Did I not say this was likely to be the next step?

[Danefied]

I'm sorry, but dog food and telling someone their placental abruption is potential manslaughter is not comparable, and its insulting to suggest it is.

Can someone explain to me what on earth is so wrong with having an emotional response to personal topics?

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe if we infused emotions and feelings in to legislation instead of everyone trying to be so stark raving logical, perhaps we could actually write legislation that made sense. We humans are emotional beings are we not? What is with the assumption that you can't house logic and reason in the same mind that houses love, compassion, fear, pain, and anger?

 

[blue]

Cliffnotes please?

 

[Zoom]

And you just proved my point. You stopped and applied logic to an argument.

To US, as women (and most husbands) it's a freaking no-brainer that a miscarriage is a tragic turn of events and is as deserving of grief, mourning and understanding as those who have suffered through stillbirths and SIDS.

But when you get into the "lifelong bachelor" (as it appears the author of this bill is) or just run of the mill misogyny, then things become different. They take on a bit of surrealism. To the typical person, there isn't a reason on earth why ANYONE should ever consider labeling a miscarriage as "prenatal murder" and force those women to go through an investigation and trial. But when a person is so wrapped up in "life begins at conception", to the point that anything other than a perfectly healthy, neurotypical baby at birth becomes suspect? Well, now you're dealing with the same edge of the map people who are running WBC, Focus on the Family, etc.

 

[Samantha's pet]

I would think that would be more than unlikely to pass. If abortion is not illegal why would a law pass requiring that miscarriages be investigated? Why investigate something that isn't illegal? Wouldn't abortion have to be legally considered murder before this would be given any consideration?

Aside from my confusion that someone would even propose this, knowing good and well abortion isn't a crims, it's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard and the repercussions would be horrible. No one would go to the doctor following a miscarriage to have the necessary follow-up ultrasound and potentially necessary D&C! So many women would suffer out of fear of persecution. This is America! Women shouldn't compromise their health out of fear (anywhere, for that matter)!

 

[MPP]

Sorry, Necho, but when you poke a sharp stick into a raw wound, people will react emotionally. Other people's pain is not your entertainment, and I think less of you because you seem to think it is.

 

[Dani]

I don't know if I am more baffled or angered.

 

[oakash]

What Necho was trying to do was get you guys to make a reasonable argument, without just saying, 'its wrong." I think. Maybe he could have done it in a nicer manner, but he most certainly doesn't believe in what he's saying. I hope so. I know that when I start arguing with someone, all the facts fly out of my head, and all I am left with is emotion.

I disagree with this law completely, because it is horrendous. I can't even imagine the type of person who would even THINK that this law could be passed, or who would want it to.

 

[Lilavati]

I would think that would be more than unlikely to pass. If abortion is not illegal why would a law pass requiring that miscarriages be investigated? Why investigate something that isn't illegal? Wouldn't abortion have to be legally considered murder before this would be given any consideration?

Aside from my confusion that someone would even propose this, knowing good and well abortion isn't a crims, it's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard and the repercussions would be horrible. No one would go to the doctor following a miscarriage to have the necessary follow-up ultrasound and potentially necessary D&C! So many women would suffer out of fear of persecution. This is America! Women shouldn't compromise their health out of fear (anywhere, for that matter)!

Samantha, that's EXACTLY the point of trying to pass it/pass it. Its a kind of legislative terrorism. Now, frankly, this is so beyond the pale (and so obviously unconstitutional) that other than being irritated with the turd who proposed it, I don't think folks should get to worked up about it. Even if it passed, and it won't, it would be knocked down so fast people would wonder what happened.

But things like this are proposed as symbolic gestures. One, as an act of definance against the Federal government, which these folks view as imposing abortion on them, Two, as a political statement of how they'd like things to be run. Its also a pretty clear message to abortion providers (or women's health providers in general) to stay out of this guy's district in Georgia, because they will be harassed here. Most disturbing to me is that people with this sort of mentality are getting elected . . . and they have an influence on things that are not as charged, or as protected, as women's health and privacy issues.

 

[Danefied]

Okay, I'm new here, so I don't know how these things are generally handled around here, but am I understanding correctly that nechochwen was deliberately trolling? And that its okay because he did it to help us poor intellectually challenged, emotional minions learn to hone our argument? Really?? Arrogant much?

Trust me, there is nothing wrong with my reasoning skills. And if there were, I'd go back to Logic and Reason 101 not a dog forum. Just sayin'.
My argument was solid from the get go and it was ignored to by Mr. Troll face. a) who's going to pay for each miscarriage to be investigated, and b) are we now going to investigate every late period given that most women miscarry before even realizing they're pregnant?

But instead he accuses a pregnant woman of manslaughter, but hey, don't take it personally, he's just teaching her how to argue effectively.

Pardon me if I don't appreciate the "lesson".

 

[Chewbecca]

I am going to have to agree with Danefield on this one.

Presenting a "logical argument" is one thing, but when said person has a history of continually behaving in an antagonistic manner, then I think we *really* know what he was trying to do.

He can hide behind the guise of "I was just trying to present a logical argument/be Devil's Advocate" all he wants, but I think it's fairly obvious that's not what he was doing.
How do I know?

Posting the stupid posters like "Butt Sore" after folks expressed their feelings being hurt over it.

