easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 17th, '22, 06:34
Have you not heard of them? Generation born between 1980 and 2000? They are the prime market for a company like disney, as they are between 20 and 40 and have young kids. They are also, by and large, far more liberal and far more likely to care about a corporation's stance on political issues than previous generations.
It seems to me that thise who believe the political stance of a company like Disney is the result of some ideological reason are pretty naive. Companies like Disney are taking these stances because it's what they think their most inportant patrons want them to do. Another example is Nike with Kaepernick.
Am a millennial. Have small kids. Don't care about companies political stance. Still give Disney all my money
Well I didn't say they all cared, just that they are more likely to. As just one example, an associate of mine owns a business with many younger patrons (gym) and he tells me that during the height of BLM, his patrons demanded he release some sort of statement on the issue. As a GenXer I find this laughable, but it's apparently what the younger generations want. Who knows, maybe this attitude will end up making the world a better place?
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 17th, '22, 06:54
Well I didn't say they all cared, just that they are more likely to. As just one example, an associate of mine owns a business with many younger patrons (gym) and he tells me that during the height of BLM, his patrons demanded he release some sort of statement on the issue. As a GenXer I find this laughable, but it's apparently what the younger generations want. Who knows, maybe this attitude will end up making the world a better place?
That's the problem, no one should demand anything of any one!
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 17th, '22, 06:54
Well I didn't say they all cared, just that they are more likely to. As just one example, an associate of mine owns a business with many younger patrons (gym) and he tells me that during the height of BLM, his patrons demanded he release some sort of statement on the issue. As a GenXer I find this laughable, but it's apparently what the younger generations want. Who knows, maybe this attitude will end up making the world a better place?
That's the problem, no one should demand anything of any one!
Except for the demand that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 17th, '22, 06:54
Well I didn't say they all cared, just that they are more likely to. As just one example, an associate of mine owns a business with many younger patrons (gym) and he tells me that during the height of BLM, his patrons demanded he release some sort of statement on the issue. As a GenXer I find this laughable, but it's apparently what the younger generations want. Who knows, maybe this attitude will end up making the world a better place?
That's the problem, no one should demand anything of any one!
Except for the demand that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
At what point, if any, does the child within gain any rights?
Sure thing once we understand your answer, you're still up. Your definition please, you chose the word. At what point does it become a child and gain rights?
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:00
At what point, if any, does the child within gain any rights?
It seems your tacit assumption is that at the moment a woman becomes pregnant, the collection of fertilized cells within her are a child. I find this to be absurd. Now, if you absolutely require my personal definition, and I say this as a skier, sometime around the 20 week mark after gestation. To my knowledge, there are no recorded instances of any "child" being born before that. After this period, the rights of the fetus should be considered. But as with any rights, these rights are not absolute.
Whether you find my response satisfying or not, your question has been duly answered. You’re up.
No, I did not express any opinion, tacit or not. I agree a fertilized cell is not a sentient being.
So the child within does gain rights at some point. And while the rights of a an unborn child are not absolute, after ~20 weeks there needs to be some consideration in Coyworld. So this statement
Except for the demand that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
is not entirely correct either, not if at some point the unborn child has any rights. It's at best incomplete and misleading. It's the kind of sound bite that's used to rally crowds and get votes.
As to your question
should the government be able to force a woman who becomes pregnant from rape or incest to remain pregnant?
The first clarification is at what point in time? At the fertilized egg stage, I have no objection to terminating the pregnancy. At the moment before birth stage, I'm not at all comfortable with the concept of ending that life where health of the mother is not a factor. I don't know where the boundary is. The government has chosen to assign a date whereby that transition occurs. I expect that date to evolve, and if Roe is overturned, I expect different States to define that date differently.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:49
No, I did not express any opinion, tacit or not. I agree a fertilized cell is not a sentient being.
So the child within does gain rights at some point. And while the rights of a an unborn child are not absolute, after ~20 weeks there needs to be some consideration in Coyworld. So this statement
Except for the demand that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
is not entirely correct either, not if at some point the unborn child has any rights. It's at best incomplete and misleading. It's the kind of sound bite that's used to rally crowds and get votes.
As to your question
should the government be able to force a woman who becomes pregnant from rape or incest to remain pregnant?
The first clarification is at what point in time? At the fertilized egg stage, I have no objection to terminating the pregnancy. At the moment before birth stage, I'm not at all comfortable with the concept of ending that life where health of the mother is not a factor. I don't know where the boundary is. The government has chosen to assign a date whereby that transition occurs. I expect that date to evolve, and if Roe is overturned, I expect different States to define that date differently.
1) In "Coyworld", if a woman wishes to but cannot have a legal abortion before 20 weeks, then the government is forcing her to remain pregnant against her will. You can use that to rally the crowds and get votes.
2) If Roe is overturned, some states will define the date such that the woman will have virtually no abortion rights even as a victim of sexual assault (see Alabama) and others such that the fetus will have virtually no rights to be born no matter the term of the pregnancy. The rights of both parties will become arbitrary, depending completely on the particular state and who happens hold power in that state. That approach proved to be sub-optimal for other important rights, such as the right not to be enslaved.
I think giving the control of that date to the states is a terrible idea. I think giving control of the issue to the states in general is a bad idea.
Just like conservatives have heartburn with those liberals who demand no restrictions on third trimester abortions (I'm not one of those people), I don't want religious zealots like the Nebraska Governor ruling that rape victims must carry to term.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:00
At what point, if any, does the child within gain any rights?
I think this is the central question. The Planned Parenthood vs Casey case addressed it with a compromise - before the fetus is viable outside the womb, it has no rights, and the state can't restrict abortion. Once it becomes viable outside the womb, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting it, and can restrict abortion.
I tend to lean toward not having the state interfere in the private decisions of individuals. At the same time I find late term abortions to be a repulsive concept in this day and age.
