Punishing Women: A Woman's Job?
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
August 24, 2010 - 6:00am (Print)
If you were looking for a poll to capture exactly how much of America is judgmental and mean-spirited---especially towards women---you couldn’t top the recent Rasmussen poll that found that 48 percent of Americans think abortion is “too easy” to get. I’m not entirely sure why Rasmussen took the poll. Lack of generosity towards others and a dark eye specifically towards those you resenting people perceived as young, sensual, and not weighted down by the responsibilities of adulthood, which is how the public (incorrectly) imagines your average abortion patient to be. (In reality, the majority are mothers trying to make ends meet.)
You may as well have polled people asking, “Do believe kids these days listen to their music too loud?” or “Do you believe that you’re a sexually responsible person but there are some real sluts out there?” Even though the reality is that women from all walks of life get abortions, the perception in the general public is that abortion is an indicator of sluttiness. And sluts, last I checked, aren’t well regarded in our culture. When people imagine the obstacles between a woman and an abortion, they’re making an idealized judgment---some kind of major hassle that will teach the slut to keep her legs shut next time. But mean-spiritedness, stereotypes, and generalized ideas about what counts as “promiscuous” aren’t something on which to base public policy.
I don’t know whether to be sadder that the public still has these stereotypes about who gets abortions, or that the public still thinks sexually free women are evil and deserve to be punished.
The anti-choice media was triumphant over this poll, mostly because it showed that women are more likely to want more obstacles for women seeking abortions. According to anti-choicers, this somehow means this isn’t a women’s rights issue, even though the people who hold the right to abortion are women, aka the sex that gets pregnant by accident. But there’s no reason to think reproductive freedom isn’t an important women’s issue just because women are more likely to judge other women about their sexual choices. In a patriarchy, women are usually tasked with the job of monitoring female sexuality and enforcing norms of modesty.
In cultures that practice female genital mutilation, for instance, it’s often the women who do all the work of setting up the cutting, guiding the girl through it, and often doing the cutting themselves. That hardly means female genital mutilation is automatically feminist. It just requires that we have a more nuanced view of how oppression works. Enforcing modesty norms on women is dreary scut work, because by definition it’s anti-fun and anti-pleasure. In a patriarchy, women take on the scut work. We do housework so men’s time is freed up to do more "soul-affirming" work. We’re more likely to do assistant work so men can do the work that gets them all the credit. And when it comes to sex, women are tasked with the job of pushing prudery. Men have the privilege of not having to worry about these sorts of things to nearly the same degree.
It’s not just on abortion. In all sorts of avenues, women do the hard work of punishing and controlling female sexuality. David J. Ley is far too blasé in his assumption that women monitor other women just because, and that men have nothing to do with this. Most women who take punishing female sexuality very seriously believe this is ultimately about men, which is to say they view it as their responsibility to create a chaste population of women for men to marry. If women weren’t so dependent on men for status, we would be as free with each other as men are about our sexual choices.
Women are also roped into judging each other’s sexual behavior because we’re led to believe it’s our only realistic source of control. Being lower status than men, and especially when you’re dependent on a man, means you often have a lot of desire to keep male promiscuity to a minimum, but men are expected not to listen to women or care much what women think about these issues. Thus, women start putting demands on each other, because we can’t appeal to men. Which is why you see a culture where the “other woman” is blamed more than the cheating man for infidelity. Or you see women like Susan Walsh arguing that other women have a responsibility not to have sex when we want with who we want, because that means that fewer men will have to pony up wedding rings in order to get laid.
Of course, if women don’t have to rely on men for social status and economic survival, then the power balance shifts, and women can start making demands directly of men. It’s a lot easier, for instance, to demand monogamy directly from your husband if you can leave him without being destitute. Creating a world where women have equality and men have to share responsibilities for sex and family life is the goal of feminism, and more sexual liberation is the result. Indeed, I would say that the reason that only half of women polled take should an old-fashioned view on abortion (which is a symbolic stand-in for female immodesty) shows how far we’ve come already.
The numbers of women who feel that their only form of control over their lives is to exert control over other women is declining. Now that we have ways of attaining economic independence and social status that don’t involve getting and staying married, we have less of a need to create a protectionist racket over female sexuality where women who break the rules are treated like scabs breaking a strike. Now that we have powers outside of the power to say no to sex and to force other women to say no to sex, there’s simply less need to deprive ourselves or judge others. And the less that men have complete dominance over our lives, the less reason we have to try like mad to control the one thing we’ve been given to control, which is female sexuality.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
I haven't finished reading the entire post, but from a methodological point, I take great issue with a survey response option of "too easy." That's nowhere near neutral language.
58% of women believe that abortion is morally wrong in most cases, compared to 49% of men
Hmmmm.....
Women are generally each other's greatest critics and/or competition. I read a social psychology report awhile back suggesting women dress for other women, not men. And women in Great Britain held punitive attitudes about rape victims as well. Some of that is cognitive dissonance... we make "other" those things that scare us and try to distance ourselves so we think we're "protected."
At any rate, believing something is "morally wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that individual is for denying or restricting access. Case in point, I'm personally not a fan of abortion but I don't care that other people get them. I don't smoke and generally stick to the occasional glass of wine... but I don't think it's up to me as to whether other people should be able to indulge in these substances. I wouldn't get plastic surgery except to correct a functional flaw or something reconstructive after an accident or attack... but to each their own. I, too, believe abortion is morally wrong in some cases... it doesn't mean I want to limit access or think only those women who fit my personal moral ideology should be able to access them.
Well then, it's a good thing for you that the Catholic Bishops won't be ordaining women - they'd be even MORE anti-choice apparently!
I'm torn on that actually. I think any effort to ordain women would result in VERY specific types of women being ordained... namely the most hard line, conservative among them. It's kind of like trying to get a position within the Vatican... they aren't handing those out to liberals.
I'll never understand this notion, that abortion shouldn't be made illegal, but women should have to jump though hoops to get one? When I read things like this I can't help but assume that people really don't think these things through.
I wonder what percentage of Americans think it's too easy for women to get boob jobs.
Yeah, and cigarettes and alcohol too.
yeah no kidding! I think I understand the probable thought progression here: if society allows abortions "on-demand" then women and girls won't carefully consider sexual decisions, they'll be careless with birth control because they can just have an abortion, no biggie- nevermind stds, no one has those. and if they're not sexually disiplined then who knows what other kind of diviant behaviour we'll have to punish them for! Sex cults oh my! lol, I mean when you spell it out, it's so ridiculous, like making abortion available is just going to create more abortions because girls will "take advantage" or something. Ask anyone who's ever had an abortion and they'd tell you it's not something they'd voluntarily experiance more then once. (not to say it doesn't happen).
By that line of reasoning, I think teeth cleaning is too easy. We should make dentists harder to access, because then people would take better care of their teeth. Less root canals. makes sense to me. ;)
just quick question regarding the article:
"Lack of generosity towards others and a dark eye specifically towards those you resenting people perceived as young, sensual, and not weighted down by the responsibilities of adulthood, which is how the public (incorrectly) imagines your average abortion patient to be. (In reality, the majority are mothers trying to make ends meet.)"
Where is your editor? This statement isn't a sentence or even a coherant thought. Who are "you resenting people"? Rasmussen? The people polled? someone else? That first effort at a sentence has to be broken down into the two or three points you are trying to make.
Just follow a prudes logic. Hey, root canals are really easy to get. Since that is the case I am going to let my teeth rot so I can get one. They are fun.
MĂĽnchausen syndrome and MĂĽnchausen by proxy are great examples for why we don't structure medicine around the extremes. These individuals go to great lengths to abuse the medical system yet we still generally allow every medical procedure under the sun and exploratory abdominal surgeries are still regularly performed.
Easy enough for me to figure out. What does resenting mean? Then that is what she is referring to when she says 'resenting people'. This blog is done mostly for educational purposes. Compare that to books that are written professionally that STILL have errors in them after it has been combed through several times by editors before publication. Thanks.
Amanda,
I really don't buy your thesis that we live in a patriarchy. We did, but we're not there now. I think the patriarchy has long been replaced by an apathy on the part of women to step up. Women have the choice now to be entirely independent. Feminism has been a huge success at providing this choice for women and I applaud that. The problem is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink. And the biggest thing holding back women from leading independent lives is modern marital welfare, which is mainly a product of...feminism.
Case in point, my wife. Almost 10 years of higher education and two degrees (one paid by her father and the other by me). She had a great career, but it was tough, just like mine. One day she decided she didn't want to do it anymore. That was it. She had every opportunity you can imagine to be successful and independent. When I resisted her choice she told me if I didn't like it she would "take" our daughter and divorce me. So here I am 10 years later taking care of her. Yes. She relies on me for economic survival. But it has nothing to do with patriarchy. It was based on her own interest to live off me, enabled by the crutch of family law. Now, if she divorces me, I'll be the destitute one, not her.
Really, Amanda, isn't it time you stop blaming the patriarchy for everything? Is feminism incapable of blaming women at all for their judging of other women's sexual choices? Or for being financially dependent on men? Etc.?
All this said, I enjoy reading your posts and I agree with just about everything you write. Thanks.
The problem is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink. And the biggest thing holding back women from leading independent lives is modern marital welfare, which is mainly a product of...feminism.
Case in point, my wife.
So let me see if I understand your argument:
"My wife a lazy bum... therefore we don't live in a patriarchy."
The dook dook... thing was funny the first few times you did it, but it's getting old. You might want to try something else.
My wife is a case in point. That is, an example. Let me guess, the fact that you don't get my argument is because of the patriarchy. Right? It's not that you have a problem holding women accountable for their own choices and for their own words???? It couldn't be that????
Or maybe it's just that your particular situation doesn't actually prove anything?
I used my wife as an example, not as a proof. This is not a scientific journal where I need to lay out scientific evidence that we don't live in a patriarchy.
I like Amanda. I really do enjoy reading her articles. I'm just giving her my opinion and some food for thought.
It's undeniable for anyone to see that women have all the opportunity in the world to be self-reliant,etc. I see it in my job every day. IMO it's not some unseen force called patriarchy holding some women back. It's their choices. That we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch influences those choices. I don't think this is too hard to understand.
Yes, women have more choices now than they did in that past. That doesn't mean that the patriarchy is completely gone, however--the remnants are just very insiduous and hard to root out. Women still earn less than men on average, even in the same jobs. Women still wind up with most of hte childrearing and housekeeping duties. Men still make up the vast majority of leads in Hollywood films, videogames, TV shows, etc. Men still get stigmatized if they decide to stay at home, and women still get stigmatized if they dare work outside the house when they have kids.
Our culture is still quite biased. That some individual women have managed to use the systems in place to their own advantage doesn't negate that.
A good friend of mine's engagement just ended because her fiance's family didn't like that she worked so much (and she has a great career ahead of her). They expected her to stay home more and 'take care of her husband'. Her fiance agreed and then left her. She was blind-sided by this but figures she dodged a bullet.
They expected her to stay home more and 'take care of her husband'. Her fiance agreed and then left her. She was blind-sided by this but figures she dodged a bullet.
Sounds like he did her a favor! Would that all men not worthy of their girlfriends/fiances (and not just in the cutely modest way, either) disqualify their own asses from the relationship.
Shame that she lost some perfectly good time with this guy that she could have spent with someone who realizes that being driven and ambitious doesn't suddenly become a bad thing when you have boobs. It's too bad he and his family didn't give more of the "we want you barefoot and pregnant" vibe earlier on.
An article from New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/business/26walmart.html?th&emc=th
Nine years after the suit was filed, the central issue before the Supreme Court will not be whether any discrimination occurred, but whether more than a million people can even make this joint claim through a class-action lawsuit, as opposed to filing claims individually or in smaller groups.
Oh, class action lawsuits are so Not Fair to Big Business who can't Do Whatever They Want without being bothered by workers wanting to be treated without sexism. Companies with deep pockets want to be able to win their lawsuits by being able to out-spend their advesaries in court, not have the case decided on merit. (They might loose that way.)
I like Amanda. I really do enjoy reading her articles. I'm just giving her my opinion and some food for thought.
I'm sure that she will find your blatant and unapologetic display of male privilege very useful in illustrating the prevalence of patriarchal thinking in our society.
It's undeniable for anyone to see that women have all the opportunity in the world to be self-reliant,etc. I see it in my job every day. IMO it's not some unseen force called patriarchy holding some women back. It's their choices. That we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch influences those choices. I don't think this is too hard to understand.
Oh, I don't know... all the women who don't get paid as much as men, are expected to do all the child-rearing without maternal leave (and many times as a single mother), can't afford contraception let alone abortion, and need to work multiple jobs along with their spouses to stay above poverty level, might have some trouble wrapping their heads around it.
"we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch"
MRA alert!
This misogynist world view is held exclusively by devotees of Glenn Sacks and Men's News Daily.
If a man sincerely believes that there is such a thing as a "marital welfare system", it's safe to say that his taste in women and ability to discern character are abysmal.
Messed up women seek out the bad boys. Messed up men seek out the golddiggers. Members of each group believe that S/HE is so special that S/HE will be THE savior of the particular useless dreg of society s/he's decided to hook up with this time.
Moral of the story for sentient humans: don't date narcissistic sociopaths.
Moral of the story for narcissistic sociopaths of either gender: Believing that such a thing as a "marital welfare system" really exists, says more about the believer of such tripe, than about the bad boy/golddigger him/her self.
That we have a substantial marital welfare system that can be used as a crutch
Yah, it's the one my husband is benefiting from as a stay at home dad while I make the money.
The dook dook... thing was funny the first few times you did it, but it's getting old. You might want to try something else.
Hey, it's not my fault that ferrets have a limited noise-vocabulary. It's not like I can go "bark bark bark bark bark" :-3
My wife is a case in point. That is, an example. Let me guess, the fact that you don't get my argument is because of the patriarchy. Right? It's not that you have a problem holding women accountable for their own choices and for their own words???? It couldn't be that????
What argument? You're complaining about one woman, and generalizing the point to all women. Seriously, what is the matter with you??
Newsflash: Women are individuals, just like you and me. Some of them are nice people. Some of them are scoundrels. Some of them are nice to be with, some of them you never ever want to see. Treating women as interchangeable units of some giant Womanly Hive Mind is so very... patriarchal.
