Maybe its not misinformation, but rather doublespeak.

[mikkel_the_dane]

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 outright 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.)

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

Well, it is the fundamental right of woman to do with her body as she wants to do. That says nothing about it being medical.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, it is the fundamental right of woman to do with her body as she wants to do. That says nothing about it being medical.

Exactly. Her body, her choice.
If it results in the direct death of a fetus. Truly that upsets me.
I’m not being snarky at all, I do legitimately think a person (past viability ie past the first trimester) has an ethical obligation to go through with the pregnancy, barring medical complications. (Indeed with rape cases I’m willing to be very very lenient with. Just because that’s traumatic.)

But if the law allows a fully grown human to die because we’re not allowed to drain blood from a corpse without explicit consent (and that is indeed a reality in my country’s legal system) then I can’t really say we should expect mothers to give up their uterus for a potential human against their will. It would be hypocritical imo
I don’t like that reality, but it’s one in which I live. So….

 

[Revoltingest]

Stop taking a side.

Liberals....if you guys aren't telling me to take a side,
then you're telling me to not take a side. I'll continue
doing what calls to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Liberals....if you guys aren't telling me to take a side,
then you're telling me to not take a side. I'll continue
doing what calls to me.

Yes, as long as you understand that what calls to you is not a fact. Just like the rests of us. None of us have in effect objective morality.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I can believe that the moon is made of cheese. It doesn’t change reality.

Of course I know that religion is loopy...not reality.
But we should recognize what people sincerely
believe, & not distort it for the purpose of easier
demonization.
Believers are numerous & a powerful political force.
Understand & negotiate sincerely I say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it’s likely a strategy to pointedly remind folks that women are indeed people as well, even whilst pregnant. Given that there seems frustration that they are seemingly thought of as nothing but incubators. In the specific context of abortion discussions anyway.

Also people becoming more aware of the…more interesting nuances (let’s say) of pregnancy. Because trans men can still become pregnant, just for example.
So that’s also a reflection of folks trying not to be transphobic or indeed just trying to be polite about it.

As the nuances of reality become more acknowledged, language will change to reflect that.
A static language is a dead language, after all

It's mostly about acknowledging that there are implicit value judgments in using the term "pregnant women" to describe all pregnant people that aren't universally shared (or accurate).

I find the reactions to "pregnant person" interesting, though. Even the most anti-trans person you'll meet will still agree that everyone who gets pregnant is a person, but they push back against calling women who they acknowledge to be people "people."

The people who insist that we only ever say "pregnant women" and never "pregnant people" are the ones trying to impose their value and worldview on others.

... even though you'll find both "pregnant" and "people" in @74x12 ' 1828 Webster dictionary.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, as long as you understand that what calls to you is not a fact.

Preach'n to the choir, bub.
I knew it before you was even a gleam in yer pappy's eye.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Preach'n to the choir, bub.
I knew it before you was even a gleam in yer pappy's eye.

Then you don't mind when I point out, when you don't follow your claim that you can do that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you don't mind when I point out, when you don't follow your claim that you can do that.

It seems that you point it out no matter what I say.
Tis like you read someone else's posts, but then respond to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

All dictionaries reflect usage. Modern dictionaries reflect how language is used now, while old dictionaries reflect the usage at the time.

... mostly. Ironically, those old Webster dictionaries you have a fetish for were very agenda-laden. Noah Webster's goal with the creation of his dictionary wasn't just to document how people spoke and wrote, but to influence how people would speak and write. His first dictionary was a project intended to serve his goal of making American English distinct from British English.

 

[74x12]

All dictionaries reflect usage. Modern dictionaries reflect how language is used now, while old dictionaries reflect the usage at the time.

Before 1600s and the era of the King James Bible and Shakespeare the English language evolved very rapidly. We know that it slowed down it's rate of change after society as a whole became more literate. That is not to say that it ever stopped changing; but it has slowed down quite a bit. So that was a good thing. It's good that we have a solid language to reference to. We should be trying to preserve English instead of continuing to evolve it like it was evolving before literacy rates improved. There is no need for it to continue to evolve as if we are illiterate. Unless we are becoming more illiterate due to a reliance on technology. For example many people don't read books anymore. They listen to them.

I think we should be striving as a society to be more literate and have an even more stable language that doesn't really evolve at all except when necessary.

To be clear; I'm not against new words being formed by the way. But changing meanings of well established words ... I'm against it. I'm also against making new words that are redundant because they're useless. We do need new words for new things.

