Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Snake_Baker]

It's actually very easy. You allow the woman to make the choice.

...................and the man can pay for it.

 

[Sopwiths North]

Not even in the same swim lane Snake.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not even in the same swim lane Snake.

Pick and choose. A little bit from here & a little bit from there. Equality..............but with fine print.



It's time for women to start delivering on their end of the deal.

 

[The Butcher]

You guys talk about this like it's a decision made lightly, and that most women don't carry the weight of it for their entire lives.

Speaking for myself, NOT AT ALL.

No, the pro-lifers are all about deciding what happens to other people's bodies.

Ok, so you don't perceive the fetus as another persons body/life/potential consciousness. If you did tho, as hard as it is to imagine, would you're position change? If this is the point of difference b/w the two camps how can it be reconciled..

Parent's have their right to make choices and actions over their kids removed by our states in certain circumstances, wanting to kill them would be one instance. So given that where we live, when does or should the state begin to wield that power? Why not at heart beat? Why not after birth? I see no reason for any point in time, only feels.

What do you think "qualifies" someone to make this judgement?

The right to autonomy over their own body. And, externally, a qualified physician to guide them through it.

So, the instant a woman becomes pregnant she goes from being unqualified, to qualified? The only thing that changed was her situation, the opportunity. That sounds like the right to do a thing depends on your opportunity and power/ability to do it. There are despotic humans who do terrible things because they have the power/ability and opportunity to do them, I don't think we want to say that that's ok.

Look, it's not as if I'm cold to the position the fetus is in. Yeah, it's ****. But we live in a pretty ***** world, and nothing is ever going to be perfect. But it's a woman's choice what happens to her own body. It's not the government's choice, and it's not the church's choice.

I know it's not so different over there than here, so like us you live in a a society where our choices concerning our bodies aren't ours and ours alone on a daily basis. The choice is removed by the state, other humans and our own human condition. No? Choices have consequences and some choices have consequences that the society has deemed unacceptable so the choice has been removed or at least penalized. Choice seems to be a bogus argument.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The bizarre analogies always seems to show up in this topic.

 

[Tas]

It's actually very easy. You allow the woman to make the choice.

As I said, a simple rule isn't necessarily the best in every scenario. So you are saying a woman that rapes a male and without his consent takes his semen and he doesn't want to be the father of that child and the law is going to hold him responsible for that child regardless because "best interest of the baby" has no say whatsoever and whatever the woman wants is the only thing that matters? If the woman's choice is the only thing that matters then you are in part advocating for the rights of some rapists.

When it comes to not having the child, which is still a matter of rights, I don't agree with forcing women to go through with having a child and believe they should have the right to choose without self-harming. I have an issue with how late people can decide to make that decision and I am a pro-choice person at heart, I can understand where pro-lifers are coming from.

I think everyone has a point where they are not comfortable with freedom of choice, should a woman have the right to abort even at the point just prior to giving birth? Should she have the option to terminate it and extract it from her body? So at some point you are prepared to make a judgement on when a woman can and can't make that choice, where the life of the "child" attains rights under the law. We just a have a slippery slope at where about on that journey people can choose to terminate.

No, the pro-lifers are all about deciding what happens to other people's bodies.

What do you think "qualifies" someone to make this judgement?

The right to autonomy over their own body. And, externally, a qualified physician to guide them through it.

Sure, everyone should have the right to do whatever they want but in a society, everyone pays the consequences of being in a society, everyone inherits problems that other people make so we do have to make concessions. I can't even self-harm myself without the State intervening and they will strip me of almost all of my human rights to prevent me from self-harming. It is my body, I should get to choose, right? The State legislates against what you can and can't do with your body all the time. Can't take drugs... can't drink too much alcohol and drive, I am an awesome driver when tanked, :stern look, but most people are rubbish and they have to make rules based on the lowest common denominator. Many places wont even allow you to die with dignity when you are suffering with a terminal illness and are in unbearable pain out of the fear people will take that liberty to just pop people for minor ailments.