I'm sure all this will come naturally to you when you hear a woman grouse that she hates men because she was raped by one of them.
The dook dook... thing was funny the first few times you did it, but it's getting old. You might want to try something else.
OTOH, Your comments here have never been well informed, interesting or even minimally intelligent. Why not find another blog?
This isn't a blog for marriage counseling and your inability to form a good relationship is predictable and expected.
I just love it when random dudes mansplain some feminism to the feminists. :)
Really, guy, isn't it time you stop blaming your ex-wife for everything?
I just learned of the term 'mansplain' yesterday and I literally lol'd at my desk, like I'm doing now, soo hilarious, and so perfect.
I'm with you, this dude needs to stop blamming all his woes (and apparently the woes of all men? ) on his ex wife. time for some therapy perhaps.
Oh, okay, I remember YOU now. The guy who wants it both ways. The guy who wants to own a cow that will breed his young chattel, AND support him financially.
I wish Mrs MRA would post here and let us know what a fcvking picnic living with you must be.
The constant claims of patriarchy and the like were mildly amusing at first, but now they are just old and tired. Why is it that whenever a woman says she is anti-abortion or finds abortion morally wrong or needs to be restricted, that she is being influenced by an evil male patriarchal society?
There's a big difference between having a personal moral objection to abortion -meaning you would never consider having one yourself, but you can still understand and would support other women's right to have one- and actively fighting to prevent other women from having an abortion because you think your morals should be everyones morals. The latter is most certainly a symptom of our patriarchal society. Because it's not about fetus rights, it's about control over women.
You relegate abortion to an issue of personal morality (since when is murder a personal choice?), completely ignoring the fact that most people simply do not view it that way, and then scream patriarchy when women in general refuse to conform to the views you think they should have. Funnily enough, the irony of that situation is lost upon you. Why would you give give up, in your view, one oppressive system which tells you what you have to believe in order to join your system which does the same thing?
At any rate, continue screaming on about patriarchal systems. Very few people will take you seriously. After all, the crazy guy on the street does not really think he is crazy, but rather everyone else is for ignoring him.
You relegate abortion to an issue of personal morality (since when is murder a personal choice?),
Oh, so in your personal morality, abortion is murder? That's nice! In our personal morality, and that of many many many other people, abortion is a woman's right. I guess we'll just have to split the difference, and let people decide this sort of thing for themselves.
Funnily enough, the irony of that situation is lost upon you. Why would you give give up, in your view, one oppressive system which tells you what you have to believe in order to join your system which does the same thing?
Because a system that doesn't demand you conform to certain predefined gender roles would only be oppressive to patriarchy-fanboys like you.
(Oh, and don't forget to excoriate pro-choicers for being anti-choice, too!)
At any rate, continue screaming on about patriarchal systems. Very few people will take you seriously. After all, the crazy guy on the street does not really think he is crazy, but rather everyone else is for ignoring him.
Sounds like someone you could relate to!
Oh, so in your personal morality, abortion is murder? That\'s nice! In our personal morality, and that of many many many other people, abortion is a woman\'s right. I guess we\'ll just have to split the difference, and let people decide this sort of thing for themselves.
Murder is a matter of personal opinion? Just because you ignore answering the question posed to you, does not mean said question was not posed to you. And in the same vein, simply because you think you do, does not mean you speak for all, nor a majority, nor even most women :)
Because a system that doesn\'t demand you conform to certain predefined gender roles would only be oppressive to patriarchy-fanboys like you.
A system which requires you to accept certain axioms (for example, that abortion is a right), or else you are either called a faux-feminist or accused of being dominated by a patriarchal society is, by definition, as oppressive as the system you claim to be oppressive, for to be apart of it you have to conform to what the members of that group want you to conform to, or believe what the members of that group want you to believe. But, as I said, the irony is lost upon you, so do not mind me pointing this out. Just continue to scream about patriarchal systems while scratching your head in bewilderment at why society, as a whole, dismisses you.
(Oh, and don\'t forget to excoriate pro-choicers for being anti-choice, too!)
No. I excoriate pro-choicers for being pro-choicers.
Sounds like someone you could relate to!
Indeed I cannot. You can, though.
You are more than welcome to ignore us BrokenrecordBorn. Ignore us and go away. ;-)
yes, few people would take me seriously. People who have no concept of their own privilage. Here's what I observe: Anti-choicers screaming on about selfish women who should have kept their legs shut, murdering their babies because they dared to want to finish an education or *gasp, never want to become parents, anti-choicers who could never grasp the idea that maybe a woman might have something else of value to contribute to the world besides more babies, anti-choicers who would value the potential life over a real living, breathing, working, eating, beautiful woman. Name one medical procedure specific to men that is scrutinized, analyzed, regulated and judged as much as any medical procedure specific to women, then then we can debate whether the patriarchy exists.
Being pro-choice is in no way a system of oppression. It is the very opposite.
yes, few people would take me seriously. People who have no concept of their own privilage. Here\'s what I observe: Anti-choicers screaming on about selfish women who should have kept their legs shut, murdering their babies because they dared to want to finish an education or *gasp, never want to become parents, anti-choicers who could never grasp the idea that maybe a woman might have something else of value to contribute to the world besides more babies, anti-choicers who would value the potential life over a real living, breathing, working, eating, beautiful woman.
Maybe I need to make this clear.
MORE. WOMEN. ARE. PRO-LIFE. THAN. PRO-CHOICE.
That completely destroys any of your arguments. No. Really. It is always women this or women that, but the second someone points out that the women you somehow claim to speak for simply do not agree with your views as a whole, you turn around and claim that their views do not matter because they are being influenced by a patriarchal society. Say what? That is the epitome of dishonesty. If someone does not believe what you think they should believe, then suddenly their views become irrelevant? It seems to me that you do not care about women as much as you say you do. You only seem to care about women when they agree with you, otherwise they can be damned because they are either stupid or brainwashed.
Anyway, the propensity of some people here to somehow totally throw out the notion of accountability is quite startling indeed. Apparently, holding a woman accountable for that she helped to create is misogyny. Apparently, telling the woman that she should not having sex if she cannot handle the prospect of being a parent is misogyny (it is okay to tell that to the guy, though). Apparently, telling a woman that she should not be allowed to kill her child because she wants to go to school (which is a false dichotomy, by the way, as I know for a fact I did not imagine all those single parents, both male and female, working their way through school while taking care of their child or children) is also misogyny. I do not need to continue, because you probably get the point. The willingness to label everything as misogyny is precisely why society, as a whole, simply fails to take many of the arguments some of you guys and gals make seriously.
Why take the views of someone who thinks that everything is a masterful plot to control and ruin women everywhere seriously?
Name one medical procedure specific to men that is scrutinized, analyzed, regulated and judged as much as any medical procedure specific to women, then then we can debate whether the patriarchy exists.
Name me a medical procedure a man can go through which involves the death of another, then we can talk. It is fairly hard to claim that an action designed to prevent one from killing another is patriarchal in nature. It actually boggles the mind as to how you do not understand this.
Being pro-choice is in no way a system of oppression. It is the very opposite.
Not speaking of pro-choice, but feminism, the latter of which is incredibly non-open to people with differing view points (the number of articles berating women who somehow do not believe that abortion is a right on this site should prove that point without question).
<
MORE. WOMEN. ARE. PRO-LIFE. THAN. PRO-CHOICE.
That completely destroys any of your arguments. No. Really. It is always women this or women that, but the second someone points out that the women you somehow claim to speak for simply do not agree with your views as a whole
Yes, more women describe themselves as ProLife than as ProChoice. Perhaps a majority of women agree that 'abortion is immoral'. That does NOT mean that a majority of women want to make abortions illegal or harder to get. The thing you seem to be missing is a person can be personally ProBaby, personally think abortion is 'wrong' and yet have no desire to drag the cops and the courts into the matter and start arresting women who disagree with her or do something she would not personally chose.
Many of us have learned the historical lesson demonstrated by Prohibition and the War on Drugs: government does a lousy job of enforcing morality and attempting to use government to do so creates more problems than it solves.
Right on. Plus just because a woman describes herself as "pro-life" does not mean she won't one day need to have an abortion or that someone close to her won't. Most women were against women's suffrage at one time too.
Most women don't have to agree that reproductive rights and access are important to be entitled to them.
Yes, more women describe themselves as ProLife than as ProChoice. Perhaps a majority of women agree that \'abortion is immoral\'. That does NOT mean that a majority of women want to make abortions illegal or harder to get.
Way to click on the links in the OP.
Women (53%) feel more strongly than men (42%) that abortions are too easy to get.
The thing you seem to be missing is a person can be personally ProBaby, personally think abortion is \'wrong\' and yet have no desire to drag the cops and the courts into the matter and start arresting women who disagree with her or do something she would not personally chose.
One refrain sometimes heard in the abortion debate is \"I am personally opposed to abortion, but I would not impose my beliefs on others.\" In fact, for a majority of Americans, their personal judgement about the morality of abortion and their views about its legality are in general alignment. Moreover, very few Americans appear conflicted in the described way. According to Gallup’s May 2001 survey on abortion, only 5% of all Americans simultaneously believe abortion is morally wrong and that it should be legal in all or most circumstances.
Most of those saying abortion is morally acceptable (72%) believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while a somewhat larger number (87%) of those who say abortion is morally wrong believe it should be legal in only a few or no circumstances. As shown in the chart below, the relationship between one’s personal belief about an issue and one’s attitudes toward how society should treat it is fairly consistent across a variety of issues, with two exceptions. A relatively large number of those saying abortion is not morally wrong, nevertheless feel abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances (26%) -- putting them into the \"generally illegal\" category. A similar degree of inconsistency is seen among those who believe that doctor-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, is morally wrong, with 27% of this group nevertheless believing it should be legal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#6
Many of us have learned the historical lesson demonstrated by Prohibition and the War on Drugs: government does a lousy job of enforcing morality and attempting to use government to do so creates more problems than it solves.
You do realize that laws against murder are legislating morality, correct?
You do realize that laws against murder are legislating morality, correct?
That's certainly not the PRIMARY purpose we don't like letting people run around murdering each other. There are PLENTY of secular reasons one could desire to prohibit murder.
Even using gay marriage as an example, if people could come up with a non-moral reason to be against it (legal, biological, psychological, public safety, etc.) then great! But when people's opposition boils down to "ewwwwwwww gay sex" or "but it's against my religious/moral beliefs"... well... it's just not okay.
That\'s certainly not the PRIMARY purpose we don\'t like letting people run around murdering each other. There are PLENTY of secular reasons one could desire to prohibit murder.
Even using gay marriage as an example, if people could come up with a non-moral reason to be against it (legal, biological, psychological, public safety, etc.) then great! But when people\'s opposition boils down to \"ewwwwwwww gay sex\" or \"but it\'s against my religious/moral beliefs\"... well... it\'s just not okay.
Okay. So you say that there are plenty of secular reasons why we do not let people run around murdering each other, yet you turn around and argue that there is no good reason to not let someone run around murdering the unborn. Hmmm, really?
"Name me a medical procedure a man can go through which involves the death of another, then we can talk."
Bingo. If men had menstrual cycles, periods, bloating and cramps, if men could get pregnant, have miscarriages and unwanted pregnancies, you would have a completely different perspective on this topic.
When YOU can do all those things, THEN we can talk.
If men had menstrual cycles, periods, bloating and cramps, if men could get pregnant, have miscarriages and unwanted pregnancies, you would have a completely different perspective on this topic.
Then how do you explain the great number of women who make the same arguments against abortion that I do? In fact, a Zogby poll from a couple years ago showed that a greater percentage of women consider abortion to be manslaughter than men. Women may have a different perspective on what leads to an abortion, but they also have a greater realization of the truth of what it is.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_cnn51415.php
The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?
-
30% Yes, overturn
68% No, not overturn
MORE. WOMEN. ARE. PRO-LIFE. THAN. PRO-CHOICE.
And in the 1800s more people were racist than not... does that mean we should have kept slavery forever? And more people in the US are Christian than other religions... do we do away with other religions based on your reasoning?
And in the 1800s more people were racist than not... does that mean we should have kept slavery forever? And more people in the US are Christian than other religions... do we do away with other religions based on your reasoning?
You know, I think I know what he was getting at. In the 1960s, around when Loving v. Virginia was decided, something like 80% of the country was against mixed-race marriage. Fast-forward forty-fifty years to the present, and... the racial marriage-equality movement is totally dead! I think it's entirely possible (quite likely, in fact) that the pro-choice movement will come to the same not-very-banglike end.
You know, I think I know what he was getting at. In the 1960s, around when Loving v. Virginia was decided, something like 80% of the country was against mixed-race marriage. Fast-forward forty-fifty years to the present, and... the racial marriage-equality movement is totally dead! I think it\'s entirely possible (quite likely, in fact) that the pro-choice movement will come to the same not-very-banglike end.
History is not your strong point. I am fairly sure that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, 34 states had either repealed their anti-miscegenation laws or had never passed any. And now you know :)
And I want to mention something about age-cohorts and younger generations, but I do not really see what the point of that would be, as it would be ignored all the same.
History is not your strong point. I am fairly sure that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, 34 states had either repealed their anti-miscegenation laws or had never passed any. And now you know :)
Nope! 'Twas opinion polls ^_^
And I want to mention something about age-cohorts and younger generations, but I do not really see what the point of that would be, as it would be ignored all the same.
Hey, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
And in the 1800s more people were racist than not... does that mean we should have kept slavery forever? And more people in the US are Christian than other religions... do we do away with other religions based on your reasoning?
Time and time and time again, you and like-minded individuals have centered your arguments around the notion that women know best in regards to abortion and that the majority of women believe that abortion should be legal, yet as soon as someone points out to you that the majority of women do not believe what you state they believe, then suddenly their opinions do not matter. How, on Earth, does that work? I would tell you that you are grasping at straws, but you do not even have straws to grasp at. You are, in essence, merely flailing about hoping to stumble unto some kind of point.
women know best in regards to abortion
Women know best in regards to themselves. I don't know what's best for Prochoiceferret, nor does she know what's best for me, and neither of us knows what's best for colleen or croweeps. What I do know is what's best for me.