That ALONE is heartless, imo.
If he was TRULY trying to be devil's advocate, he wouldn't have followed that up with "OOOh, BUTT SORE" "Y U MAD".
The fact that he insulted others like that PROVES he was meaning for it to be personal the ENTIRE TIME.

 

[Chewbecca]

I'm sorry, Zoom, you know I love ya, but I think Necho needs to deal with the consequences of his actions, and take responsibility for the words he types.

I love how he screws up, gets CALLED OUT ON IT, and he THEN says, "Oh, I was just being devil's advocate."

I think I am going to just post a bunch of mean, hateful things and when I am called out on it, I'm going to call it "Logical Argument and Devil's Advocate" and CRY when I am made to take responsibility for the words that I type.

Oh, and pray someone sticks up for me.

 

[crazy_paws]

I'm with Chewbecca. Mocking someone's misfortune is extremely in bad taste. It doesn't hone someone else's argument or do anything at all intellectually. It's just wrong.

For the law, I don't see how it could possibly be enforced. If I'm pregnant, don't know it, and loose the baby before I know... then how could someone else know before I do?

 

[vanillasugar]

Putting his arguments aside, the actions following his arguments (of continuing to insult, antagonize and belittle those who got upset by his stance) are the ones I think should be dealt with here.

It's one thing to play devils advocate, teach people about logical arguments, etc. but it's entirely another to behave the way he did. I'm appalled that behaviour like this might be allowed to continue on Chaz without consequence.

 

[Lilavati]

Hrm. Since I'm more irritated by his bratty behavior than personally upset, I don't really have an opinion on consequences. I suspect some very strong words have been said where we can't see them.

I will point out that the difference between trolling and "devil's advocate" is that first, you don't put up obnoxious graphics when people get mad, and two, it is considered polite to state that you are playing devil's advocate. If nothing else, it lets people know you are arguing the other side and not merely being a total jerk.

It does occur to me that there is an interesting parallel between Neo and the guy that passed this bill . . . they are both trolls. I mean that in the internet sense, not the low-brow Neanderthal sense (though that may be true too). Its been noted many times (and frankly admitted by the perpertrators) that in certain circles on the right, the height of glory is to "make liberals mad" (liberal in this case meaning anyone who is not to the right of Attila the hun). Things are said, proposed, etc, with the express purpose of making people blow their lids . . . the person saying them may not may not mean what they say . . . the fun is in seeing people get really angry. Now, I don't know if this guy is an unreasonable fanatic or a troll . . . I suspect he may be both. I'll also point out that such behavior is not harmless . . . not only does in poison public discourse, but when you propose outrageous things, then defend them, then say the otherside only opposes them because they are "liberals" you are actually bringing this stuff into the realm of acceptable discourse. (I'm talking about the proposer of the bill now, not Neo)

Once you have enough stuff like this floating around, if you propose something only halfway as awful, you'll suddenly look "moderate" and "reasonable" and your "moderate" and "reasonable" proposal might suddenly be taken seriously.

 

[Xandra]

Well you can't PM him anymore and his display pic is gone so I think he is no longer with us.

 

[Zoom]

He's been handed a month long ban.

 

[Danefied]

when you propose outrageous things, then defend them, then say the otherside only opposes them because they are "liberals" you are actually bringing this stuff into the realm of acceptable discourse. (I'm talking about the proposer of the bill now, not Neo)

Once you have enough stuff like this floating around, if you propose something only halfway as awful, you'll suddenly look "moderate" and "reasonable" and your "moderate" and "reasonable" proposal might suddenly be taken seriously.

I wholeheartedly agree!
Watch legislature make its travels through channels and this is EXACTLY what happens.

And the insidious part is that reasonable people stand by and do nothing thinking these proposals are too crazy for anyone to pay any mind.

 

[Zoom]

Poor tactics aside, do you guys see at all the point he was trying to make? Lilavati just reworded it better. The potential "moderate and reasonable" proposal to this bill might be something along the lines of making it illegal for any women who is over 4 months pregnant (typically the point of "quickening") to drive a car, because if she gets into an accident, there is a very high risk she will miscarry. Would she then be liable for manslaughter, for undertaking a known risk?

Keep in mind, the people who propose stuff like this DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, THE MOTHER. They are so wrapped up in their myopic worship of the unborn, that you do essentially devolve into nothing more than a walking incubator. And we already know that there are enough people out there, some on this board, who support measures that go along that line of thinking (i.e. disagreeing with allowing abortion for rape victims "because it's not the baby's fault").

 

[Danefied]

Poor tactics aside, do you guys see at all the point he was trying to make? Lilavati just reworded it better.

No, I don't.
Lilavati did not REword it better, she/he wrote an articulate, intelligent post and was able to make a clear point.


And yes I do see the slippery slope of this type of legislation. We have been living it for years in education with the passing of NCLB legislation. Legislation that in my state, makes it mandatory for children who are so profoundly mentally retarded that they can't even hold a pencil have to take high school exit exams, and when they fail, its the fault of the teacher.
This type of asinine legislation already exists and no one questions it unless it directly affects them. Its a mess really...

 

[Lilavati]

For the record, I'm a she

Edit: A tangentally related article I came on while scrolling through my blogroll:

Why Do Social Conservatives Hate Contraceptives So Much?

Food for thought