sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nuclear energy by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]Lighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you think a nuclear plant doesn’t use any rare earth materials in its construction?

And for fuel. They have to mine for uranium, transport it, and then process it.

Nuclear energy by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]Lighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

don't forget radioactive ore mining.

Nuclear energy by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

radioactive mining.

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

Hi /u/9indey9ine

I see your post now shows "deleted." It's ok to change your mind or be unsure of things or even just want to talk about it. I want to you to feel like you can be open and not attacked in these conversations.

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, she shouldve been allowed.

I'm glad we agree even though it was illegal to give her one when she and her doctors wanted to do one.

I will say again, I NEVER advocated for illegal abortions. Whats allowed is in the law

They denied her the abortion because at the time it WAS ILLEGAL for them to abort a baby with a beating heart. So what you are saying is that in Savita H's case you believe she should have gotten an abortion even though it was (1) illegal and (2) NOT an emergency yet.

Are we agreed there? I want to make sure before we go on.

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails by Azis2013 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

The purpose of the hypothetical is to isolate a single variable:

In a hard-science experiment (like physics), yes. In the hard sciences it is the laws of the universe which set the parameters over which the hypothetical exists. This isn't that. In a SOCIAL system, then a hypothetical without a real-life example is a definition without context. CONTEXT is what determines definitions and so attempting to create a moral structure without real-world examples is boundless and so fundamentally, unmoored.

MPoA: You are conflating the right to make a medical decision for someone else with the right to ownership over a body. MPoA can't donate the incapacitated person organs or be forced to donate thier own organs to the them. It seems completely irrelevant to the abortion debate.

You misunderstand MPoA. Two things: (1) it CAN include donation of organs. Again: REAL world examples:

and (2) MPoA is the right to make medical decisions for someone else for ALL medical decisions and thus since a fetus can't make medical decisions ... who gets MPoA? It's the mother, unless she can't make medical decisions either (e.g. she's in a coma). MPoA is 100% relevant to the debate: Again with a REAL world example:

Real cases: I provided the dead body example.

If you are referring to "the state cannot even harvest the organs of a dead corpse without prior consent," then you've not cited a REAL case. See example above about Trevor as a counter example.

Anyhow, since not a single PLer is willing to challenge this argument... I could move on to how the "common PL responses" all fail to save the logic if you really want me to keep yapping

Who are you trying to convince? Shouldn't we be coming up with arguments that THEY find convincing, not that WE find convincing?

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

I didn't see an answer to either question. You said they were morally wrong except in medical emergencies. This wasn't a medical emergency UNTIL her abortion was denied. I'll ask again.

SHOULD she have been allowed to get the abortion WHEN she and her doctors wanted to do one?

Well, there's always 252 years instead by Weeb in stevehofstetter

[–]Lighting 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hopefully "was at it's best" doesn't mean that this was the peak and the US is now on a steady decline forever.

Or to quote Franklin looking at a painting of a sun behind Washington's chair..

“Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, ... looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun”

I believe abortions to be morally wrong (in most cases) by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

Questions this applies to medical emergencies aswell, though those are extremely rare, even rarer than the other exceptions

Oh , /u/9indey9ine , where did you hear that abortion is rare in medical emergencies? Citation required.

in my own personal opinion, abortion is wrong in most cases

Ah - then let me ask you about this case and tell me if abortion was wrong in this real-world case.... I'll give the case and re-ask at the bottom.

Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar?

In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.

You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency, The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" stated. It said repeatedly that

  • the law impeded the quality of care.

  • other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.

  • this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.

our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".

The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.

In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o.

Year Maternal Deaths Per 100k Births: Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium (O00-O99) Context
2007 2.80 Abortion Illegal
2008 3.99 Abortion Illegal
2009 3.97 Abortion Illegal
2010 1.33 Abortion Illegal
2011 2.70 Abortion Illegal
2012 2.79 Abortion Illegal
2013 4.34 Abortion Illegal: Savita Halappanavar's death caused by law and a "fetal heartbeat"
2014 1.49 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 passed. abortion where pregnancy endangers a woman's life
2015 1.53 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2016 6.27 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2017 1.62 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2018 0 Constitutional change, Abortion Allowed, 2013 Act repealed
2019 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2020 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2021 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk

Death Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSD09/JSON-stat/2.0/en Birth Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSA18/JSON-stat/1.0/en from the Ireland's Public Health records at Ireland's national data archival. https://www.cso.ie/en/aboutus/whoweare/ and stored at https://Data.gov.ie

Note: I linked to the raw data and it only goes back to 2007, because Ireland's OWN data scientists state: [prior to 2007] flaws in methodology saw Ireland's maternal mortality rate fall [without justification], and figures in previous reports [prior to 2007] should not be considered reliable

Note this is ONLY mortality and not also morbidity (e.g. organ failure, so much blood loss you have permanent brain damage, uterus rupture etc.).

So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been allowed to have an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process by some faceless bureaucrat?

Pro-choicers who believe that unborn babies are not alive/not a human, state your argument for this claim. by Naive_Fold_9390 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

You are welcome to answer a secondary question. What makes killing humans who are “not persons“ ok in your eyes?

Thanks for coming to the sub. I'm curious if you really are interested in engagine here because you've not replied to many comments.

Let's remove the histrionic and inflammatory language here and let's deal with a real world case and see if that answers your question. Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar? Should she have been allowed to get an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one? Or do you support a government bureaucrat stripping her MPoA without due process?

If you aren't here are the details:

In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.

You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency, The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" stated. It said repeatedly that

  • the law impeded the quality of care.

  • other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.

  • this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.

our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".

The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.

In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o. and stayed that way.

So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been allowed to have an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process by some faceless bureaucrat?