Women know best in regards to themselves. I don\'t know what\'s best for Prochoiceferret, nor does she know what\'s best for me, and neither of us knows what\'s best for colleen or croweeps. What I do know is what\'s best for me.
Ignoring the whole knowing what is best for you quip (as this does not matter, because what is best for you is not necessarily best for someone else), on this very site you have had people have gone on and on and on about how men should not have a say in the legality of abortion and that restrictions on abortion are all about men controlling women, yet when someone points out that if abortion policy was constructed via what women want, that not only would it end up restricted, but it would end up moreso restricted than it would if you also let me decide, and that you would have a hard time playing the wanting to control women card, as those women who voted for those restrictions on abortion would themselves also be subject to the same restrictions. Of course, once that is pointed out, then suddenly said people do not care what those women think. They only care what the women who agree with them thinks, which is ironic. But I have said all of this before.
And, yes, said statements have been made on this site. It would take me a while, but I could find said quotes.
Actually, I don't think many of us really care what the 'majority' thinks, as we view abortion as a right.
The frustration with men railing about abortion being wrong is that they have very little personal stake in the issue. They tell us what we should do with our bodies, when they themselves couldn't do the same if they wanted to. It's easy to say that other people should suffer for what's 'right'.
As for women being pro-life--that's up to them. I can accept and understand that point of view. What I can't accept is the morality of others being used as a way to control how I use my own body.
Actually, I don\'t think many of us really care what the \'majority\' thinks, as we view abortion as a right.
They do when they think majority opinion is on their side.
The frustration with men railing about abortion being wrong is that they have very little personal stake in the issue. They tell us what we should do with our bodies, when they themselves couldn\'t do the same if they wanted to. It\'s easy to say that other people should suffer for what\'s \'right\'.
And, pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that men could not do the same if they wanted to? You just pulled that out of thin air. At any rate, if a man wants to beat a woman in North Dakota, how does that affect you? In fact, it affects you in the exact same way that a woman obtaining an abortion affects you, yet I would be willing to bet that you would not, and do not, apply the whole minding your own business/focus on what affects you logic then.
As for women being pro-life--that\'s up to them. I can accept and understand that point of view. What I can\'t accept is the morality of others being used as a way to control how I use my own body.
You do not live in an anarchy. No one has absolute control over their body. It is amazing how pro-choicers seemingly believe otherwise, or how they readily accepts limits on what one can do, yet suddenly when the same standard is applied to abortion, then it is invalid. It makes no sense, really. Moral autonomy is a ridiculous concept.
And, pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that men could not do the same if they wanted to?
Men can get pregnant now? Must've missed the news.
They do when they think majority opinion is on their side.
Sure, it's nice to have on your side. But it doesn't affect what your rights are or should be. Just ask Fred Phelps.
And, pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that men could not do the same if they wanted to? You just pulled that out of thin air.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sure she'll find a citation for you to corroborate that people born male can't get pregnant.
At any rate, if a man wants to beat a woman in North Dakota, how does that affect you? In fact, it affects you in the exact same way that a woman obtaining an abortion affects you, yet I would be willing to bet that you would not, and do not, apply the whole minding your own business/focus on what affects you logic then.
This man in North Dakota has the right to beat that woman?
You do not live in an anarchy. No one has absolute control over their body. It is amazing how pro-choicers seemingly believe otherwise, or how they readily accepts limits on what one can do, yet suddenly when the same standard is applied to abortion, then it is invalid. It makes no sense, really. Moral autonomy is a ridiculous concept.
Let the mandatory living organ donations begin!
Sure, it\'s nice to have on your side. But it doesn\'t affect what your rights are or should be. Just ask Fred Phelps.
Which is what they say, after they learn they do not have majority opinion on their side after structuring their entire argument around the notion that they do. Backtracking is nice.
Oh, I\'m sorry, I\'m sure she\'ll find a citation for you to corroborate that people born male can\'t get pregnant.
Not being able to and being unwilling to are two completely different issues. To discredit the views of someone because they cannot do something is, well, intellectually dishonest at its finest-- especially when you consider the fact that the arguments made by women who could do as much yet disagree with abortion would be given as much weight as men who cannot do as much. But I am sure you knew this.
This man in North Dakota has the right to beat that woman?
What happened to not forcing people to abide by the morals of someone else or minding your own business? Do not tell me you are selectively applying said logic.
Let the mandatory living organ donations begin!
You would do well to find a better argument ;)
Which is what they say, after they learn they do not have majority opinion on their side after structuring their entire argument around the notion that they do. Backtracking is nice.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that the entire crux of the pro-choice argument was that it was popular.
Not being able to and being unwilling to are two completely different issues. To discredit the views of someone because they cannot do something is, well, intellectually dishonest at its finest-- especially when you consider the fact that the arguments made by women who could do as much yet disagree with abortion would be given as much weight as men who cannot do as much. But I am sure you knew this.
Oh, so men are willing to go through all the bodily changes and health risks and potential complications of pregnancy? Well, I guess that changes the argument, then. At least until we have the technology to really allow men to become pregnant. Otherwise, they can just say they're willing, without it actually meaning anything, couldn't they?
What happened to not forcing people to abide by the morals of someone else or minding your own business? Do not tell me you are selectively applying said logic.
No, we're not selective in protecting people's rights. So, does that man have the right to beat that woman, or not?
You would do well to find a better argument ;)
Yeah, one that doesn't expose your own selective logic.
Oh, I\'m sorry. I didn\'t know that the entire crux of the pro-choice argument was that it was popular.
No, just a large part of it through the 80s, 90s and early 00s. Until, of course, public opinion changed, then now popular opinion does not matter.
Oh, so men are willing to go through all the bodily changes and health risks and potential complications of pregnancy? Well, I guess that changes the argument, then. At least until we have the technology to really allow men to become pregnant. Otherwise, they can just say they\'re willing, without it actually meaning anything, couldn\'t they?
Yet, for whatever reason, that would not matter to you, as evidenced by the fact that you give an argument made by a pro-life male and an argument made by a pro-life female equal credence. Which, you know, is what I just pointed out and what you just ignored.
No, we\'re not selective in protecting people\'s rights. So, does that man have the right to beat that woman, or not?
Yes, you are, for if tomorrow the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade and state that the unborn has an inalienable right to life, you would not turn around and argue that abortion should be impermissible.
Yeah, one that doesn\'t expose your own selective logic.
No. Just one which has not been responded to a million times over. Is not donating a kidney to someone and having them die as a result the same thing as taking a kidney away from someone and having them die as a result? For your argument to hold weight, the answer has to be yes. But if the answer is yes, then why is someone who takes a kidney away from someone and have them die as a result charged with murder, while someone who does not donate his or her kidney to someone else is not?
No, just a large part of it through the 80s, 90s and early 00s. Until, of course, public opinion changed, then now popular opinion does not matter.
So, favorable poll numbers being cited in a few old press releases constitutes the core of the pro-choice argument? I must not have gotten that memo. I still thought it was about, you know, women owning their bodies and all.
Yet, for whatever reason, that would not matter to you, as evidenced by the fact that you give an argument made by a pro-life male and an argument made by a pro-life female equal credence. Which, you know, is what I just pointed out and what you just ignored.
Yes, if the anti-abortion argument is being made by a woman, of reproductive age, and without the means of traveling to another state (or country) to obtain an abortion if she ever needed one, then that would have more credence. Because then her own reproductive autonomy would be affected as much as other womens'.
Considering that "pro-lifers" get abortions too, I'm not going to give credence to that view just because it comes from a woman. I'm sure as heck going to discredit it, however, if it comes from a man.
Yes, you are, for if tomorrow the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade and state that the unborn has an inalienable right to life, you would not turn around and argue that abortion should be impermissible.
No, because the fetus's "inalienable right to life" does not entail "the right to obtain life support for that life from an unwilling person."
why is someone who takes a kidney away from someone and have them die as a result charged with murder, while someone who does not donate his or her kidney to someone else is not?
Because currently, living organ donation is not mandatory. Got any more dumb questions, hot shot?
So, favorable poll numbers being cited in a few old press releases constitutes the core of the pro-choice argument? I must not have gotten that memo. I still thought it was about, you know, women owning their bodies and all.
It did when trying to argue the legal status of abortion in the United States. Have you really not been keeping up with the abortion debate in the U.S.?
Yes, if the anti-abortion argument is being made by a woman, of reproductive age, and without the means of traveling to another state (or country) to obtain an abortion if she ever needed one, then that would have more credence. Because then her own reproductive autonomy would be affected as much as other womens\'.
So, in other words, arguments by Blacks and Hispanic females would have more credence than their White and Asian counterparts? If that is the case, then why do you support abortion again, as last I checked Blacks and Hispanics are the least supportive racial groups when it comes to abortion, while Whites and Hispanics the most supportive, and Blacks and Hispanics the most likely to be disproportionately affected if abortion is made illegal again.
Considering that \"pro-lifers\" get abortions too, I\'m not going to give credence to that view just because it comes from a woman. I\'m sure as heck going to discredit it, however, if it comes from a man.
You are playing a game you cannot lose. You discredit my view on the basis of being a male (you do not discredit the views of pro-choice males, however) and you discredit the views of pro-life females on the basis that some females who call themselves pro-life obtain an abortion? What about the pro-life females who do not obtain an abortion?
No, because the fetus\'s \"inalienable right to life\" does not entail \"the right to obtain life support for that life from an unwilling person.\"
You would be refusing to acknowledge the right of the unborn, which would mean that you are selectively applying your argument in protecting rights, which you just said you did not do. Irony?
Because currently, living organ donation is not mandatory. Got any more dumb questions, hot shot?
I am sure you realize this, but that did not answer the question. If you do not have to give to someone, but taking away from that is murder, then is not abortion murder as that requires taking something away from the unborn.
Do you not know how contradictory this is: If that is the case, then why do you support abortion again, as last I checked Blacks and Hispanics are the least supportive racial groups when it comes to abortion, while Whites and Hispanics the most supportive, and Blacks and Hispanics the most likely to be disproportionately affected if abortion is made illegal again;?
If they are the least supportive then WHY would they be the most afFECted if abortion was made illegal? Hmmm...?
And WHY do women have to take away? Because that is the way their bodies are MADE. Iow, you just want to punish and imprison women in their bodies JUST for having them developed the way they are....
Please go back and read what she said. She said a pregnant ProLife female has more credence than a ProLife male OR female who are NOT pregnant. So, that inCLUDES your disingenuous question.
The right of the unborn? Unborn get more rights than anyone born? Umm, you have yet to prove this...? Even WITH your dependancy argument. Thanks. You are the one who is selectively applying their argument, OF course. Irony much?
It did when trying to argue the legal status of abortion in the United States. Have you really not been keeping up with the abortion debate in the U.S.?
I have, and it didn't. Sorry.
So, in other words, arguments by Blacks and Hispanic females would have more credence than their White and Asian counterparts? If that is the case, then why do you support abortion again, as last I checked Blacks and Hispanics are the least supportive racial groups when it comes to abortion, while Whites and Hispanics the most supportive, and Blacks and Hispanics the most likely to be disproportionately affected if abortion is made illegal again.
Black and Hispanic females, of reproductive age, without the means of getting around abortion bans. Did you have a point?
What about the pro-life females who do not obtain an abortion?
The ones who really haven't had an abortion, or the ones who only say they haven't had an abortion? Or would that be the menopausal ones, who couldn't make use of an abortion even if they tried?
Medical confidentiality's a bitch, isn't it?
You would be refusing to acknowledge the right of the unborn, which would mean that you are selectively applying your argument in protecting rights, which you just said you did not do. Irony?
No, the unborn has their right and all. They just don't have the right to exercise that right by violating someone else's right.
It's not irony. It's just an argument too sophisticated for you to grasp, apparently.
I am sure you realize this, but that did not answer the question. If you do not have to give to someone, but taking away from that is murder, then is not abortion murder as that requires taking something away from the unborn.
No, because the "something" that is taken away---the uterus---belongs to the woman, not to the fetus.
I'll be generous to you, however, and allow that the fetus can keep the placenta.
I have, and it didn\'t. Sorry.
Oh? Would you care to place a wager on that?
Black and Hispanic females, of reproductive age, without the means of getting around abortion bans. Did you have a point?
You said you would give their arguments more credence, and if the groups more than likely to be negatively affected by bans on abortion are the least supportive of abortion, then why do you not give their arguments not only more credence then male pro-lifers or pro-lifers from the privileged group, but not more credence than the arguments of privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women?
The ones who really haven\'t had an abortion, or the ones who only say they haven\'t had an abortion? Or would that be the menopausal ones, who couldn\'t make use of an abortion even if they tried?
Medical confidentiality\'s a bitch, isn\'t it?
I see. So you discredit the opinion of every pro-life female because they could of have an abortion, even though the majority of them have not. Interesting.
No, the unborn has their right and all. They just don\'t have the right to exercise that right by violating someone else\'s right.
It\'s not irony. It\'s just an argument too sophisticated for you to grasp, apparently.
You: We are not selective in defending rights.
Me: Yes, you are.
You: No, we are not.
Me: So if tomorrow SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade and finds that the unborn has an inalienable right to life, would you defend that right for the unborn?
You: No, because that would contradict with the right of the woman to control her body.
Me: The woman has no such right, as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Since you said you are not selective in defending rights, then if SCOTUS finds that the unborn has a right to life, you should defend that right, as not doing so would be selecting which rights should be defended.
You: ???
Sophisticated, indeed.
No, because the \"something\" that is taken away---the uterus---belongs to the woman, not to the fetus.
I\'ll be generous to you, however, and allow that the fetus can keep the placenta.
The argument is based on what belongs to whom, but rather what effect taking away from someone who is already using something would have on another. If I own a life support system, and someone is hooked up to it, I cannot unhook that person simply because I own said life support system. I would go to jail for murder if I did.
To your first question, because they're not trying to impose anything on ANYone. Derrrrr....
If Roe vs Wade is removed, then she absoLUTEly loses her right to full autonomy. Why? Because, AS we've said, OVER and OVER, everyone ELSE would STILL have the right to determine WHO uses their body, and when and how it is used via ONGOING, explicit and informed consent, EVEN IF another's life is involved. With Roe v Wade removed, the woman absoLUTEly does NOT. That is sexism, which, y'know, goes against the Constitution...?