Society is basically a group of people telling you exactly how you are going to run your life in every minute detail with the illusions of choice and freedom. In a society the morality matters, what is best for the State always trumps what is best for the individual and the State makes that decision on what you can and can't do with your own body all of the time.

Sure I am an advocate of pro-life and I strongly encourage everyone of every gender to exercise that choice with prevention at all times and only try and have children when you are absolutely sure and ready, and I do understand that sometimes it happens and you can make a prompt decision to abort it safely, but I think there needs to be a common sense approach, I don't think let women choose is the best decision in every circumstance, it needs more nuance. At some point everyone believes the thing inside her body has rights before it is forced out.

It is less about someone telling someone else what to do with their life and it is more about as a society defining the value of human life and how precious it is, we should fear the day ever coming where these are light or easy decisions to make about the value of life and the ease of terminating it.

Look, it's not as if I'm cold to the position the fetus is in. Yeah, it's ****. But we live in a pretty ***** world, and nothing is ever going to be perfect. But it's a woman's choice what happens to her own body. It's not the government's choice, and it's not the church's choice.

You guys talk about this like it's a decision made lightly, and that most women don't carry the weight of it for their entire lives. It's easy to postulate about the rights of sperm and unconscious fetuses, but at the end of the day you really have no idea what the weight of that decision is like to carry. The least you can do is grant them the right to carry through their decision with as much dignity and safety as possible.

I agree with you on 99% of this topic and I think what is lost in the debate is that the vast majority of women make good decisions on what they should do with their life and when it comes to unwanted pregnancy deal with it promptly but I have sympathy for people who got into the medical profession to save lives and help people who have a gun put to their head and are forced to do things to unborn babies most of us here wouldn't have the stomach to do.

Why does anyone have the right to force medical professionals to become butchers which can harms them psychologically for the rest of their lives?

You are right, I will never know what women go through but I can empathise and I did fight for the rights of women in this country to make that choice, however, I don't think it is a perfect system we have at present and I don't think it will ever be, irrespective what rules we have there are going to be people who are served poorly by the system and there is going to be tragedy, heartbreak and loss regardless what we do. I think in general we want a humane society where the life of individuals is paramount, the societies that exist and used to exist which didn't place life so high aren't societies anyone would choose to be part of.

 

[ferball]

As I said, a simple rule isn't necessarily the best in every scenario. So you are saying a woman that rapes a male and without his consent takes his semen and he doesn't want to be the father of that child and the law is going to hold him responsible for that child regardless because "best interest of the baby" has no say whatsoever and whatever the woman wants is the only thing that matters? If the woman's choice is the only thing that matters then you are in part advocating for the rights of some rapists.

How often does this happen?

Really.

Has it ever happened?




(These are genuine questions because I find that idea laughable but trust you are making the comment in good faith.)

 

[Orange Peanut]

Funny enough, most people I've discussed this with offline are voting Lib, while most online are saying ALP. Twitter seems to have Labor winning 138-Nil.

Should have trusted my ears over my eyes and put money on it.

The biggest issue I heard was concern about the impact of negative gearing removal.

Not from people who have investments, but from people who have seen their houses devalued by tens of thousands over the last 2 years.

When your mortgage is already uncomfortably close to the value of your property, stress about things like climate change become secondary. Removing the incentive for investors in the market would likely have a further deflationary effect. That is the key "fear" driving the result in my outer-suburban electorate, from my limited observations.

By 10pm Saturday, LNP voters were being labeled stupid, greedy, mean-spirited, selfish, and ignorant all over twitter. If Labor allow that assumption to drive them forward they might never get there.

People aren't stupid, but they need security.

They would do well to listen much more closely to Dan Andrews IMO.

 

[Themanbun]

Not from people who have investments, but from people who have seen their houses devalued by tens of thousands over the last 2 years.

When your mortgage is already uncomfortably close to the value of your property.

To give you a leftist spin on things, this was always going to be a problem with the commodification of housing and the proliferation of massive mortgages which was going to cleave the working class in half.

You cannot lower housing prices, and therefore make it easier for first home buyers, without lowering the value of those who are already have a mortgage.

