our faith, but that evolution itself must necessarily be 'a god' if they are an unbeliever. Whatever is most important to a person becomes their 'god' in that sense, and for most people evolution is a sidebar, something they accept as true but hardly of any real importance to them. The focus on evolution is misplaced.

[Roy]

At no point have I refused to deal with any poster's actual views.

You literally just responded to a comment about the views of posters here being ignored with a complaint about "Democrats" and "the Left".

[Diogenes]

You literally just responded to a comment about the views of posters here being ignored with a complaint about "Democrats" and "the Left".

You made a general point about unnamed posters and I made a point about broader views, Whether you agree with the votes or not, Democrats in Congress voted against giving specific federal protection to abortion survivors. More than likely, someone you would have voted for in general election would have voted the same way assuming you're not represented by one of those Democrats in Congress.


Do you disagree with the Mississippi law that allows for unrestricted elective abortions up to 15 weeks and then requires severe abnormality or physical endangerment to the mother?



You are certainly free to detail your specific view to which I can respond. Until you specify your view, I cannot respond to your specific views.

[oxmixmudd]

One of the things I see quite frequently from the pro-choice side is someone claiming that they are for "reasonable restrictions" on abortions. At the same time, when that person is pressed on what is "reasonable," they literally can't come up with a single restriction they would stand behind. They act like if they acquiesce to a specific restriction, no matter how rare it might be, then it opens the floodgate to every other restriction. Yet, those same people will still claim that they are for "reasonable restrictions on abortion."

Many public advocates of choice are nearly as foaming at the mouth radical as the the public face of pro-choice. What I don't have is a good window into is the relative extremity of the privately held pro-choice views. I am fairly certain that the privately held pro life views are reasonably well represented here, there isn't much room for exceptions on that side of the debate publicly or privately.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Mossy, that isn't a reasonable conclusion. There are many believers that accept evolution as true. The acceptance of evolution as a valid scientific explanation of the history of life on the Earth has no direct implication as to what or who people worship. In fact most people put themselves first on the hierarchy of things they value, including many if not most Christians.

Perhaps the good lady does not consider such people to be "true" Christians.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would be a struggle, as it probably would be for whag, but I'm confident* that neither of us would disembowel the children with spears.

Clearly not, but not for the reason you seem to think.

*Typical Brit understatement here.

Do you think that if Netanyahu decided to exterminate all Palestinians and justified his actions by stating he was acting on divine orders some Christians here would merely shrug and give him the proverbial thumbs up?

[CivilDiscourse]

Many public advocates of choice are nearly as foaming at the mouth radical as the the public face of pro-choice. What I don't have is a good window into is the relative extremity of the privately held pro-choice views. I am fairly certain that the privately held pro life views are reasonably well represented here, there isn't much room for exceptions on that side of the debate publicly or privately.

I always consider the phrase "reasonable restrictions" to be a weasel word. It sounds rational, but so long as "reasonable" is undefined it leaves the user to be as radical as they want, and leave the listener to assume a more charitable interpretation of "reasonable". It's why I've gotten into conversations with people who claim they are for "reasonable restrictions." (In particular, I recall conversations on "the forum that shall not be named" with a particular poster that went through a particular cycle.

"I'm for reasonable restrictions on abortion"
"Like what: <reference poll on what majority of americans feel are reasonable restrictions> 24-hour waiting period?"
"No, that's unreasonable"
"First Trimester?"
"No, that's unreasonable"
"Doctor have Hospital Admitting privileges?"
"No, that's unreasonable"
"See an ultrasound"
"No, that's unreasonable"
"What about the level of restrictions in europe"
"No, that's unreasonable"
"Ok, can YOU name what is a reasonable restriction"
"Not off the top of my head"

[Diogenes]

Do you think that if Netanyahu decided to exterminate all Palestinians and justified his actions by stating he was acting on divine orders some Christians here would merely shrug and give him the proverbial thumbs up?

Icelanders already support and have been rather successful in the Nazi-esque eugenic eradication of Down Syndrome so what is approved by individuals varies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Icelanders already support and have been rather successful in the Nazi-esque eugenic eradication of Down Syndrome so what is approved by individuals varies.

Go and play.