Btw, that last scenario requires a MEDical decision. But, of course, with your usual attempts to twist people's words, you took out the medical part of the equation. If you need to twist people's words you KNOW you've lost the argument, right...?
Oh? Would you care to place a wager on that?
Sure! Let's wager a million zillion dollars. I've always wanted my own Ferret Manor.
You said you would give their arguments more credence, and if the groups more than likely to be negatively affected by bans on abortion are the least supportive of abortion, then why do you not give their arguments not only more credence then male pro-lifers or pro-lifers from the privileged group,
Because I'm interested in the women, of reproductive age, lacking the means to get around a ban. Or do you believe that minorities are incapable of patriarchalness?
but not more credence than the arguments of privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women?
Because their sympathies more closely reflect the real-world needs of reproductive-age and unprivileged women. It may be a bit sound-bite-ish to argue "a woman's body, a woman's choice," but even that much would be an improvement for many women.
I see. So you discredit the opinion of every pro-life female because they could of have an abortion, even though the majority of them have not.
As far as you know. When we advocate for choice, we advocate choice for everyone, including anti-choicers.
You're welcome.
Me: The woman has no such right, as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Since you said you are not selective in defending rights, then if SCOTUS finds that the unborn has a right to life, you should defend that right, as not doing so would be selecting which rights should be defended.
You: ???Sophisticated, indeed.
Yep. Apparently, you are incapable of distinguishing between the fetus's hypothetical "inalienable right to life" and the woman's right to withhold consent to providing life support to another organism/person. Granting the former in no way negates the latter.
Unless you had another Supreme Court case that declared pregnant women to be non-persons. Then they'd be f*****.
The argument is based on what belongs to whom, but rather what effect taking away from someone who is already using something would have on another. If I own a life support system, and someone is hooked up to it, I cannot unhook that person simply because I own said life support system. I would go to jail for murder if I did.
Yes, if we're talking about things that are not one's physical body, the rules are different. If you're on the hook for child support, you can't just decline to continue providing that.
Bodies are a special case. Although if you want a court officer to be able to repossess one of your non-vital organs, you can certainly try to make that argument.
Sure! Let\'s wager a million zillion dollars. I\'ve always wanted my own Ferret Manor.
Make it a real number and we have a bet.
Because I\'m interested in the women, of reproductive age, lacking the means to get around a ban. Or do you believe that minorities are incapable of patriarchalness?
Okay. So if you do not support access to abortion, it is because you are being influenced by a patriarchal society, and we know that one is being influenced by a patriarchal society because they oppose abortion? Ironic that you, much like Are, do not know what it means to beg the question.
In your mind, you have already decided that unless you support abortion then you are controlled by the patriarchy, which is convenient because it allows you to instantly dismiss the views of anyone who is contrary to that of your own. Of course, what is funny, is that your contention does not work if men are more permissive of abortion than are women, because then you would be conforming to a view held by the majority of men instead of women, which would be conforming to the patriarchy. Of course, you more than likely do not understand this, but still. It is worth pointing out, because it is actually fairly humorous.
Because their sympathies more closely reflect the real-world needs of reproductive-age and unprivileged women. It may be a bit sound-bite-ish to argue \"a woman\'s body, a woman\'s choice,\" but even that much would be an improvement for many women.
Except, and here is the thing, you dismiss their views if they do not line up with your own. Is this hard to understand? You only care about the views of these women when they line up with yours, otherwise you claim they are being controlled by the patriarchy and cast them aside.
As far as you know. When we advocate for choice, we advocate choice for everyone, including anti-choicers.
You\'re welcome.
While that is great, it does not change the fact that you are conveniently dismissing the views of the millions of women who disagree with your argument. It is kind of hard to be pro-women when you cast aside the opinions of the majority of them.
Yep. Apparently, you are incapable of distinguishing between the fetus\'s hypothetical \"inalienable right to life\" and the woman\'s right to withhold consent to providing life support to another organism/person. Granting the former in no way negates the latter.
Unless you had another Supreme Court case that declared pregnant women to be non-persons. Then they\'d be f*****.
You know, you are not very smart. But I can understand, being a ferret and all. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and the unborn are granted an inalienable right to life, it will be because they are deemed persons. If this is true, then the right to life of the unborn will trump right of the woman to kill the unborn, for the right to life is paramount to all other rights, and no one can exercise a right at the expense of the life of someone else. So, yes, granting the former negates the latter. Also, the notion that disallowing one to kill another requires stripping the former party of personhood is, well, pretty stupid.
Anyway, I take the fact that you refuse to defend the right to life of the unborn in the event that SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe v. Wade and grants them an inalienable right to life means that you do not, nor would you, defend the rights of everyone?
Yes, if we\'re talking about things that are not one\'s physical body, the rules are different. If you\'re on the hook for child support, you can\'t just decline to continue providing that.
Bodies are a special case. Although if you want a court officer to be able to repossess one of your non-vital organs, you can certainly try to make that argument.
No, actually, the rules are not different. Though the fact that you have decided to obfuscate and remind me that you do not know the difference between not providing for someone and having them die as a result and taking away from someone and having them as a result is fairly unsurprising. I suppose that is what happens when you do not have any real argument.
It seems Born STILL cannot recognize when begging the question is applicable. It occurs like this. BeCAUSE of A I hate C. BeCAUSE of C I hate A. NEITHER of us did that. I pointed out how that was the case for me, actually, if you would care to read.....
And you STILL don't understand what patriarchy means, I see.
Uh, gee, I didn't know poor, ProLife women couldn't get pregnant. Otherwise, how did the idea that ProLife women of reproductive age and unprivileged status who more closely reflect real world needs are given more credence, become only caring about the views of these WHEN they line up with our own?
You can't be ProWoman and oppose equal rights. So, if we accepted all the opposing views of these women, we'd actually be ANTI-woman. Sorry.
Let me put this in SIMple terms, so even YOU will understand: Actually, organ recipients DIE on the waiting list each YEAR because organ donors chose NOT to consent to organ donation. Gee, organ recipients right to life didn't trump someone else's right to give ongoing, informed and explicit consent to who uses their body and when and how it is used, even WHEN it was necessary to save another's life. So, WHO'S not very smart and WHO is incorrect about saying there is such a thing as an inalienable right to life? Hint: It's not PCF.
If woman don't have the same right that everyone else has, the SAME right to consent that I JUST described above, what would be the ONLY way that you COULD deny it to them? That's right, LIKE PCF said. Make women NON-persons. Don't you just love it when she's spot on...? Oh, wait....
She has proven that she will defend the rights of everyone. She has proven that you would grant ONLY feoti an 'inalienable right to life'. Imagine that! She's right, again!
There IS no difference, Born. Except in your narrow, illogical mind. BOTH end in death. Both are non-accidental. The only difference comes down to sexism. Because I rePEAT, the ONLY reason that a woman has to take the life support AWAY is because of how her organs and bodily functions were grown and developed as she matured. Denying a woman the same right as everyone else has based on that FACT is sexist and punishes and imprisons a woman in her body simply for 'daring' to have female organs. And sexism is unConstitutional, y'know....
Number one, the right to life is not right which is granted, but a right which cannot be taken away from you. Do you seriously not understand this?
Positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction. These permissions or obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. Likewise, the notion of positive and negative rights may be applied to either liberty rights or claim rights, either permitting one to act or refrain from acting, or obliging others to act or refrain from acting. However, this article and most literature discusses them as applied to the latter sense.
It is not a hard concept to understand.
Number two, you really have no idea what the heck you are on about, especially since how you still do not understand what it means to beg the question. You say that anyone who does not support access to abortion is influenced by a patriarchal society, yet when someone asks you how you know this is true, you respond because they do not support access to abortion. That is entirely circular, as your premise is your conclusion. I mean, I could do the same thing too by stating that anyone who is pro-choice is an idiot, and that they are idiots because they are pro-choice. That statement is just about as logical as your patriarchy statement. And finally, number three:
She has proven that she will defend the rights of everyone. She has proven that you would grant ONLY feoti an \'inalienable right to life\'. Imagine that! She\'s right, again!
If someone has an inalienable right, it means it cannot be taken from them without his or her consent and given to someone else. If you, for example, have an inalienable right to life, it means that I cannot deprive you of your life without your consent. To somehow turn around and say that PCF is right when she just stated that it would not matter if the unborn had an inalienable right to life and that they could be killed anyway, even though the woman would have no right to deprive the unborn of their right to life, is, quite frankly, insanely idiotic and it makes no effort not to be. It does not even make sense, and flies directly in the face of the concept of inalienable rights.
Make it a real number and we have a bet.
Okay. One quadrillion dollars. I'll build my Ferret Manor, and get rid of that annoying national debt.
Okay. So if you do not support access to abortion, it is because you are being influenced by a patriarchal society, and we know that one is being influenced by a patriarchal society because they oppose abortion?
If they oppose abortion for everyone, for reasons like "Women need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions" and "You can't just choose not to be a mother when you're already pregnant," then yes. If they oppose abortion ostensibly because they believe it's bad for women, yet they disregard womens' actual want and need for the procedure, then yes. If they oppose abortion for reasons that are trivial or beside the point when a real need for them arises, then yes.
See, here's the problem: If you are against abortion, and not just in a personal capacity, then you are in favor of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term (or letting them try a DIY abortion at the risk of their own health and lives). There is no way that that is not egregiously disrespectful and harmful to women. Although that sure hasn't stopped you from trying to find a way.
In your mind, you have already decided that unless you support abortion then you are controlled by the patriarchy, which is convenient because it allows you to instantly dismiss the views of anyone who is contrary to that of your own. Of course, what is funny, is that your contention does not work if men are more permissive of abortion than are women, because then you would be conforming to a view held by the majority of men instead of women, which would be conforming to the patriarchy. Of course, you more than likely do not understand this, but still. It is worth pointing out, because it is actually fairly humorous.
Yes, it is humorous that you don't understand what patriarchy is. Betcha think "male feminist" is an oxymoron, too.
Except, and here is the thing, you dismiss their views if they do not line up with your own. Is this hard to understand? You only care about the views of these women when they line up with yours, otherwise you claim they are being controlled by the patriarchy and cast them aside.
No, I dismiss their views if they can escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about. Apparently, that is hard for you to understand!
While that is great, it does not change the fact that you are conveniently dismissing the views of the millions of women who disagree with your argument. It is kind of hard to be pro-women when you cast aside the opinions of the majority of them.
Yes, I don't care so much for peoples' opinions about what other people should or shouldn't do that has no effect on them. You might have a point if I were arguing for compelled abortions. But that would be blatantly anti-choice (if pro-abortion), so you ain't gonna hear that from me.
You know, you are not very smart. But I can understand, being a ferret and all.
If you're so smart, stop making piddly arguments that can be trivially shot down. Bring your A-game, anti-choice-meister, or GTFO.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned and the unborn are granted an inalienable right to life, it will be because they are deemed persons. If this is true, then the right to life of the unborn will trump right of the woman to kill the unborn, for the right to life is paramount to all other rights, and no one can exercise a right at the expense of the life of someone else. So, yes, granting the former negates the latter.
So the right to life of someone who needs a kidney is paramount to all other rights, and you cannot exercise your right to refuse to donate a spare kidney at the expense of that person's life.
Congratulations. You've just argued for compelled living organ donation. Enjoy your dystopia.
Also, the notion that disallowing one to kill another requires stripping the former party of personhood is, well, pretty stupid.
Well, yeah. The notion that compelling one to provide biological life support for another negates a basic element of personhood for the former party, on the other hand, is a lot less farfetched. Though I'm sure that won't stop you from arguing how to make pregnant women into practical non-persons, even if they still are in name.
Anyway, I take the fact that you refuse to defend the right to life of the unborn in the event that SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe v. Wade and grants them an inalienable right to life means that you do not, nor would you, defend the rights of everyone?
Incorrect. It means that I'm not going to forget about the other rights people have, which don't suddenly cease to exist even if the Supremes were to rule thusly.
No, actually, the rules are not different. Though the fact that you have decided to obfuscate and remind me that you do not know the difference between not providing for someone and having them die as a result and taking away from someone and having them as a result is fairly unsurprising.
You've already made it clear that you consider "not providing" the same as "taking away."
Most people would just concede the argument at this point. Feel free to keep splitting hairs if you have a pathological need to always be right, however.
Okay. One quadrillion dollars. I\'ll build my Ferret Manor, and get rid of that annoying national debt.
Or you can try a real number.
If they oppose abortion for everyone, for reasons like \"Women need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions\" and \"You can\'t just choose not to be a mother when you\'re already pregnant,\" then yes. If they oppose abortion ostensibly because they believe it\'s bad for women, yet they disregard womens\' actual want and need for the procedure, then yes. If they oppose abortion for reasons that are trivial or beside the point when a real need for them arises, then yes.
See, here\'s the problem: If you are against abortion, and not just in a personal capacity, then you are in favor of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term (or letting them try a DIY abortion at the risk of their own health and lives). There is no way that that is not egregiously disrespectful and harmful to women. Although that sure hasn\'t stopped you from trying to find a way.
Okay. So you just took ten minutes to state what I said you said initially? According to your logic, there is not a single basis under which you could oppose abortion and not be influenced by a patriarchal society, which is convenient for you as it allows you to dismiss the views of anyone you do not agree with, but illogical just the same, as you are begging the question.
And I see you are back to the whole disrespecting women thing. I would point out to you that you are the one being disrespectful of women, since you disregard the opinions of the majority of them because you do not agree with them. Of course, you will just pass them off as having their opinions influenced by a patriarchal society, so as far as you are concerned you are perfectly justified in dismissing them.
Yes, it is humorous that you don\'t understand what patriarchy is. Betcha think \"male feminist\" is an oxymoron, too.
It is actually fairly humorous how you do not understand what patriarchy is, or are content to apply the definition of patriarchy when it suits you. If, for example, you live in a country in which more men support access to abortion than women then, by your own definition, supporting access to abortion equals patriarchy. You would agree with that, correct?
No, I dismiss their views if they can escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about. Apparently, that is hard for you to understand!