As one of my mates says (he is on very, very good money): "I plan to live in this house for my life, so it doesn't bother me too much if the value drops." He's a reasonable thinking man but unfortunately many people have their entire asset wealth tied up in their house.

But for many we've had a 'stepping stone' approach to accumulating wealth via property value, not to mention that many people borrow against the equity, too.

 

[Groin guru]

It's actually very easy. You allow the woman to make the choice.



No, the pro-lifers are all about deciding what happens to other people's bodies.

What do you think "qualifies" someone to make this judgement?

The right to autonomy over their own body. And, externally, a qualified physician to guide them through it.

Look, it's not as if I'm cold to the position the fetus is in. Yeah, it's ****. But we live in a pretty ***** world, and nothing is ever going to be perfect. But it's a woman's choice what happens to her own body. It's not the government's choice, and it's not the church's choice.

You guys talk about this like it's a decision made lightly, and that most women don't carry the weight of it for their entire lives. It's easy to postulate about the rights of sperm and unconscious fetuses, but at the end of the day you really have no idea what the weight of that decision is like to carry. The least you can do is grant them the right to carry through their decision with as much dignity and safety as possible.

Men deserve a say. The unborn baby does too.

 

[Val Keating]

Anyone catch the latest Joe Rogan episode with Annie Jacobsen? Fascinating. So much to unpack.

 

[Orange Peanut]

To give you a leftist spin on things, this was always going to be a problem with the commodification of housing and the proliferation of massive mortgages which was going to cleave the working class in half.

You cannot lower housing prices, and therefore make it easier for first home buyers, without lowering the value of those who are already have a mortgage.

As one of my mates says (he is on very, very good money): "I plan to live in this house for my life, so it doesn't bother me too much if the value drops." He's a reasonable thinking man but unfortunately many people have their entire asset wealth tied up in their house.

But for many we've had a 'stepping stone' approach to accumulating wealth via property value, not to mention that many people borrow against the equity, too.

Spot on mate. I think this would have been a far smaller issue in 2016. With a tanking housing market, it was just really bad timing.

 

[The Butcher]

The two state solution seems an easier prospect than removing ourselves from the contradiction of affordable housing and housing as a means of capital growth.

 

[Val Keating]

By 10pm Saturday, LNP voters were being labeled stupid, greedy, mean-spirited, selfish, and ignorant all over twitter. If Labor allow that assumption to drive them forward they might never get there.

People aren't stupid, but they need security.

They would do well to listen much more closely to Dan Andrews IMO.

Just regarding this, seems it’s been more prevalent from voters on both sides. There’s some genuine dislike between them.

There’s also been some outrageous comments by media types like KAK, Alan Jones, Lisa Wilkinson etc.

Is it just me or are social media trolls really sucking people in, causing those on the opposite side to buy in more and become aggressive themselves.

Another thing I’ve noticed, they’re all calling the Labour voters lefty’s. When did that happen? It used to be Greens were lefty’s, Labour is about the workers, Liberals were for the rich people.

Is it all new or just the first time I’ve paid attention? (Doesn’t help when Twitter want to show me everything the people I follow like)

 

[Snake_Baker]

How often does this happen?

Really.

Has it ever happened?

In a discussion about abortion rights? Just about every single ****ing time.

It only highlights that certain angles are logically flimsy if that kind of thing has to be wheeled out as a broad reaching conclusion.

 

[Themanbun]

Just regarding this, seems it’s been more prevalent from voters on both sides. There’s some genuine dislike between them.

There’s also been some outrageous comments by media types like KAK, Alan Jones, Lisa Wilkinson etc.

Is it just me or are social media trolls really sucking people in, causing those on the opposite side to buy in more and become aggressive themselves.

Another thing I’ve noticed, they’re all calling the Labour voters lefty’s. When did that happen? It used to be Greens were lefty’s, Labour is about the workers, Liberals were for the rich people.

Is it all new or just the first time I’ve paid attention? (Doesn’t help when Twitter want to show me everything the people I follow like)

IMO there definitely does seem to be a polarisation. Bizarre though, because since Hawke-Keating Labor has liberalised the economy (just less aggressively). It's not the social democratic beast that it once was.

