Jump to content

Longhornmaniac8

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Longhornmaniac8

  1. 1 hour ago, JBJ said:

    Don't change what I wrote if you don't like the new meaning.

    "For convenience" is what I wrote and it's what I meant.  It's not an adjective: "convenient" and it's not constitutive: "of convenience."

    It doesn't imply those, and you guys know it doesn't imply those.  You rewrite it specifically to attack a strawman.

    If you're addressing me, no, I didn't do that at all. I was just too lazy to expand the box to see exactly what you wrote. It wouldn't have changed a single word of my reply had I correctly quoted you. Your next-level pedantry notwithstanding, most people would hold the phrases "for convenience" and "of convenience" to be more or less equivalent. If you'd like to explain how your distinction between the two is meaningful, I'll shut up and listen.

  2. 18 hours ago, JBJ said:

     

    I'd say 20%.  It's probably slightly more than the portion of pro-choicers who consider birth to be the end-all for personhood.

    But I'll answer your questions personally:

    (1) I hold personhood to be inherent.  That is that a zygote should be viewed as a person with the same considerations as an adult. There's some caveats to that, but once someone starts in with with "it's not even a person," I can just about dismiss anything else they say.  If you could force an adult back into the womb, a fetus should be treated the same.

    (2) I hold that it's unethical to terminate a pregnancy for convenience.

    (3) I hold that the reasons for terminating are an important part of the moral/ethical dilemma.

    If you agree me with on those points, we can probably have a productive conversation.

     

    Policy-wise, it's best for the state to intervene in the more black-and-white situations.  Protecting the mother's life is black-and-white to me.  Aborting a viable fetus for convenience is black-and-white to me.  I think there's an undeniable greater harm done in both situations.  The government needs to allow or enforce protection against both.

    Policy-wise, passing perception and sensory developmental milestones increases the harm done to the fetus.  That being said, I'll admit that this area is grey and there might not be a policy solution that's agreeable.

    -------------

    The above are ethical or policy aspects.  It's hard for me to post that stuff stoically.  Morally, I think it's degenerate to consider anything but the life of the mother.  It's a life for a life, everything else is philosophical gumbo.  Further, if I were the mother and there's a good chance I'd die but the baby could survive, I'd be out looking for adoptive parents.

    I respect that you hold those views. The problem is, you're requiring that anyone else believe them before you have a dialogue with them. I think guns are a disposable entity in today's civilian society, and on a personal level I would be perfectly happy if we got rid of them, but I also respect that others disagree. I'm not going to expect anyone else to believe what I believe in order to discuss the inherent nuance in that debate.

    I will never agree with you that a zygote should be viewed as a person. I think that's rooted in a fantasy, just as you think my "laissez-faire" approach to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions is morally reprehensible. But we don't need to agree on that to take meaningful strides towards a common goal.

    Every "abortion of convenience" (which is an astoundingly offensive way of putting it) you speak of starts with an unwanted pregnancy. Get rid of the unwanted pregnancies, and you get rid of those abortions. So why are so many pro-lifers against that? Shuttering Planned Parenthood will do more harm to your overall goal than outlawing abortions will do good.

    There is a reason why we have an ever decreasing amount of teenage pregnancies and overall abortions, and it's not because abstinence-only sex education is prevalent and abortions are illegal. It's because more and more people have access to contraception, counseling, and good sex education than ever before. The problem is largely rectifying itself naturally. Just get the pro-lifers out of the way and let the logical conclusions follow.

    I'd argue that making abortion illegal is about the biggest red herring in the entire abortion debate. This Fact Sheet paints a pretty damning view on the Pro-Life agenda in term of actual hard data.

    While I won't agree with you, and won't support legislating a woman's control over her body, I will stand beside you and work with you to reduce the number of abortions. They aren't remotely mutually exclusive.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 19 hours ago, Mole said:

    With the proper motivation, safe legal and rare wouldn't look all that different than prolife. 

    This sums up my view, and I'm pro-choice. I don't know anybody who loves abortion. There are people who get them repeatedly not because they wake up and think, "today is a good day for an abortion," but because they grew up in an environment that didn't value/afford safe sex education and contraception.

    I'm all for the amount of abortions being reduced, but it will only be accomplished through education and the provision of contraception, not the banning of abortion, which will only make them less safe while not acting as a deterrent. Abortion is an act of desperation for many ("I'm too young for a child," "I can't afford this baby," etc.)  and desperate people don't follow the law.

    The problem is, the most vocal people outspoken against the ease of access to contraception and a comprehensive sex education policy are also the same pro-life religious fundamentalists. This, above all else, is why I have a major problem with the pro-life movement. 

    If they were consistent in their principles, and really cared about reducing abortion, this would be the first thing they would do. But it isn't. I have my own beliefs why that is, but that's for another thread.

    • Like 3
  4. Agree with previous poster re: Top Notch. Either their Fried Chicken, Burgers, or Onion Rings (even though I'm not a fan of rings, personally). 

    That restaurant just screams iconic Austin.

    Fuck, now I want Top Notch.

    Pretty good list, overall, though.

  5. I added a few places on here. 

    Major's in Liberty Hill is really damn good. Their buns are legit, and I had a really damn good cheeseburger.

    Alamo Springs Cafe is pretty well known, and rightfully so, but I added it for largely the same reasons, interestingly enough.

    Irie's Island Food is a small restaurant in Port Aransas. Last time I tried to go they were sold out for the day, but we just missed it. They've taken the concept of Torchy's and adapted it to seafood tacos. That is, they've gringo-fied it. Really damn good.

    • Like 1
  6. 8 minutes ago, wood said:

    Miliions of people every year. Can't think of any beaches nearly as pretty or nice, that are as close or inexpensive as the Yucatan/QR, esp for us here in Texas.

    Belize, Costa Rica, Turks and Caicos. Shit, Siesta Key in Sarasota is the nicest beach I've been to in this hemisphere maybe with the exception of Orient Beach in Saint Martin. 

    Your point is valid about ease of access for Texas, but beyond that, it's pretty damn easy to get to any of those places from airports in Texas. Sure, the flight is an hour longer, but that's about the extent of the differences.

    • Like 1
  7. Soto up at Lakeline is arguably the best meal I've had in Austin. Dropped some coin, but it was sublime. No worse than Uchi/Uchiko, and arguably better. The waitstaff there has been consistently the best I've had anywhere. They know their shit.

×
×
  • Create New...