Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


My neck of the woods: Silencing Representitives

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Rape and Treason are both casualties of this thread.
'Tis a sad, sad day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Name one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomeansno

So you think she wasn't drawing a comparison between this bill and rape, she was instead nonsensically throwing the name of Canadian Punk Rock bands into her speech?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomeansno
I don't know which is worse, the guy saying that interrupting the president can be treason or you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voxanadu View Post
And wait... you're going with an internet publication over an actual newspaper site...?

~blinks~
Is there something special about hitting the print button and distributing it ye olden fashioned way that makes it more accurate of a report?

I'll point out the internet publication has actual bill numbers with a fairly accurate accounting of the facts. You might call it reporting even. The newspaper article is just "He said" then "She said" then "according to the Detroit papers.." and doesn't really do much more. They don't even mention the name of the bill so a person could look it up on their own. If I turned that in to my journalism teacher it'd have been full of red ink for all the missing an partial info. It's a spectacularly uninformative article that leaves you with no information other than the extreme basics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
So you think she wasn't drawing a comparison between this bill
Which bill?
Because, despite what you claim, her comments certainly seem to indicate that she was commenting on a bill that (to my understanding) refuses the right to abortion after 20 weeks even in the case of severe health risks to the mother if the pregnancy continues, and even in the case of that pregnancy being the product of rape or incest.
I also hear that this bill may contain provisions that would mandate a penetrative 'procedure' for women seeking an abortion, also even in the case of severe health risks to the mother if the pregnancy continues. Just to be clear, that would be 'suffer severe risks to your health and well-being, or submit to vaginal penetration'. Certainly sounds like rape to me. But then, I could have my information wrong on the content of the bill. If that is the case, please correct me.


edit: Moreover that article (again, the one you linked) seems to reference the combination of HB5711 through HB5713 as a single 'super-bill' that is being passed in pieces. This further supports the idea that her comments may have been intended against aspects of other components than 5711 (if the actual content of her comments alone weren't enough to convince you on that fact) as a discussion of one would then naturally segue to a discussion of the others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Is there something special about hitting the print button and distributing it ye olden fashioned way that makes it more accurate of a report?

I'll point out the internet publication has actual bill numbers with a fairly accurate accounting of the facts. You might call it reporting even. The newspaper article is just "He said" then "She said" then "according to the Detroit papers.." and doesn't really do much more. They don't even mention the name of the bill so a person could look it up on their own. If I turned that in to my journalism teacher it'd have been full of red ink for all the missing an partial info. It's a spectacularly uninformative article that leaves you with no information other than the extreme basics.
Yes actually, there is something that makes ye old fashion way more dependable.

It has automatic accountability. If you quoted that source to any of my college professors, they'd call your citation invalid. Granted, you can go ahead and see that they at least appear ligit, but until this debate I'd never heard of them.

Angi Becker Stevens, supposedly wrote the article. On a weird website that seems completly dedicated to her works acclaims that she works for the site on occasion. Oddly enough however, everything indicates she's a fiction writer.

How good of a reporter is she then? How many errors does she make? Does she always cite everything? and does she actually know how the procedures of parliament go?

I don't know... So yeah, she's less dependable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
Which bill?
Because, despite what you claim, her comments certainly seem to indicate that she was commenting on a bill that (to my understanding) refuses the right to abortion after 20 weeks even in the case of severe health risks to the mother if the pregnancy continues, and even in the case of that pregnancy being the product of rape or incest.
When did I make this claim?

Quote:
I also hear that this bill may contain provisions that would mandate a penetrative 'procedure' for women seeking an abortion, also even in the case of severe health risks to the mother if the pregnancy continues.
Which "this" bill? There are several bills in front of the MI legislature sort of connected. They're all online, look em up and find out for yourself. Which penetrative procedure would it mandate, here is the "banned after 20 weeks" bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...e=2012-HB-5713 please let me know what you find.

Lets try to have a better discussion than "I hear".

Quote:
Just to be clear, that would be 'suffer severe risks to your health and well-being, or submit to vaginal penetration'. Certainly sounds like rape to me. But then, I could have my information wrong on the content of the bill. If that is the case, please correct me.
It'd be nice if this thread could have a serious discussion without resorting to trying to label people who hold opinions you deem wrong as treasonous rapers.

Correct yourself man, I linked the bill. If you're going to make rape claims please back it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voxanadu View Post
It has automatic accountability.
I actually laughed out loud at this one. Clearly, one of us has been paying attention to the last ten years. Hint: Not the guy trying to compare prohibiting abortions to rape or interrupting the president to treason.

I think I'm done here. You guys are doing a better job arguing against your case than I ever could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
When did I make this claim?
I'll apologize here; it seems I mistook one of Solaris' posts for one of yours when posting that.
You merely linked an article that made that claim on your behalf.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Which "this" bill? There are several bills in front of the MI legislature sort of connected. They're all online, look em up and find out for yourself. Which penetrative procedure would it mandate, here is the "banned after 20 weeks" bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...e=2012-HB-5713 please let me know what you find.
It appears the matter (trans-vaginal ultrasounds) received cursory correction a few pages back, and I missed it.
That's just yet another bill that is (or was?) before the MI legislature on the matter of abortions. It also is or was before the legislatures of several other states.

I don't personally have the time to read through several score pages of legalese for the sole purpose of an online discussion. That's why I qualified my statements. And here, I thought we could have a civil, informative, discussion free from rampant condescension and accusations.
Obviously, I was wrong:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
It'd be nice if this thread could have a serious discussion without resorting to trying to label people who hold opinions you deem wrong as treasonous rapers.
Please point to where I so much as mentioned treason in this thread. (hint: I haven't)
Please then point to where I accused anyone of rape on this thread on the basis of their opinions.




As to the question of whether it is fair or accurate to compare the prohibition of abortions (after 20 weeks), the fundamental core of the 'wrongness' of rape, as I see it, lies in the non-consensual 'use' of another person's body. Obviously, there is more to rape that adds to the magnitude of that 'wrongness', but that is the foundation of the matter. And, in that light, the prohibition of abortion is quite similar.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us