 

[Val Keating]

IMO there definitely does seem to be a polarisation. Bizarre though, because since Hawke-Keating Labor has liberalised the economy (just less aggressively). It's not the social democratic beast that it once was.

I heard an interesting interview where they explained how far right we’ve actually moved that even the people that are labeled “left” would’ve been considered right wing not that long ago.

Anyway the whole left V right thing is a wank. Goes back to the days of the French Revolution and the average citizens were sitting on the left side and the elite & wealthy were seated at the right.

The blokes who spoke about the topic, Dan Carlin & Daniele Bolelli, were trolled by right wingers who weren’t happy that they debunked this weird revisionist history that’s been held by a small group of people that Nazis were left wing.

 

[Sopwiths North]

what is lost in the debate is that the vast majority of women make good decisions on what they should do with their life and when it comes to unwanted pregnancy deal with it promptly but I have sympathy for people who got into the medical profession to save lives and help people who have a gun put to their head and are forced to do things to unborn babies most of us here wouldn't have the stomach to do.

Why does anyone have the right to force medical professionals to become butchers which can harms them psychologically for the rest of their lives?

You are right, I will never know what women go through but I can empathise and I did fight for the rights of women in this country to make that choice, however, I don't think it is a perfect system we have at present and I don't think it will ever be, irrespective what rules we have there are going to be people who are served poorly by the system and there is going to be tragedy, heartbreak and loss regardless what we do. I think in general we want a humane society where the life of individuals is paramount, the societies that exist and used to exist which didn't place life so high aren't societies anyone would choose to be part of.

I think your last paragraph offers a good summary of the current situation Tas. I've also bolded your other excellent point about the majority of women being capable of making good decisions. And for those who aren't, then certainly free access to planned parenthood clinics needs to be available so that they can become empowered to make good decisions. These types of clinics are targeted by pro-lifers though, and funding for them would most certainly not be provided for in states that are anti-abortion. Lack of education and support options dwindles under that sort of rule.

And doctors are free to decline performing abortions, just as they are free to decline involvement in medically assisted dying, so no one is being forced to butcher anyone here. It's better that doctors who are experienced and comfortable with the procedures be involved anyway. The only butchering that happens is when women are denied medical access (i.e. in states with anti-abortion laws) and are thus compelled to try and do it themselves, or pay some back alley operation to do it.

Anyway, yours is probably the most well-rounded, non-reactive, and realistic while at the same time kind post I've read on here in response to my position on a person's right to their own autonomy. Thank you for being the most reasonable person on here with respect to your replies on this topic.

 

[Tas]

How often does this happen?

Really.

Has it ever happened?




(These are genuine questions because I find that idea laughable but trust you are making the comment in good faith.)

lol I hope you are not as naive as you appear from this comment, while women do not sexually assault men to anywhere near the same degree as men do women, there is an acceptance by many women in terms of entrapping men to be partners that if the roles were reversed women would cry from the streets as evidence of a rape culture.

Do a google search on baby trap and a lot of the discussion is by women trying to warn men what some women do, because for the vast majority of people there isn't a man vs woman thing, women want to protect their brothers, their sons, their cousins. They don't want them being taken advantage of by predators anymore than men don't want our sisters, daughters, cousins to by men.

I keep seeing this soft sexism by "progressives" who think women are weak and are incapable of being bad. You need to be more progressive.

Here is an example from 5 seconds google searching... https://www.babygaga.com/14-confessions-from-women-who-got-pregnant-to-trap-their-boyfriends/

I am assuming babygaga.com isn't a MRA site. Read and be disturbed.

 

[ferball]

Just regarding this, seems it’s been more prevalent from voters on both sides. There’s some genuine dislike between them.

There’s also been some outrageous comments by media types like KAK, Alan Jones, Lisa Wilkinson etc.

Is it just me or are social media trolls really sucking people in, causing those on the opposite side to buy in more and become aggressive themselves.