Which goes right back to the point that you, then, should give the views of Blacks and Hispanics more credence than any other group, since they are the least supportive of abortion when compared to any other racial group and would be disproportionately affected if abortion were made illegal. However, you know as well as I do that you would, and do, dismiss their arguments all the same as if they were a male or a privileged pro-life woman, so what is the point? As I say often, you are merely playing a game you cannot lose. Unless someone agrees with what you want them to agree with, you will either discredit their views on account of them being a misogynist or being influenced by a patriarchal society. There are enough examples of this already.
Yes, I don\'t care so much for peoples\' opinions about what other people should or shouldn\'t do that has no effect on them. You might have a point if I were arguing for compelled abortions. But that would be blatantly anti-choice (if pro-abortion), so you ain\'t gonna hear that from me.
And this is where I will go back to my original example with the man in North Dakota who beats his wife/girlfriend/SO/etc. and point out to you that, following your logic, no one should be able to complain about that because it has no effect on the person complaining about it-- especially if they live hundreds of miles away. But, you see, you will quickly throw out such an argument, which makes one wonder under what basis your above argument is not thrown out, since it is as equally ridiculous.
If you\'re so smart, stop making piddly arguments that can be trivially shot down. Bring your A-game, anti-choice-meister, or GTFO.
Ignoring an argument and responding with some pseudo-witty comment does not constitute shooting an argument down. Well, maybe in your world, but not in the real world.
So the right to life of someone who needs a kidney is paramount to all other rights, and you cannot exercise your right to refuse to donate a spare kidney at the expense of that person\'s life.
Congratulations. You\'ve just argued for compelled living organ donation. Enjoy your dystopia.
I think you might want to take a civics class or something, as you seem to not know the difference between a negative right and a positive right. Negative rights assert that you be left alone. Positive rights assert that you be done for based on some kind of agreement. Demanding that someone give you a kidney so you could live would be asserting a positive right. Demanding that someone not take your kidney away from you so that you die would be asserting a negative right. You refusing to understand this is really no problem of mine.
Well, yeah. The notion that compelling one to provide biological life support for another negates a basic element of personhood for the former party, on the other hand, is a lot less farfetched. Though I\'m sure that won\'t stop you from arguing how to make pregnant women into practical non-persons, even if they still are in name.
Okay. So disallowing a pregnant woman from killing her unborn child negates her personhood? The only way that could be true, would be if people have a right to kill, but a right to kill would be a positive right, which does not take precedence over a positive right. Do you really even read the stuff you type out before posting it?
Incorrect. It means that I\'m not going to forget about the other rights people have, which don\'t suddenly cease to exist even if the Supremes were to rule thusly.
Ummm... If SCOTUS says that said right does not exist, then it does not exist. Funny how you, just hours ago, stated that you do not selectively choose which rights to defend, when you have spend the past few posts doing as much. Irony really is lost upon you.
You\'ve already made it clear that you consider \"not providing\" the same as \"taking away.\"
Most people would just concede the argument at this point. Feel free to keep splitting hairs if you have a pathological need to always be right, however.
I will take your admission of defeat, thank you :)
(Of course, you are more than welcome to tell me why you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and they die. Obviously, the simple fact that one of those situations involve not giving to and the other one taking away from and they both have different consequences kind of proves you wrong, but you would argue tooth and nail that two plus two equals five in order to not admit to being wrong. Oh well.)
Or you can try a real number.
It is a real number---10^15 to be exact. (Unless you want to go with long scale, in which case it's 10^24. I'm good either way.)
Okay. So you just took ten minutes to state what I said you said initially? According to your logic, there is not a single basis under which you could oppose abortion and not be influenced by a patriarchal society, which is convenient for you as it allows you to dismiss the views of anyone you do not agree with, but illogical just the same, as you are begging the question.
Perhaps you might want to consider why it is that I support a woman's right to an abortion in the first place. It's not so that I can feel superior to anti-choice troglodytes like you (although that is certainly a nice benefit). It has to do with what is happening in a woman's mind, heart, and life when she comes to the point of needing an abortion.
But you don't give a rat's patootie about that, because ultimately, what you want to do is control that woman rather than genuinely give her the help she needs. And thus you will never understand.
And I see you are back to the whole disrespecting women thing. I would point out to you that you are the one being disrespectful of women, since you disregard the opinions of the majority of them because you do not agree with them.
Yes, because I place more importance on women who are in the circumstances of needing a medical procedure than those who are apoplectic with rage that other women are having that procedure done. Which I already stated in my last post, but I'm repeating it here since you obviously missed it.
It is actually fairly humorous how you do not understand what patriarchy is, or are content to apply the definition of patriarchy when it suits you. If, for example, you live in a country in which more men support access to abortion than women then, by your own definition, supporting access to abortion equals patriarchy. You would agree with that, correct?
No. Please do some reading before you talk out of your ass again.
Which goes right back to the point that you, then, should give the views of Blacks and Hispanics more credence than any other group, since they are the least supportive of abortion when compared to any other racial group and would be disproportionately affected if abortion were made illegal.
You seem to live in a world where minorities are homogeneous. I'm talking about Earth, with emphasis on the U.S. You should visit sometime.
However, you know as well as I do that you would, and do, dismiss their arguments all the same as if they were a male or a privileged pro-life woman, so what is the point? As I say often, you are merely playing a game you cannot lose. Unless someone agrees with what you want them to agree with, you will either discredit their views on account of them being a misogynist or being influenced by a patriarchal society. There are enough examples of this already.
Yes, it's funny how there don't seem to be any people who really, truly care about women, and oppose abortion. It's almost like the two positions were mutually incompatible or something.
And this is where I will go back to my original example with the man in North Dakota who beats his wife/girlfriend/SO/etc. and point out to you that, following your logic, no one should be able to complain about that because it has no effect on the person complaining about it-- especially if they live hundreds of miles away. But, you see, you will quickly throw out such an argument, which makes one wonder under what basis your above argument is not thrown out, since it is as equally ridiculous.
If that woman wants to put a stop to the beating, and she wants my help, then I will help her.
Ignoring an argument and responding with some pseudo-witty comment does not constitute shooting an argument down. Well, maybe in your world, but not in the real world.
STOP PUSSYFOOTING AROUND. STOP THROWING SOFTBALLS AT ME. GIVE ME THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU'VE GOT, OR F*** OFF.
(Yes, I'm a ferret, but pretend I'm not.)
I think you might want to take a civics class or something, as you seem to not know the difference between a negative right and a positive right. Negative rights assert that you be left alone. Positive rights assert that you be done for based on some kind of agreement. Demanding that someone give you a kidney so you could live would be asserting a positive right. Demanding that someone not take your kidney away from you so that you die would be asserting a negative right. You refusing to understand this is really no problem of mine.
Hey, that works...
Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group.
So a pregnant woman can assert her negative right not to be subjected to an action of the fetus (sucking nutrients from her body, pushing organs around, and in general making a mess of things).
Thanks for the nifty pro-choice argument!
Okay. So disallowing a pregnant woman from killing her unborn child negates her personhood? The only way that could be true, would be if people have a right to kill, but a right to kill would be a positive right, which does not take precedence over a positive right. Do you really even read the stuff you type out before posting it?
Yes, but you apparently don't read it before responding to it. Disallowing a pregnant woman from killing whatever doesn't negate her personhood, but disallowing her from evicting a separate organism inside her certainly does.
The fact that the organism dies once it's evicted is not the woman's problem.
Ummm... If SCOTUS says that said right does not exist, then it does not exist. Funny how you, just hours ago, stated that you do not selectively choose which rights to defend, when you have spend the past few posts doing as much. Irony really is lost upon you.
Well, yeah, if the SCOTUS rules that people cannot decline to provide biological life support to other persons/organisms, then abortion would be illegal. And a lot of us would be out a kidney.
I will take your admission of defeat, thank you :)
It'll fit right in with all the other "truths" you believe.
(Of course, you are more than welcome to tell me why you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and they die. Obviously, the simple fact that one of those situations involve not giving to and the other one taking away from and they both have different consequences kind of proves you wrong, but you would argue tooth and nail that two plus two equals five in order to not admit to being wrong. Oh well.)
You don't go to jail right now for refusing to donate a kidney because that's not the law right now. Obviously, if the SCOTUS changes the law, then the situation would be different, wouldn't it?
Do you have anterograde amnesia or something? This is the second time I've had to repeat myself. (Maybe if I automatically edit some of my old comments, I can make you go round and round in circles forever...)
It is a real number---10^15 to be exact. (Unless you want to go with long scale, in which case it\'s 10^24. I\'m good either way.)
Indeed it is. I knew that, though. Temporary brain lapse.
Perhaps you might want to consider why it is that I support a woman\'s right to an abortion in the first place. It\'s not so that I can feel superior to anti-choice troglodytes like you (although that is certainly a nice benefit). It has to do with what is happening in a woman\'s mind, heart, and life when she comes to the point of needing an abortion.
But you don\'t give a rat\'s patootie about that, because ultimately, what you want to do is control that woman rather than genuinely give her the help she needs. And thus you will never understand.
Uh-huh... Let us put your rationale to the test, shall we? Let us assume that Woman X has five children yet, unfortunately, she cannot afford to provide for all five children. She can only provide for four of them. After much much deliberation, she comes to the conclusion that she should kill the youngest one. Sure, she could give it to someone who could provide for it, but she does not want to do that because she could not bear the thought of giving her child to someone else. The question is, therefore, should she be allowed to kill that child? Following your logic, she should be able to, though you will more-than-likely say no. Why? Because, according to you an act is rationalized by the person engaging in it.
Of course, you will probably argue that the aforementioned situation and abortion are not the same thing (when fundamentally they are) but then you would be discounting what is happening in the mind, heart, and life of the woman in the aforementioned scenario which, funnily enough, is the same thing you lambaste pro-lifers for. Plus, not allowing the woman in the aforementioned scenario do to her youngest child would mean that you want to control the woman instead of giving her the help she needs, even though your motive would-- and this is a complete guess-- probably be to prevent the child from being killed.
At any rate, I will not hold it against you if you ignore the above as you are prone to doing. After all, it is much easier to ignore points than to admit your rationale is deeply flawed :)
Yes, because I place more importance on women who are in the circumstances of needing a medical procedure than those who are apoplectic with rage that other women are having that procedure done. Which I already stated in my last post, but I\'m repeating it here since you obviously missed it.
So now you are playing a game of moral relativism where an act is rationalized so long as the individual engaging in a specific act believes their actions are justified? A game which, mind you, you do not play elsewhere? Really? Well, just see my above response then.
No. Please do some reading before you talk out of your ass again.
Well, one, you do realize I know what patriarchy is, correct? Two, you do realize that you did not answer my question? I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females and especially when you consider the fact that women who are anti-abortion are more extreme in their views than are men who are anti-abortion. How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women? I really want to know.
Before you tell someone to do some reading, well... Just do not. For your sake.
You seem to live in a world where minorities are homogeneous. I\'m talking about Earth, with emphasis on the U.S. You should visit sometime.
Oh, look. Unsurprisingly, PCF is backtracking.
Me: You give arguments made by pro-life males and pro-life females equal credence (none).
You: That is not true. I give more credence to pro-life women of reproductive age without the means to travel to another state or country if an abortion ban were enacted.
Me: So why do you not give the arguments of Blacks and Hispanics more credence than not only pro-life males (which you do not), but priviliged and post-menopausal pro-choice females?
You: Because the views of the privileged and post-menopausal females more closely reflect the real-world needs of reproductive-age and unprivileged females.
Me: How can that be true when you dismiss the views of the reproductive-age and underprivileged females who do not agree with your views on abortion? Once again, you are dismissing the views of those females who do not hold the views you want them to have.
You: No, I dismiss their views if they cannot escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about.
Me: In which case, you should not dismiss the views of Blacks and Hispanics, who are the least supportive of abortion, as if abortion were made illegal, they would be the ones most negatively affected by said restriction.
You: ???
It is funny how you make a claim, then turn around and throw out your own claim. And what is even funnier about the above discourse is that, generally speaking, the better off you are the more likely you are to support abortion. Of course, you do not care about that. In fact, you only care if someone holds the same views as you. Otherwise, you completely toss their views aside.
Yes, it\'s funny how there don\'t seem to be any people who really, truly care about women, and oppose abortion. It\'s almost like the two positions were mutually incompatible or something.
Yes, because you cannot care about women unless you somehow agree to allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. But why stop there? Why not just assert that you cannot truly care about women unless you allow women to do whatever the heck they want? It would make just about as much sense.
If that woman wants to put a stop to the beating, and she wants my help, then I will help her.
Except-- and here was the kicker-- she did not ask you for anything. In fact, she does not even know you exist. You know she exists, however. Of course, you should not oppose the man beating the woman, as it does not affect you any. In fact, it would affect you in the same way that a woman having an abortion in North Dakota would affect you. And since you constantly state that people should mind their own business and stop worrying about things which do not affect them, then you should apply your own logic to the man who wants to beat his gf/wife/SO in North Dakota. And to whatever happens to women in Haita, or Sudan or the Congo or anywhere else in the world.
But what are the chances you will not? Fairly high, I would say.
STOP PUSSYFOOTING AROUND. STOP THROWING SOFTBALLS AT ME. GIVE ME THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU\'VE GOT, OR F*** OFF.
You ignore all the hard questions. For example, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what a human looks like and how much one has to differ from the norm to not be a human. And then when you answer that, you can define for me what tissue is and what kind of tissue the unborn are. I think those are good places to start.
So a pregnant woman can assert her negative right not to be subjected to an action of the fetus (sucking nutrients from her body, pushing organs around, and in general making a mess of things).
Thanks for the nifty pro-choice argument!
Yes, in the same vein that I can attack someone and claim a right to not have that individual act against me. Yet again, I will state that you should take a civics class or something. Or, at the very least, actually use Google and read something other than, say, Wikipedia (which you reference a lot).
Yes, but you apparently don\'t read it before responding to it. Disallowing a pregnant woman from killing whatever doesn\'t negate her personhood, but disallowing her from evicting a separate organism inside her certainly does.
I point this out a lot, but for this argument to be true, then this would mean that women are persons until the sixth or so month of pregnancy, after which they become non-persons, another three months after which they become persons again. Of course, that is ridiculous, since I would be willing to bet that if you killed a pregnant woman seven months into pregnancy, you would be charged with murder (and quite possibly two). The next time that happens, though, someone should call you up and have you explain how the murdered pregnant woman was not really a person, since she was at the stage in which she was disallowed from evicting a separate organism inside of her.
