Tiassa trolls a thread about abortion

[Tiassa]

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

-------

Only if you assign personhood to the unborn.

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.

• • •​

Perhaps it's not moot for the rest of us.

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

• • •​

I don't know what led you to that conclusion.

Who said anything about exceptions to a woman's autonomy over her own body?

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?

 

[Seattle]

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?

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?

 

[Pinball1970]

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

None.
Eight votes none against.

 

[James R]

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

One guess. Come on. You can do this.

What was it you said? Pretending unawareness and incomprehension only undermines you.

 

[Tiassa]

One guess. Come on. You can do this.

What was it you said? Pretending unawareness and incomprehension only undermines you.

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.

 

[James R]

And yet, you can't actually come out and say it.

Stop being so childish. You already knew the answer before you posted that nonsense.

 

[billvon]

Stop being so childish. You already knew the answer before you posted that nonsense.

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."

 

[Tiassa]

Stop being so childish. You already knew the answer before you posted that nonsense.

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

• • •​

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."

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

 

[billvon]

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.

 

[Tiassa]

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?

 

[Seattle]

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.

 

[billvon]

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

I rest my case.

 

[Tiassa]

In this particular case, I'm wary about the word "all" in the "legal in all circumstances" option. Have I considered all possible circumstances in which somebody might request an abortion? I am sure I have not. Therefore, I can't say I agree that abortion should be available in all circumstances.

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.

 

[James R]

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

The only person here who apparently can't discern what my position on abortion is from what I have written in this thread is you. Strange, that. Well, not really, seeing as it's you.

 

[James R]

You're a dude circusmcribing the human rights of a woman, apparently because of some hypothetical dude.

I am not circumscribing the rights of anybody. I'm not a lawmaker.

However, on the general principle, I did mention that I can't think of any right that is uncircumscribed. No rights are absolute. Maybe you can suggest some I haven't thought of.

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

I set up a poll to compare the opinions of sciforums readers to the results in the Gallup poll. I used the same terms they did. Why don't you take your "word game" issue to Gallup?

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

Don't be ridiculous.

Maybe there's a reason you're afraid to answer it.

Don't be ridiculous. I have already been very clear about what my answer is. You already know what my answer is, and you knew it when you asked the question. Stop being childish and ridiculous. See if you can work out who your real enemies are on this.

 

[Tiassa]

The only person here who apparently can't discern what my position on abortion is from what I have written in this thread is you. Strange, that. Well, not really, seeing as it's you.

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.

I am not circumscribing the rights of anybody. I'm not a lawmaker.

However, on the general principle, I did mention that I can't think of any right that is uncircumscribed. No rights are absolute. Maybe you can suggest some I haven't thought of.

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.

I set up a poll to compare the opinions of sciforums readers to the results in the Gallup poll. I used the same terms they did. Why don't you take your "word game" issue to Gallup?

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

Don't be ridiculous. I have already been very clear about what my answer is. You already know what my answer is, and you knew it when you asked the question. Stop being childish and ridiculous. See if you can work out who your real enemies are on this.

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.

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

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

I'm so glad it's all clear to you, as always. And those criteria you mentioned would be ... what, exactly? Seeing as you're the expert on me, I'm sure you can enlighten us all.

The question was whether you acknowledge and affirm a woman's humanity and human rights.

There's never been any question about that, your silly rhetoric notwithstanding. Stop being a whiney brat, crying for my attention.

Taking it up with Gallup, as you have it, is fallacious.

You know it is not, but this is the best you can do. Time to give it up, Tiassa. Scuttle back to your hole.

 

[Tiassa]

There's never been any question about that

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

 

[James R]

You should stop telling lies, Tiassa.

 

[billvon]

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.