Another thing I’ve noticed, they’re all calling the Labour voters lefty’s. When did that happen? It used to be Greens were lefty’s, Labour is about the workers, Liberals were for the rich people.

Is it all new or just the first time I’ve paid attention? (Doesn’t help when Twitter want to show me everything the people I follow like)

Look up what the Overton Window is.

You can see how things like that move it and change the way what is acceptable to society is framed.

 

[ferball]

lol I hope you are not as naive as you appear from this comment, while women do not sexually assault men to anywhere near the same degree as men do women, there is an acceptance by many women in terms of entrapping men to be partners that if the roles were reversed women would cry from the streets as evidence of a rape culture.

Do a google search on baby trap and a lot of the discussion is by women trying to warn men what some women do, because for the vast majority of people there isn't a man vs woman thing, women want to protect their brothers, their sons, their cousins. They don't want them being taken advantage of by predators anymore than men don't want our sisters, daughters, cousins to by men.

I keep seeing this soft sexism by "progressives" who think women are weak and are incapable of being bad. You need to be more progressive.

Here is an example from 5 seconds google searching... https://www.babygaga.com/14-confessions-from-women-who-got-pregnant-to-trap-their-boyfriends/

I am assuming babygaga.com isn't a MRA site. Read and be disturbed.

That's not rape.

 

[ferball]

I know men who were raped.

By other men.

Well I knew one who talked about it.

 

[Tas]

I think your last paragraph offers a good summary of the current situation Tas. I've also bolded your other excellent point about the majority of women being capable of making good decisions. And for those who aren't, then certainly free access to planned parenthood clinics needs to be available so that they can become empowered to make good decisions. These types of clinics are targeted by pro-lifers though, and funding for them would most certainly not be provided for in states that are anti-abortion. Lack of education and support options dwindles under that sort of rule.

And doctors are free to decline performing abortions, just as they are free to decline involvement in medically assisted dying, so no one is being forced to butcher anyone here. It's better that doctors who are experienced and comfortable with the procedures be involved anyway. The only butchering that happens is when women are denied medical access (i.e. in states with anti-abortion laws) and are thus compelled to try and do it themselves, or pay some back alley operation to do it.

Anyway, yours is probably the most well-rounded, non-reactive, and realistic while at the same time kind post I've read on here in response to my position on a person's right to their own autonomy. Thank you for being the most reasonable person on here with respect to your replies on this topic.

We do have an option for conscientious objection in our Abortion Law Reform legislation, however, I am not referring to people who do not wish to provide medical care due to religious or ideological reasons, it is more about the trauma that is inflicted on medical practitioners, particularly for voluntary late term abortions which are not significant in number or proportion of abortions but are different to when a doctor feels they are saving the mother. I think we just need to explore what causes the voluntary late-term abortions and do whatever we can to bring those numbers down.

In most cases late-term abortions are absolutely necessary for the sake of the mother, my sister was such a high risk of bleeding out at any point during her last pregnancy that she had to spend the last few months of her pregnancy in hospital after she had some complications. The vast majority of late term abortions are out of necessity for the safety of the mother or there has been some significant issues with the baby itself. I by no means want to turn this into a ridiculous political charade by even implying that there is a significant amount of voluntary late term abortions, because it would be ridiculous to imply that, I think it is in the ballpark of 1% +/- some so it's not an epidemic. We still have to allow for those decisions though.

It is human empathy that is the critical component, the data suggests young people are relying less and less on abortions so education is critical and I think the groups that have pushed to help educate kids are doing a wonderful job. Ideally, I'd love to see most abortions other than medical necessities become a thing of the past simply through better education and better quality products, that process isn't going to be instantaneous though.

 

[Tas]

That's not rape.

It doesn't have to be rape, it is still a violation.

 

[Tas]

I know men who were raped.

By other men.

Well I knew one who talked about it.

You seem to have bigoted views when it comes to men and women and what they are capable of.

According to a 2016 Vice article, around 2/3rds of men who report sexual victimisation say their assailant was female.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kze8qn/the-hidden-epidemic-of-men-who-are-raped-by-women