And speaking of seperate organism, I believe you might want to get with Crowepps and Are, the former which somehow does not believe that the unborn is a seperate entity to the mother and the latter which does not believe that the unborn are organisms.
The fact that the organism dies once it\'s evicted is not the woman\'s problem.
See the above response to know why this is false.
Well, yeah, if the SCOTUS rules that people cannot decline to provide biological life support to other persons/organisms, then abortion would be illegal. And a lot of us would be out a kidney.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because SCOTUS finds that the unborn are persons or that the Constitution does not explicity grant the right to an abortion, in which case the only way kidney donation would be mandatory is if a state decided to make it mandatory. All the obfuscation aside, you are not very bright.
You don\'t go to jail right now for refusing to donate a kidney because that\'s not the law right now. Obviously, if the SCOTUS changes the law, then the situation would be different, wouldn\'t it?
Do you not remember what you wrote out? You just said that the difference between not giving and taking away was splitting hairs. Now you are acknowledging that there is, indeed, a difference, especially when you acknowledge the fact that one will almost always get you thrown in jail while the other will not (neglect aside)? You are contradicting yourself, PCF.
Do you have anterograde amnesia or something? This is the second time I\'ve had to repeat myself. (Maybe if I automatically edit some of my old comments, I can make you go round and round in circles forever...)
Ironically enough, I was just about to ask you about the amnesia thing, on account of the fact that you seem to forget the very things you typed out less a day before. Also, I am more than willing to keep this up. It is quite amusing to see you contradict yourself left and right.
Of COURSE your two situations are different and you wouldn't recognize it. Since you conVENiently forgot, again, about the infringement upon someone's rights that has to occur beFORE someone can use what amounts to lethal force. What rights is the child infringing upon that would require his/her death, in your first scenario? That's right, NONE. After all, you are saying that she should be able to kill (ACTually kill) the child only because she doesn't want to give the child up (which would actually mean that she SHOULDn't be killing the child) NOT because she has too many mouths to feed. And that is what YOU are saying, not I or PCF. What rights is a fetus infringing upon? You guessed it. The right to consent to usage of one's organs and when and how they are used, via ongoing, explicit and informed consent. (This IS why we are saying a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy.) If there is NO such right as the right to consent to usage, then why do we have donor cards that need to be filled out before one can donate, even posthumously or WHY do doctors need to ask family members for permission to donate organs before being able to do so? Oh, that's right, because there IS such a thing as right to bodily autonomy. Gee, who woulda thunk that ProChoicers would be correct, once again, eh...? Whose rationale is deeply flawed? Gee, I think their name starts with B and ends with 4, and does NOT begin with P and end with T.
I think you really need to re-read what you are saying, Born. YOU are the one who said that those women of impoverished minorities are the majority of the women who seek abortions. If the majority of them are ProLife, THEY are the ones who are dismissing the real-world needs of the underprivileged and reproductive aged females. And that is another argument YOU made. Keep on making our arguments for us, Born. Thanks!
You are the one who is throwing out their own claim. YOU are the one who is comparing something other than what we stated to the dismissal of one's views, in order to make a false claim that we ARE dismissing them. PCF was talking about real-world views, and then you go on to say they are the same as someone's Anti-Choice or Pro-Choice views SIMPLY because you were talking about them beFORE...? Do you not know a segue when you see one...?
You cannot care about women unless you agree that they have full autonomy over their bodies, yes. What IS so hard to understand about that? The fact that a fetus dies upon separation from the uterus, is NOT due to malevolent, hateful women that forced their bodies to develop a uterus and its function within itself. The fetus dies due to incompatibility with life upon separation. Making it a woman's responsibility for this IS blaming and punishing her for the creation of the uterus and its function within it.
A fetus IS human, it is not 'A' human. Will you finally get it through your thick skull, now? NO one has said it ISn't human, after all.... Derrrr....
As SOON as one infringes on another's rights (AS I mentioned before), the former's rights stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon. As SOON as a fetus infringes on a woman's rights, the fetuses' right to life AND right to bodily autonomy stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon. An organ recipient STILL has the right to life and right to bodily autonomy. They do NOT have the right to bodily autonomy or right to life at the expense of a potential organ donor's right to bodily autonomy. SO sorry.
Of course, Born fails to understand, again. It is a double murder because it was done AGAINST the woman's autonomy. It is a double murder because it was done with malice and aforethought. It is a double murder because quite often the intent and focus is to kill the fetus, and, at that stage, it is usually quite visible. However, almost all ProChoicers agree that it SHOULDn't be considered double murder. That gives more importance to a pregnant woman. Pregnant women ARE more vulnerable to injury when attacked and, thus, should have more protection, under, perhaps an aggravated assault case, but that's it.
They aren't organisms. Do look up the term, Born. I did. It agrees with me. They aren't separate. If they were they would be able to live on their own. They can't. So, we are correct. Perhaps PCF was just trying to illustrate a point that you just completely missed once again...?
If the unborn are considered persons, and granted an inalienable right to life, they WILL be granted more rights than any BORN person. If a state decided to make organ donation mandatory, after Roe V Wade was overturned for whatever reason, then they would be applying the Constitution EQually. Unfortunately, for you and your ilk, you advocate for sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy and unconstitutionality. Unsurprising, though.
She is not saying that it is now more than just splitting hairs, OF course. She is simply saying that making organ donation mandatory and abortion illegal, at the SAME time, would mean that the lawmakers still aren't splitting hairs, either. Putting women in the position of responsibility for someone dieing simply because of the way their bodies were MADE, while saying no one else has that responsibility because their bodies WEREN'T made that way. Thanks.
As I pointed out, you are the one who is contradicting yourself.
Of COURSE your two situations are different and you wouldn\'t recognize it. Since you conVENiently forgot, again, about the infringement upon someone\'s rights that has to occur beFORE someone can use what amounts to lethal force. What rights is the child infringing upon that would require his/her death, in your first scenario? That\'s right, NONE. After all, you are saying that she should be able to kill (ACTually kill) the child only because she doesn\'t want to give the child up (which would actually mean that she SHOULDn\'t be killing the child) NOT because she has too many mouths to feed. And that is what YOU are saying, not I or PCF. What rights is a fetus infringing upon? You guessed it. The right to consent to usage of one\'s organs and when and how they are used, via ongoing, explicit and informed consent. (This IS why we are saying a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy.) If there is NO such right as the right to consent to usage, then why do we have donor cards that need to be filled out before one can donate, even posthumously or WHY do doctors need to ask family members for permission to donate organs before being able to do so? Oh, that\'s right, because there IS such a thing as right to bodily autonomy. Gee, who woulda thunk that ProChoicers would be correct, once again, eh...? Whose rationale is deeply flawed? Gee, I think their name starts with B and ends with 4, and does NOT begin with P and end with T.
PCF says that she is pro-choice because she cares what is happening in the mind, heart and life of the women when she comes to the point of needing an abortion. I ask her, then, if there is a woman who has five kids, yet can only feed four, and after much deliberation decides to kill the fourth instead of giving it to someone else, should she be allowed to do so? You then show up and start arguing something ongoing, explicit, informed consent, eventually arguing that the woman should not be able to kill her fourth child. But this begs the question as to why not? Do you only care what is going on in the mind, heart and life of the woman when it comes to abortion and not anything else? Picking and choosing when you care about her life circumstances when it comes to giving or withholding help is, well, hypocritical (according to your rationale, anyway). Do you care so little about women that you would only care about what is happening in their lives only when it comes to abortion? If caring about the thoughts and feelings of the woman is the ultimate standard when it comes to arguing whether or not a woman should be allowed to engage in an action, then under what basis could you argue that the woman in my aforementioned example should not be allowed to kill her youngest child? The answer, is that you cannot, which is why you did not even attempt to address the issue.
And, for the record, in case you did not know, a sizable portion of women have abortions precisely because they state they cannot take care of their preexisting children.
I think you really need to re-read what you are saying, Born. YOU are the one who said that those women of impoverished minorities are the majority of the women who seek abortions. If the majority of them are ProLife, THEY are the ones who are dismissing the real-world needs of the underprivileged and reproductive aged females. And that is another argument YOU made. Keep on making our arguments for us, Born. Thanks!
You know, before you try to respond to someone, you might want to make sure that you are actually responding to what they said, which you tend to not do. Number one, the majority of women who seek abortions do not live in poverty, so it is a very good thing I did not say as much. Number two, white women obtain a greater percentage of abortions than any other group, though they obtain a fewer percentage of abortions relative to their demographic composition. Number three, as I pointed out to PCF, the better off you are, the more likely you are to support abortion. Anyway, since you apparently had trouble understanding what I wrote out, I will restate it. If PCF gives credence to the arguments of those who are more likely to be affected by a ban on abortions, she should give more credence to the arguments of Blacks and Hispanics, as a whole, as they are the most likely to be negatively affected by bans on abortion if they were to be made illegal. Of course, Blacks and Hispanics are the least approving of abortion in the U.S. when compared to any other racial demographic, so PCF will not do that, instead giving credence to the privileged and post-menopausal pro-choicers-- who would not be negatively affected by bans on abortion-- because, according to her, they are more lock-step in tune with the women who would more than likely be negatively affected by bans on abortion, even though those women themselves tend to take a negative view towards of abortion. Make sense to you? It should not, because it does not.
At any rate, thank you, and please do try again.
You are the one who is throwing out their own claim. YOU are the one who is comparing something other than what we stated to the dismissal of one\'s views, in order to make a false claim that we ARE dismissing them. PCF was talking about real-world views, and then you go on to say they are the same as someone\'s Anti-Choice or Pro-Choice views SIMPLY because you were talking about them beFORE...? Do you not know a segue when you see one...?
No, she was not. See my response above, though I am sure you will find some convoluted way of answering it.
You cannot care about women unless you agree that they have full autonomy over their bodies, yes.
Oh? And how did you come to this conclusion? I will save you the trouble and just tell you that you pulled it out of thin air.
What IS so hard to understand about that?
Because it is about as false as saying that you cannot care about minorities if you do not support affirmative action. But you probably do not understand that.
The fact that a fetus dies upon separation from the uterus, is NOT due to malevolent, hateful women that forced their bodies to develop a uterus and its function within itself. The fetus dies due to incompatibility with life upon separation. Making it a woman\'s responsibility for this IS blaming and punishing her for the creation of the uterus and its function within it.
Well, number one, you do realize that, barring rape, a woman does not just become pregnant, correct? It is ridiculous how you continue to assert that bans on abortion are equivalent to punishing women for having a uterus, while completely and totally ignoring the fact that bans on abortion prevent the woman from killing someone else who only exists because of her willful actions. The fact that you do not understand this is 100% why the pro-choice movement has no real future once the, as one pro-choicer put it, menopausal militia dies off. Instead of viewing abortion as it is, one party killing another, you would rather go on about controlling women and whatever, which makes about as much sense as arguing that laws against murder are all about controlling those who would commit murder otherwise.
A fetus IS human, it is not \'A\' human. Will you finally get it through your thick skull, now? NO one has said it ISn\'t human, after all.... Derrrr....
You know, before you try to go derrrrr to someone, you might want to make sure you are not making yourself out to be a fool. Science defines what a human being is and, last I checked, science unequivocally states that the unborn are humans. So that leaves us with a precarious situation in which for you to assert that the unborn at any stage are not humans, then you have to be imposing an ideological definition on science. So, the question is, why are you imposing your personal beliefs on science, Are?
As SOON as one infringes on another\'s rights (AS I mentioned before), the former\'s rights stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon. As SOON as a fetus infringes on a woman\'s rights, the fetuses\' right to life AND right to bodily autonomy stop in diRECT proportion to the rights they are infringing upon. An organ recipient STILL has the right to life and right to bodily autonomy. They do NOT have the right to bodily autonomy or right to life at the expense of a potential organ donor\'s right to bodily autonomy. SO sorry.
Okay. So we are back to square one, not only in which you do not understand the difference between not giving or doing for someone and taking away from someone, even though I have explained this to you time and time and time again, but also in which you still do not understand the fact that the liberty of one does not trump the life of another (a fact which is true everywhere under the law except in the case of abortion). Why do you continue to ignore this? Quite possibly because you have no real response to it.
Of course, Born fails to understand, again. It is a double murder because it was done AGAINST the woman\'s autonomy. It is a double murder because it was done with malice and aforethought. It is a double murder because quite often the intent and focus is to kill the fetus, and, at that stage, it is usually quite visible. However, almost all ProChoicers agree that it SHOULDn\'t be considered double murder. That gives more importance to a pregnant woman. Pregnant women ARE more vulnerable to injury when attacked and, thus, should have more protection, under, perhaps an aggravated assault case, but that\'s it.
False. It is a double murder because the laws treat the unborn as a seperate entity, which is why pro-choice groups oppose them. I say this a lot, but you really have no idea what you are talking about, for now you are arguing that it is not okay to kill the unborn so long as it is visible, which I am sure is an argument your fellow pro-choicers would wholeheartedly reject, as then you would be arguing the permissibility of abortion based on whether or not the unborn has reached some stage of development, instead of focusing all on the woman as you are prone to do.
They aren\'t organisms. Do look up the term, Born. I did. It agrees with me. They aren\'t separate. If they were they would be able to live on their own. They can\'t. So, we are correct. Perhaps PCF was just trying to illustrate a point that you just completely missed once again...?
Ignorance might be bliss, but it is not an excuse. Once again, these are taken from the Planned Parenthood glossary, so you cannot accuse one of being biased.
Zygote: The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.
Embryo: The organism that develops from the pre-embryo and begins to share the woman’s blood supply about 16–18 days after fertilization (seven to eight days after implantation).
Fetus: The organism that develops from the embryo at the end of about eight weeks of pregnancy (10 weeks since a woman’s last menstrual period) and receives nourishment through the placenta.
Please tell me what dictionary you are using?
If the unborn are considered persons, and granted an inalienable right to life, they WILL be granted more rights than any BORN person. If a state decided to make organ donation mandatory, after Roe V Wade was overturned for whatever reason, then they would be applying the Constitution EQually. Unfortunately, for you and your ilk, you advocate for sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy and unconstitutionality. Unsurprising, though.