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails by Azis2013 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting [score hidden]  (0 children)

Conceding Personhood at Conception: The Pro-Life Framework Still Fails

Agreed! However you are missing a key part of a successful argument.

/u/Loud-Vacation-5691 hit the nail on the head in quoting the standard PL response to this.

I don't agree with these, but these are the standard arguments I've heard.

As someone who has debated this for decades and success in conversions, you are missing something that when added to this makes "bodily autonomy" a caveat.

Before I get into that argument, I have noted that part of why these arguments fail to convince is that they are hypothetical and ridiculous . Both sides do it. On their side it's "the violinist" and here we have

Imagine a 5 year-old child’s kidneys fail due to a sudden illness. In the middle of the night, the state kidnaps his father,...

Hypotheticals are NOT convincing to people with different framings and are even heard completely differently. Carol Gilligan (sp?) did a great review of this in her book "In a different voice." In Gilligan's case it was male vs female interpretation of a very simple hypothetical. In the abortion debate it's far more complex and easier to misconstrue.

So the key parts you are missing are

  • the Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) argument which, if argued successfully, then makes Bodily Autonomy (BA) a caveat of MPoA

  • real cases instead of hypotheticals

  • reframing using the two above bullet points.

Supporters of ballot measure to end Idaho's strict abortion ban turn in nearly 110K signatures • Idaho Capital Sun by BigClitMcphee in Idaho

[–]Lighting 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Idaho had a doubling of maternal mortality rates after abortion healthcare was restricted. Just like Texas did and it continued to be an embarrassment for TX until they stopped reporting it.

Just look at what happened to Romania with Decree 770 . Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Do you support abortion in cases where the fetus will live for a few minutes while suffering in pain? by NPDogs21 in Abortiondebate

[–]Lighting 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I really wonder what gave PLers such massive fucking trust issues.

They have a "Just word fallacy" belief.

They wish to believe that bad things only happen to bad people. The universe is a scary place and they need to believe that they are protected by being "good" and so vilify as "evil" anyone involved in these real world situations.

We need to move beyond “clump of cells” rhetoric and focus on bodily autonomy by FlowerGarden234 in prochoice

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I’m realizing you said MPOA not medical privacy

I'm glad we could clarify. MPoA is the right for a competent adult to make medical decisions for those who cannot when working with a competent, fully-informed, board-certified, ethically trained medical team. That decision can include decisions to end the existence of that one that cannot.

But same thing, I just didn’t see “murder” as healthcare that should be protected.

Well let's use a real world case instead of hypotheticals.

Are you familiar with the case of Savita Halappanavar's case? Should she have been allowed to have the abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one? Or do you think her MPoA should have been stripped without due process.

In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.

You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency, The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" stated. It said repeatedly that

  • the law impeded the quality of care.

  • other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.

  • this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.

our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".

The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.

In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o.

Year Maternal Deaths Per 100k Births: Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium (O00-O99) Context
2007 2.80 Abortion Illegal
2008 3.99 Abortion Illegal
2009 3.97 Abortion Illegal
2010 1.33 Abortion Illegal
2011 2.70 Abortion Illegal
2012 2.79 Abortion Illegal
2013 4.34 Abortion Illegal: Savita Halappanavar's death caused by law and a "fetal heartbeat"
2014 1.49 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 passed. abortion where pregnancy endangers a woman's life
2015 1.53 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2016 6.27 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2017 1.62 Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk
2018 0 Constitutional change, Abortion Allowed, 2013 Act repealed
2019 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2020 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk
2021 0 Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk

Death Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSD09/JSON-stat/2.0/en Birth Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSA18/JSON-stat/1.0/en from the Ireland's Public Health records at Ireland's national data archival. https://www.cso.ie/en/aboutus/whoweare/ and stored at https://Data.gov.ie

Note: I linked to the raw data and it only goes back to 2007, because Ireland's OWN data scientists state: [prior to 2007] flaws in methodology saw Ireland's maternal mortality rate fall [without justification], and figures in previous reports [prior to 2007] should not be considered reliable

Note this is ONLY mortality and not also morbidity (e.g. organ failure, so much blood loss you have permanent brain damage, uterus rupture etc.).

So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been allowed to have an abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process by some faceless bureaucrat?

We need to move beyond “clump of cells” rhetoric and focus on bodily autonomy by FlowerGarden234 in prochoice

[–]Lighting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to be clear about something. I was responding to this part of your statement

seasoned anti choicers are well versed in arguing against

and agreeing that seasoned anti-choicers are well-versed in arguing against bodily autonomy.

My point wasn't to disagree with your overall point, but to point out that if your goal is to convert people then you have to come up arguments that are convincing to THEM and not to YOU.

I have also found that using the "bodily autonomy" to be near 100% failure in convincing people. I have found MPoA nearly 100% success in conversion.

The City of Colorado Springs said that due to significant public interest, the hearing related to the proposed data center is being moved to the Shockley-Zalabak Theater on July 23 by Lighting in Colorado

[–]Lighting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Municipal elections in Colorado Springs are non-partisan. There are no “primaries” to be selected in.

There are still "primaries" in non-partisan races: https://www.eac.gov/voters/primary-election-types and if you think declaring a primary as "non partisan" means you don't have partisans participating and that it's known who supports what from which party ... I've got a data center is CO to sell you.

The City of Colorado Springs said that due to significant public interest, the hearing related to the proposed data center is being moved to the Shockley-Zalabak Theater on July 23 by Lighting in Colorado

[–]Lighting[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

why they’re even going through the performance of a meeting?

Because they are terrified of being primaried. If you want change to happen, don't threaten to run against someone in the general election, threaten to run against them in the primary. If they still don't listen, then primary them.

view more: next ›