... mostly. Ironically, those old Webster dictionaries you have a fetish for were very agenda-laden. Noah Webster's goal with the creation of his dictionary wasn't just to document how people spoke and wrote, but to influence how people would speak and write. His first dictionary was a project intended to serve his goal of making American English distinct from British English.

Correct, however it's not tainted with the current, present day bias and propaganda. That's what matters to me. No one is saying that 1828 was a perfect time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Before 1600s and the era of the King James Bible and Shakespeare the English language evolved very rapidly. We know that it slowed down it's rate of change after society as a whole became more literate. That is not to say that it ever stopped changing; but it has slowed down quite a bit. So that was a good thing. It's good that we have a solid language to reference to. We should be trying to preserve English instead of continuing to evolve it like it was evolving before literacy rates improved. There is no need for it to continue to evolve as if we are illiterate. Unless we are becoming more illiterate due to a reliance on technology. For example many people don't read books anymore. They listen to them.

I think we should be striving as a society to be more literate and have an even more stable language that doesn't really evolve at all except when necessary.

To be clear; I'm not against new words being formed by the way. But changing meanings of well established words ... I'm against it. I'm also against making new words that are redundant because they're useless. We do need new words for new things.

Correct, however it's not tainted with the current, present day bias and propaganda. That's what matters to me. No one is saying that 1828 was a perfect time.

Okay, use your democratic vote for that and see how far it gets. Otherwise there is no we. Unless you want to become an autocrat.

 

[SomeRandom]

Of course I know that religion is loopy...not reality.
But we should recognize what people sincerely
believe, & not distort it for the purpose of easier
demonization.
Believers are numerous & a powerful political force.
Understand & negotiate sincerely I say.

I’ve tried. Numerous times. Success has only been achieved (compromise) when the positions weren’t extreme from the get go.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’ve tried. Numerous times. Success has only been achieved (compromise) when the positions weren’t extreme from the get go.

Yeah, but that is the same when you run into objectivists of the naturalistic kind. We don't have a fitting word for them, but they are around. Though not in the same number as strong dogmatic religious people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’ve tried. Numerous times. Success has only been achieved (compromise) when the positions weren’t extreme from the get go.

One compromise that's popular is allowing abortions
in cases of rape & incest. People who consider the
fetus to be a baby would never allow an actual baby
to be "murdered", but many will allow it in these cases.
It's inconsistent with their beliefs, but it's nonetheless
reasonable.

 

[SomeRandom]

One compromise that's popular is allowing abortions
in cases of rape & incest. People who consider the
fetus to be a baby would never allow an actual baby
to be "murdered", but many will allow it in these cases.
It's inconsistent with their beliefs, but it's nonetheless
reasonable.

I thought that too.
I have since encountered resistance to even that. Arguing it’s not fair to the innocent fetus.
Though to be fair, such pushback was rare
That I encountered that at all was surprising though

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought that too.
I have since encountered resistance to even that. Arguing it’s not fair to the innocent fetus.
Though to be fair, such pushback was rare
That I encountered that at all was surprising though

There's resistance to any useful idea.
So it's not about getting everyone to agree.
Just enuf to reach a workable compromise.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yeah, but that is the same when you run into objectivists of the naturalistic kind. We don't have a fitting word for them, but they are around. Though not in the same number as strong dogmatic religious people.

I agree.
I am a pragmatist at heart. I can compartmentalise my moral beliefs and my ethical positions. Hence my position on abortion. Morally I am against it. Ethically speaking, I am fervently pro choice, due to the overall outcomes. As I see it.

It’s taken me a while to strengthen my “inner consistency.” By that I mean, I try my best to work out the flaws in my positions and see if I can tighten them up a tad.
I no doubt have a long way to go in that regard. But I try my best to play devil’s advocate on many issues to see where I personally fall in the long run.

Personally speaking, I’ve found dogmatic positions to be far too rigid and fails to allow even the possibility of being wrong. Which I think is not a useful position to hold, logically speaking.
People are of course free to do so. I just think it’s very dangerous thinking.
I fell into that trap many times myself. Much to my regret

 

[SomeRandom]

There's resistance to any useful idea.
So it's not about getting everyone to agree.
Just enuf to reach a workable compromise.

Normally I would agree with such a sentiment.
With the impending overturning of Roe V Wade in America (allegedly) I find myself a tad pessimistic right now

 

[Revoltingest]

Normally I would agree with such a sentiment.
With the impending overturning of Roe V Wade in America (allegedly) I find myself a tad pessimistic right now

Public opinion differs from the leaked SCOTUS opinion.
Ultimately, the former drives the latter.
I'm optimistic, the intervening chaos notwithstanding.