You know, I am pretty sure you have no Earthly idea what you are talking about. How on Earth does protecting the right to life of the unborn, which everyone else have, constitute granting the unborn more rights than any born person has? Please do not, as you usually do, go on about how the unborn will be granted more rights than the born because the born do not have the right to use the body of someone else, because I will point out to you as I have in the past that this is because the born are far less dependent on the body of their mothers than are the unborn, and that dependency is why someone who is five can demand of his or her parents more than is someone who is thirty. But you utterly ignored this the first time I explained this to you, so I do not have much hope this time.
She is not saying that it is now more than just splitting hairs, OF course. She is simply saying that making organ donation mandatory and abortion illegal, at the SAME time, would mean that the lawmakers still aren\'t splitting hairs, either. Putting women in the position of responsibility for someone dieing simply because of the way their bodies were MADE, while saying no one else has that responsibility because their bodies WEREN\'T made that way. Thanks.
I do not know how many times I have pointed this out to you, but there is a difference between demanding something, a positive right, and demanding to be left alone, a negative right. The fact that no matter how many times I point this out to you and the fact that no matter how many times I direct you to some link to read up on positive versus negative rights you refuse to do so really speaks volumes to your level of intellectual dishonesty. This is why you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone-- because demanding a kidney would be a positive right, and that would require the consent of both parties-- yet you will go to jail if you take a kidney away from someone-- because you infringe upon their life.
As I pointed out, you are the one who is contradicting yourself.
That is irony to the infinite degree.
TLDR, brokenrecordborn. All your posts are becoming TLDR. Yawn.
Born once again proves his intellectual dishonesty. If I decide not to donate a kidney I KNOW someone (an ACTual human being at that) will die because of it. They end up just AS dead as a fetus that was aborted, too. Yet, SOMEhow, not providing a kidney is FAR different than removing life support from a fetus (which is not indisputably a human being), simply because one must be taken away while the other must be given. He doesn't realize that this PROVES our point about ProLifers not really being about life.
He also proves that he doesn't know much about negative and positive rights. "some party 'A' has a negative right to x against another party 'B' if and only if 'B' is prohibited from acting upon 'A' in some way regarding x; For example, if 'A' has a negative right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to refrain from killing 'A'. Under the theory of... negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. A government, for example, usually in the form of abuse or coercion." Let's see how far off you are, shall we? An organ donor has a negative right to life against an organ recipient if and only if the organ recipient is prevented from acting upon the organ donor in some way regarding life. Thus negative rights are the reSULTing right for the first group, from the second group being prohibited from performing some action, while you are saying that negative rights are something the second group simply does not have. At LEAST get the subject you are talking about right, even if it does more to prove the other sides point, than your own....
You can live with only one kidney. So, OBviously not infringing on one's right to life but right to bodily autonomy, AS I've been SAYing. Derrr.....
Born once again proves his intellectual dishonesty. If I decide not to donate a kidney I KNOW someone (an ACTual human being at that) will die because of it. They end up just AS dead as a fetus that was aborted, too. Yet, SOMEhow, not providing a kidney is FAR different than removing life support from a fetus (which is not indisputably a human being), simply because one must be taken away while the other must be given. He doesn\'t realize that this PROVES our point about ProLifers not really being about life.
Ugh, no. The only thing it proves is that taking away from someone is not the same thing as giving to someone, as one is murder while the other is not, which is what I have said quite a few times now, only to have you and PCF argue that they are the same. Oddly enough, you now seem to be arguing that that to be against murder, or any action which involves one individual killing another, you also have to be for compulsory organ donation or universal healthcare or any other such positive right, or else you really do not care about life? You know, I will be quite candid and point out to you that said assertion is flatly moronic. There really is no other way to put it when you are dealing with someone who sees no difference between not wanting to provide for someone else and asserting that someone else should not be killed. Positive versus negative rights, speaking of which...
He also proves that he doesn\'t know much about negative and positive rights. \"some party \'A\' has a negative right to x against another party \'B\' if and only if \'B\' is prohibited from acting upon \'A\' in some way regarding x; For example, if \'A\' has a negative right to life against \'B\', then \'B\' is required to refrain from killing \'A\'. Under the theory of... negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. A government, for example, usually in the form of abuse or coercion.\" Let\'s see how far off you are, shall we? An organ donor has a negative right to life against an organ recipient if and only if the organ recipient is prevented from acting upon the organ donor in some way regarding life. Thus negative rights are the reSULTing right for the first group, from the second group being prohibited from performing some action, while you are saying that negative rights are something the second group simply does not have. At LEAST get the subject you are talking about right, even if it does more to prove the other sides point, than your own....
This really should come as a surprise to no one, but similar to how you do not know what an organism is (Funny how you did not bother responding to that), and similar to how you do not know what tissue is (Funny how you did not bother responding to that, either), you have no idea what you are talking about, not to mention your penchant for not reading what someone types out is unbridled. And the funniest thing is that you even quoted Wikipedia, and somehow still managed to not understand what you typed out (I will not point out how you ignored the part which totally backed up everything I have been typing out*). At any rate, this:
I do not know how many times I have pointed this out to you, but there is a difference between demanding something, a positive right, and demanding to be left alone, a negative right.
Plus this:
If A has a negative right to life against B, then B is required to refrain from killing A (Funny how you completely ignored this*).
Equals you, as per usual, just typing to type. No, really. That is precisely what I have been telling you, only to have you keep going on and on and on about how if someone is not given a kidney that they are being denied the right to life. At any rate, please tell me again how Party A refusing to donate a kidney to Party B violates the negative rights of Party B so I can point out to you that a negative right is a right to not be acted against, not to be done for. Go ahead. I know you want to.
You can live with only one kidney. So, OBviously not infringing on one\'s right to life but right to bodily autonomy, AS I\'ve been SAYing. Derrr.....
Ummm, yeah... I will just skip to the point, and tell you that you might want to work on your reading skills and start responding to things people actually type out.
Is it not funny how everything proves your point and agrees with you, until you find out it does not?
Of course, you will probably argue that the aforementioned situation and abortion are not the same thing (when fundamentally they are) but then you would be discounting what is happening in the mind, heart, and life of the woman in the aforementioned scenario which, funnily enough, is the same thing you lambaste pro-lifers for.
If a woman cannot provide for all her children, she has many, many alternative options available that do not entail outright triage. If she really has to kill one so that the other four may live, then we are talking about a social system that is so utterly broken that this may be the least-worst option. Like a war zone.
Equating an abortion to the murder of a born person, however, is just a restatement of the "abortion is murder!" chestnut. It is a subjective viewpoint, not an objective one (killing a zygote is as morally wrong as killing a 20-year-old? really?), and so the most that can be used to argue for is one's personal decision not to abort.
Plus, not allowing the woman in the aforementioned scenario do to her youngest child would mean that you want to control the woman instead of giving her the help she needs, even though your motive would-- and this is a complete guess-- probably be to prevent the child from being killed.
I think she would ask for help with feeding her children long, long before she ever even has the slightest preconception of the possibility of killing any of them.
At any rate, I will not hold it against you if you ignore the above as you are prone to doing. After all, it is much easier to ignore points than to admit your rationale is deeply flawed :)
Why would I ignore another opportunity to prove to everyone here just how vapid and worthless your arguments are? (Unless I have something better to do, of course.)
So now you are playing a game of moral relativism where an act is rationalized so long as the individual engaging in a specific act believes their actions are justified? A game which, mind you, you do not play elsewhere? Really? Well, just see my above response then.
The fact that women own their bodies is the starting point. The fact that women who go in for abortions actually have good and thoughtful reasons for doing so, unlike the anti-choice "convenience" or "prom dress" caricatures, is a pretty strong hint that supporting a woman's right to abortion is the morally correct position to take.
Well, one, you do realize I know what patriarchy is, correct?
Great! Please stop playing dumb, then.
Two, you do realize that you did not answer my question? I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females
Patriarchal males love the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of men. They hate the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of the self-same women.
How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women? I really want to know.
Would women in this country be having abortions of their own free will? Or is it common for e.g. philandering males to force their pregnant mistresses into the procedure, to avoid embarrassing bastard children?
Before you tell someone to do some reading, well... Just do not. For your sake.
Hey, look, a troll is threatening me! How very frightened I am not.
It is funny how you make a claim, then turn around and throw out your own claim. And what is even funnier about the above discourse is that, generally speaking, the better off you are the more likely you are to support abortion. Of course, you do not care about that. In fact, you only care if someone holds the same views as you. Otherwise, you completely toss their views aside.
God forbid minority females of reproductive age and meager means have a different take on things than other segments of their own minority.
Yes, because you cannot care about women unless you somehow agree to allowing a woman to kill her unborn child. But why stop there? Why not just assert that you cannot truly care about women unless you allow women to do whatever the heck they want? It would make just about as much sense.
Until you consider reality, of course. Then, allowing women control over their own bodies makes a heck of a lot of sense, and just anarchically letting them do whatever they want, doesn't.
Except-- and here was the kicker-- she did not ask you for anything. In fact, she does not even know you exist. You know she exists, however.
I could be her neighbor, her friend, the kindly receptionist at the local women's shelter. It doesn't matter. She'll ask for help from someone sympathetic, and things will grow from there.
Of course, you should not oppose the man beating the woman, as it does not affect you any. In fact, it would affect you in the same way that a woman having an abortion in North Dakota would affect you. And since you constantly state that people should mind their own business and stop worrying about things which do not affect them, then you should apply your own logic to the man who wants to beat his gf/wife/SO in North Dakota. And to whatever happens to women in Haita, or Sudan or the Congo or anywhere else in the world.
If these women have a problem, they will ask for help, and others will help them. If they don't have a problem---hey, maybe they are just engaging in consensual BDSM activity---then there's no problem.
Are you saying that we should just step in and advocate for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it?
You ignore all the hard questions. For example, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what a human looks like and how much one has to differ from the norm to not be a human. And then when you answer that, you can define for me what tissue is and what kind of tissue the unborn are. I think those are good places to start.
Wait a second. So... that question, about why a zygote shouldn't be considered a human being just by dint of appearance... that's one of your heavy-hitters? That's your Big Bertha gun? You don't have, like... some amazing anti-choice elucidation that actually makes us think hiding in the wings?
This, all the posts you've made so far... this is really the best you can do?
Yes, in the same vein that I can attack someone and claim a right to not have that individual act against me. Yet again, I will state that you should take a civics class or something. Or, at the very least, actually use Google and read something other than, say, Wikipedia (which you reference a lot).
Yes, a fetus being present in a woman's body without her consent can certainly constitute an attack---the fetus can't claim a right not to have the woman act against it.
I think I have the gist of it! It'll be useful for the occasional Libertarian anti-choicer. They pop up every so often.
I point this out a lot, but for this argument to be true, then this would mean that women are persons until the sixth or so month of pregnancy, after which they become non-persons, another three months after which they become persons again. Of course, that is ridiculous, since I would be willing to bet that if you killed a pregnant woman seven months into pregnancy, you would be charged with murder (and quite possibly two). The next time that happens, though, someone should call you up and have you explain how the murdered pregnant woman was not really a person, since she was at the stage in which she was disallowed from evicting a separate organism inside of her.
The legal status of "person" and the actual rights and benefits of personhood are not one in the same. Current law can prohibit late-term abortion, which in effect removes an important element of personhood (ownership of one's own body) from women, without actually declaring them non-persons.
Or, in other words: Current abortion law is far from ideal. But then, what else is new?
And speaking of seperate organism, I believe you might want to get with Crowepps and Are, the former which somehow does not believe that the unborn is a seperate entity to the mother and the latter which does not believe that the unborn are organisms.
I'm not contradicting them. I call it a separate organism for the same reason I sometimes refer to a fetus as a "person"---to show that the force of the pro-choice argument does not hinge on these distinctions.
In reality, I agree with them that calling a zygote/embryo/fetus a "person" is idiotic, and the "separate organism" thing is a scientific-semantics thing that I don't really care much about.
See the above response to know why this is false.
I guess the death of that person who needed a kidney really is your problem, then.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because SCOTUS finds that the unborn are persons or that the Constitution does not explicity grant the right to an abortion, in which case the only way kidney donation would be mandatory is if a state decided to make it mandatory. All the obfuscation aside, you are not very bright.
OMG! Supreme Court jurisprudence is not 100% logically consistent! Stop the presses!
Do you not remember what you wrote out? You just said that the difference between not giving and taking away was splitting hairs. Now you are acknowledging that there is, indeed, a difference, especially when you acknowledge the fact that one will almost always get you thrown in jail while the other will not (neglect aside)? You are contradicting yourself, PCF.
Not at all. All you've pointed out is that the Supreme Court could release an opinion that makes abortion illegal and yet does not mandate living organ donation. Which is true. Court decisions do not need to be logically consistent to be binding. As Dred Scott found out the hard way.
Logical inconsistencies, however, do tend to get straightened out over time. Which is why the pro-choice movement is ultimately going to win.
Ironically enough, I was just about to ask you about the amnesia thing, on account of the fact that you seem to forget the very things you typed out less a day before. Also, I am more than willing to keep this up. It is quite amusing to see you contradict yourself left and right.
Then it would be nice if you showed me where I've contradicted myself, instead of applying your own wishful misinterpretation.
If a woman cannot provide for all her children, she has many, many alternative options available that do not entail outright triage. If she really has to kill one so that the other four may live, then we are talking about a social system that is so utterly broken that this may be the least-worst option. Like a war zone.
So a system in which a woman who cannot provide for all her children and as a result is allowed to kill one of them is broken. Yet somehow abortion, which allows a woman to do the aforementioned, is exempt from such a rationale? Please explain to how that works, because it does not.
Equating an abortion to the murder of a born person, however, is just a restatement of the \"abortion is murder!\" chestnut. It is a subjective viewpoint, not an objective one (killing a zygote is as morally wrong as killing a 20-year-old? really?), and so the most that can be used to argue for is one\'s personal decision not to abort.
I asked you this question before, only to obtain no answer, so I will ask again. When has murder ever been a matter of personal opinion? The answer is never, which I am sure you realize, which is why you continuously ignore the question.
I think she would ask for help with feeding her children long, long before she ever even has the slightest preconception of the possibility of killing any of them.
And if she does not? Then what? That is why it is called a hypothetical. Following your logic, you would have to support her in her actions, as not doing so would not be caring about what is happening the mind, heart and life of said woman. No matter how much you try, there is no getting around this.
