• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Maybe its not misinformation, but rather doublespeak.

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You just said the term has multiple meanings.

Which one standard of proof are you using? What is cognitive dissonance? Is there only one form? How does it relate to cognition, logic and feelings/emotions?

You use the words. Now show that you can do more than just write them. You seem to know what you are doing, so please explain. I might learn something new.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Modern dictionaries are changing definitions and adding new definitions to obscure meaning.

I don't think it's to obscure meaning, but rather provide exactly what dictionaries are meant to provide: a place to understand language which has always been dynamic. Newspeak was a very different thing, meant to restrict language itself to restrict thought and make thoughtcrime impossible.

From the novel:

"Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

Dictionaries don't narrow language.

I've covered this elsewhere but there is a fine line you must walk when it comes to language. Too simple and it stunts thought.
Too complex and it creates confusion and over complicates communication. This is done on purpose to keep people in the dark and confused. It's very dishonest.

I agree, actually! Legal language is complex and often purposefully so to confuse the situation.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I gots no Bible learn'n, so I can't speak to its proscriptions.
I don't claim when "life" begins.
All I want is a useful compromise between the 2 warring factions.
You and me both.
Alas I don’t see it happening.
When one is so convinced that life begins at conception or even just in the womb, abortion is “murder.”
How do you compromise with that?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You and me both.
Alas I don’t see it happening.
When one is so convinced that life begins at conception or even just in the womb, abortion is “murder.”
How do you compromise with that?
Compromise is what results in government, ie,
not everyone agrees, but the law is that middle
ground. For a while, Roe v Wade was that result.
But now it'll likely shift towards more restrictions.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Compromise is what results in government, ie,
not everyone agrees, but the law is that middle
ground. For a while, Roe v Wade was that result.
But now it'll likely shift towards more restrictions.
That’s what I’m afraid of.
The US already has the highest infant mortality death rate of any developed nation. I think the the more restrictions you have the more death, dangerous/unsupervised abortive procedures, potential legal issues due to miscarriages come with it. And all the while claiming to care for the “sanctity of life.”
“Land of the free.”

We know the results of restrictive abortion access. We have seen it, measured it and have found it wanting.

If the results are poorer with such a compromise, then should we really strive for that outcome?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That’s what I’m afraid of.
The US already has the highest infant mortality death rate of any developed nation. I think the the more restrictions you have the more death, dangerous/unsupervised abortive procedures, potential legal issues due to miscarriages come with it. And all the while claiming to care for the “sanctity of life.”
“Land of the free.”

We know the results of restrictive abortion access. We have seen it, measured it and have found it wanting.

If the results are poorer with such a compromise, then should we really strive for that outcome?
Consider it from the pro-life perspective....
Stopping abortions saves many (fetus) lives.
More pregnant women would likely die, but the
net effect (in their view) would be less death.

FYI, I'm pro-abortion.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Consider it from the pro-life perspective....
Stopping abortions saves many (fetus) lives.
More pregnant women would likely die, but the
net effect (in their view) would be less death.

FYI, I'm pro-abortion.

I am neither. Stop taking a side. It is possible to do than thinking in the fallacy of a false dilemma. Learn that, as that is what you are advocating.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You and me both.
Alas I don’t see it happening.
When one is so convinced that life begins at conception or even just in the womb, abortion is “murder.”
How do you compromise with that?

Or that the mother has a full right to choose at any point in the pregnancy?
It goes both ways.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Consider it from the pro-life perspective....
Stopping abortions saves many (fetus) lives.
More pregnant women would likely die, but the
net effect (in their view) would be less death.

FYI, I'm pro-abortion.
And I can believe that the moon is made of cheese. It doesn’t change reality.

(Please note I am not making a comparison between the two, it was simply an example.)

Reality is what it is. Abortion restrictions have real world consequences, regardless of one’s perspective. Unless the death of pregnant women matters little to the side of wanting to limit death? (Pro life.)
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Or that the mother has a full right to choose at any point in the pregnancy?
It goes both ways.
If you’re referring to late term abortions, which are only done due to medical necessity, I’m not so sure.
Yes, abortion on demand is a rather popular slogan, but it’s usually more of a direct reaction to the debate, rather than a tenable position someone will actually try to defend on a platform.
(Of course, I’m speaking generally. Maybe there are extreme examples. Like anarchist feminists perhaps.)
Whereas the other “extreme” actually is a legit talking point that is defended by some on the pro life side. Like as a position, not just a reaction.

Though I take your point.
Compromise is difficult with extremes, regardless of issue or indeed the side chosen
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I've covered this elsewhere but there is a fine line you must walk when it comes to language. Too simple and it stunts thought.
Too complex and it creates confusion and over complicates communication. This is done on purpose to keep people in the dark and confused. It's very dishonest.
That's how lawyers work.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
If you’re referring to late term abortions, which are only done due to medical necessity, I’m not so sure.
Yes, abortion on demand is a rather popular slogan, but it’s usually more of a direct reaction to the debate, rather than a tenable position someone will actually try to defend on a platform.
(Of course, I’m speaking generally. Maybe there are extreme examples. Like anarchist feminists perhaps.)
Whereas the other “extreme” actually is a legit talking point that is defended by some on the pro life side. Like as a position, not just a reaction.

Though I take your point.
Compromise is difficult with extremes, regardless of issue or indeed the side chosen

PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_0_0.png


Okay, take the fallacy of reduction or the false dilemma.
So I am for illegal or legal? And the answer is neither, because I have learned not to accept a given framing and learn what is going on, before I get sucked in to the false dilemma.

BTW notice the 8 and 19%. :)
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_0_0.png


Okay, take the fallacy of reduction or the false dilemma.
So I am for illegal or legal? And the answer is neither, because I have learned not to accept a given framing and learn what is going on, before I get sucked in to the false dilemma.

BTW notice the 8 and 19%. :)
Mentions nothing about medical necessity.
Legality is what’s being shown or rather being discussed/voted on. So for example, although I wouldn’t personally agree with abortion on demand up until birth, I would still vote for it being legal for any time. Due to medical complications. Once you start outlawing abortion past a certain time frame, it kind of puts the doctor in an no win situation. Either the baby dies and they get charged. The mother dies and they get charged. Or both die and they get charged.
(Charged in this context meaning legal consequences, not necessarily jail time or even fines. Just lawsuits or investigations. Potential lose of medical license even.)

I would wager the caveats I propose is what spurns many to vote for legal abortion at any time. Not that it should be literally on demand at literally any point in the pregnancy. Just the acknowledgement that such things can occur and it should be absolutely legal as a consequence
That’s just a guess though.
 
Top