Why would I ignore another opportunity to prove to everyone here just how vapid and worthless your arguments are? (Unless I have something better to do, of course.)
Yes, you do a good job of proving how vapid and worthless my arguments are by contradicting yourself and throwing out parts of your own argument when it suits you to do so.
The fact that women own their bodies is the starting point. The fact that women who go in for abortions actually have good and thoughtful reasons for doing so, unlike the anti-choice \"convenience\" or \"prom dress\" caricatures, is a pretty strong hint that supporting a woman\'s right to abortion is the morally correct position to take.
So you basically did exactly what I said you would do, which is argue that an action is permissible so long as the one engaging in the action deems it permissible? In which case you still would have to support a woman who wants to kill her youngest child because she cannot feed him/her as, according to your logic, the woman owns her body and everything flows from that. What are the chances you throw out your own argument, though? Fairly high, I would say.
Great! Please stop playing dumb, then.
You should take your own advice except, I suppose, you are not playing.
Patriarchal males love the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of men. They hate the idea of women having abortions (or not) at the behest of the self-same women.
Unless, of course, access to abortion is promoted precisely because it allows the patriarchy to escape fatherhood, whereas sans access to abortion they would be stuck with a child they did not want. It is rather ironic how you think you know so much yet know so little.
Would women in this country be having abortions of their own free will? Or is it common for e.g. philandering males to force their pregnant mistresses into the procedure, to avoid embarrassing bastard children?
As I have seen you say many times, people internalize oppression even if they do not realize it (Or does the whole internalizing oppression argument only get invoked as it relates to opposition to abortion?). Essentially, this means that women would not be having abortions of their own free will, but rather because it is what is expected of them by a patriarchal society. For example, working off the above stated assumption, if access to abortion is promoted as a means by which the patriarchy (or just men in general) can escape fatherhood, then the fact that women have abortions related to issues in which they do not want to be a single parent or do not feel they can not afford a child or some other such financial reason would mean she is conforming to and reinforcing the patriarchy. So yet again I ask, how would your argument work?
Hey, look, a troll is threatening me! How very frightened I am not.
No. Just pointing out that trying to tell someone to do some reading on something they already understand-- something which you, yourself, do not understand-- to be, well, pointless on your part, if not downright humorous. Speaking of which, as you blatantly ignored my question to you, I will restate it:
I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females, and especially when you consider the fact that women who are anti-abortion are more extreme in their views than are men who are anti-abortion. How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women?
Please do explain, PCF.
God forbid minority females of reproductive age and meager means have a different take on things than other segments of their own minority.
Oh? So now you have gone from speaking of disadvantaged women as a whole to speaking of disadvantaged women as individuals? That sure is convenient, as it allows you to completely disregard the views of those women who do not agree with you, even if those women inhabit the group you claim to give more credence to. I really could point this out to you all night, because it is quite humorous to see you backtrack further and further.
Until you consider reality, of course. Then, allowing women control over their own bodies makes a heck of a lot of sense, and just anarchically letting them do whatever they want, doesn\'t.
If you have total control over your body, you can do to and with it as you please, regardless of the effects if has on another. That leads to an anarchy (and not the utopian kind). It is funny how you mention reality, when you apparently live in a world where people have absolute control over their own bodies whereas, on Earth, this is untrue, as there are a plethora of laws limiting what one can do to and with their body due to the effects that letting one have free reign would cause on others.
I could be her neighbor, her friend, the kindly receptionist at the local women\'s shelter. It doesn\'t matter. She\'ll ask for help from someone sympathetic, and things will grow from there.
Except you are not. And you do not know the woman. And you will never know her. As a result, you should mind your own business, right? Instead of flailing about, you would be better off just admitting the fact that it would not matter whether or not you knew the woman personally, if you would have ever met the woman or if she asked for help or not. You would oppose the ability of a man to do to a woman as he pleased, even if him doing to said woman did not affect you personally. In which case, you now have your answer as to why the whole people should not get involved in things they do not have a personal stake in line is fundamentally flawed, and half-applied.
If these women have a problem, they will ask for help, and others will help them. If they don\'t have a problem---hey, maybe they are just engaging in consensual BDSM activity---then there\'s no problem.
Of course-- and here is the flaw with your reasoning-- it does not matter whether or not they ask for help or if they want help. I cannot do ill to someone, and simply because that individual does not complain about it, get away with it. Or are you saying it should be that way?
Are you saying that we should just step in and advocate for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it?
Is that not what is advocated around here?
Wait a second. So... that question, about why a zygote shouldn\'t be considered a human being just by dint of appearance... that\'s one of your heavy-hitters? That\'s your Big Bertha gun? You don\'t have, like... some amazing anti-choice elucidation that actually makes us think hiding in the wings?
This, all the posts you\'ve made so far... this is really the best you can do?
Are you saying that we should just step in and advocate for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it?
No. The question was how far someone had to differ from the norm physically to not be considered a human being. One would think that if the question was easy to answer, you would have answered it already. Funnily enough, though, you have expended about ten times as much effort avoiding the question as it would have taken to answer the question. When people do that, it is usually a tell-tell sign that they cannot answer the question posed to them
And then there are still the questions as to what tissue is and what type of tissue the unborn are, since you believe they are tissue.
Yes, a fetus being present in a woman\'s body without her consent can certainly constitute an attack---the fetus can\'t claim a right not to have the woman act against it.
Barring rape, it is only there because of the actions of the woman. That is kind of a rather big deal which blows a huge hole in your argument (which was the point of my last point, which you conveniently tossed aside).
I think I have the gist of it! It\'ll be useful for the occasional Libertarian anti-choicer. They pop up every so often.
Go ahead and try it. You will soon be relegated to obfuscation as you usually are.
The legal status of \"person\" and the actual rights and benefits of personhood are not one in the same. Current law can prohibit late-term abortion, which in effect removes an important element of personhood (ownership of one\'s own body) from women, without actually declaring them non-persons.
I have noticed that you continually base your argument on some concept of self-ownership without realizing that there is no such thing. And what is even worse, is that you somehow ignore the fact that, even granting some kind of right of self-ownership, there is no right to own others, which is essentially what you are arguing in the case of abortion, as you take away the ability of another to goven their own life. But you do not understand this, so continue on with your regularly scheduled arguments.
Or, in other words: Current abortion law is far from ideal. But then, what else is new?
Yes, because it works contrary to every other law. For some odd reason or another, though, you somehow believe that the fact that abortion is held to a lower standard than everything to be wrong, and that it should be held to an even lower standard. That really does boggle the mind.
I\'m not contradicting them. I call it a separate organism for the same reason I sometimes refer to a fetus as a \"person\"---to show that the force of the pro-choice argument does not hinge on these distinctions.
It goes to show that you either do not understand your own argument, or you somehow do not really understand what it means to be a person under the law. Normally, that would be a bit of a false dichotomy, but in this case it is correct.
In reality, I agree with them that calling a zygote/embryo/fetus a \"person\" is idiotic...
And why is that? To claim it is idiotic, you have to be defining what it is to be a person, which to do you would have to imposing your own personal definition of personhood on the legal definition of personhood, which would make you an idealogue, which is more-or-less the accussation levied against pro-lifers.
...and the \"separate organism\" thing is a scientific-semantics thing that I don\'t really care much about.
Ah, yes. When you do not like science, pass it off as semantics.
I guess the death of that person who needed a kidney really is your problem, then.
OMG! Supreme Court jurisprudence is not 100% logically consistent! Stop the presses!
It would only be logically inconsistent if you ignored the difference between positive and negative rights, as you consistently do. But then, you ignoring this difference would not make it logically inconsistent. It means you would simply be living under a veil of ignorance (and not the one John Rawls talked about).
Not at all. All you\'ve pointed out is that the Supreme Court could release an opinion that makes abortion illegal and yet does not mandate living organ donation. Which is true. Court decisions do not need to be logically consistent to be binding. As Dred Scott found out the hard way.
And yet, you are back to not understanding the differences between negative and positive rights. I suppose the fact that, when abortion was illegal, mandatory organ donation was very much illegal, simply means that the law was logically inconsistent and that everyone at the time was merely ignorant. And since SCOTUS never mentioned, nor has ever mentioned, mandatory organ donation in any of their abortion related cases, would mean that they are ignorant of this fact, too. Indeed, everyone is ignorant except you (And Are). It possibly could not be the fact that you have an understanding of rights and duties rivaling that of a first grader, which is why you continue to fail to see the difference between mandatory organ donation and preventing someone from killing another.
I am beginning to think Truth was right about your choice in names.
Logical inconsistencies, however, do tend to get straightened out over time. Which is why the pro-choice movement is ultimately going to win.
Not that you really care about this, but do you know that ever since Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, SCOTUS has been slowly whittling away at Roe v. Wade, correct? Ehhh, probably not, though. Ignorance is, as they say, bliss.
Then it would be nice if you showed me where I\'ve contradicted myself, instead of applying your own wishful misinterpretation.
Let us start with something simple. The fact that you do not give the arguments of the very group you said you would give more credence to more credence than other groups even though they would be disproportionately affected by bans on abortion, as you would rather give more credence to privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women, who would be less affected by bans on about e their views more closely match the views of the group you said you were going to give credence to but did not because they did not match your views.
So a system in which a woman who cannot provide for all her children and as a result is allowed to kill one of them is broken. Yet somehow abortion, which allows a woman to do the aforementioned, is exempt from such a rationale? Please explain to how that works, because it does not.
Indeed, if you erroneously equate terminating a pregnancy to murdering a born individual. If you're going to put a fresh coat of paint on your "abortion is murder!" argument, at least give it some time to dry!
I asked you this question before, only to obtain no answer, so I will ask again. When has murder ever been a matter of personal opinion? The answer is never, which I am sure you realize, which is why you continuously ignore the question.
The answer is "never" if we are talking about born individuals. Again, killing a zygote equals murder? Good luck with that argument.
And if she does not [ask for help with feeding her kids]? Then what?
If her first impulse is to kill her (born) children, then, well, that's why we have psychiatric commitment.
Yes, you do a good job of proving how vapid and worthless my arguments are by contradicting yourself and throwing out parts of your own argument when it suits you to do so.
Elaborating an argument is not the same as self-contradiction, nor throwing out parts of it, genious. Though I'm sure you'll continue looking for little inconsistencies, as in whose opinions I give weight to. God forbid the anti-choice argument win on the strength of its own merits rather than a dialectic technicality.
So you basically did exactly what I said you would do, which is argue that an action is permissible so long as the one engaging in the action deems it permissible? In which case you still would have to support a woman who wants to kill her youngest child because she cannot feed him/her as, according to your logic, the woman owns her body and everything flows from that. What are the chances you throw out your own argument, though? Fairly high, I would say.
How does killing her youngest (born) child flow from her owning her own body? The child is not connected to her body in any way. If the woman does not want the child, she can give it up to foster care.
Do you really have no better response to my arguments than wild misreading and exaggeration? I can just see your argument against the death penalty: "What's to stop the state from just arresting and killing any person it wants?? Helloo, Stalin regime!"
Unless, of course, access to abortion is promoted precisely because it allows the patriarchy to escape fatherhood, whereas sans access to abortion they would be stuck with a child they did not want.
What males think of abortion is immaterial except to the extent that it unduly impinges on the decision of women whether or not to have one. If those men love love love abortion, but they're not pressuring women to have them (or not have them), then there's no problem.
As I have seen you say many times, people internalize oppression even if they do not realize it (Or does the whole internalizing oppression argument only get invoked as it relates to opposition to abortion?). Essentially, this means that women would not be having abortions of their own free will, but rather because it is what is expected of them by a patriarchal society. For example, working off the above stated assumption, if access to abortion is promoted as a means by which the patriarchy (or just men in general) can escape fatherhood, then the fact that women have abortions related to issues in which they do not want to be a single parent or do not feel they can not afford a child or some other such financial reason would mean she is conforming to and reinforcing the patriarchy. So yet again I ask, how would your argument work?
Sure, there are issues of how freely women can make decisions when there is an oppressive social script that they are expected to conform to. This is the basis of why radical feminists make seeming outre points such as, "All sex is rape."
However, you are making the point about how women may not necessarily have full agency in a given social context, to argue in favor of fully depriving them of agency (by prohibiting abortion). I suppose your solution to the whole stay-at-home versus working mother dilemma is to just make that decision for everyone, too.
I really want to know how you link being against abortion to patriarchy, especially when you consider that historically abortion has been made legal at the request of males and illegal at the request of females, and especially when you consider the fact that women who are anti-abortion are more extreme in their views than are men who are anti-abortion. How, exactly, would your theory pan out if you lived in a country in which men viewed abortion more favorably than women?
Please do explain, PCF.
You're asking me how denying women control over their own bodies and reproductive processes is linked to patriarchy?
I suppose next you're going to ask me what abortion has to do with womens' health.
Oh? So now you have gone from speaking of disadvantaged women as a whole to speaking of disadvantaged women as individuals? That sure is convenient, as it allows you to completely disregard the views of those women who do not agree with you, even if those women inhabit the group you claim to give more credence to. I really could point this out to you all night, because it is quite humorous to see you backtrack further and further.
What backtracking? It's not my problem that you are incapable of considering young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group. I'm guessing "marketing demographer" wouldn't be a good career for you.
If you have total control over your body, you can do to and with it as you please, regardless of the effects if has on another. That leads to an anarchy (and not the utopian kind). It is funny how you mention reality, when you apparently live in a world where people have absolute control over their own bodies whereas, on Earth, this is untrue, as there are a plethora of laws limiting what one can do to and with their body due to the effects that letting one have free reign would cause on others.
Oh, you are under the misconception that "having control over your body" means "you can do anything you want with your body, including going all stab-stab-stabby on other people around you." It does not. It does, however, mean that you cannot be required to donate an organ/tissue, be given a vaccination, or ingest something against your will, among other things.
And now you know!
Except you are not. And you do not know the woman. And you will never know her. As a result, you should mind your own business, right? Instead of flailing about, you would be better off just admitting the fact that it would not matter whether or not you knew the woman personally, if you would have ever met the woman or if she asked for help or not. You would oppose the ability of a man to do to a woman as he pleased, even if him doing to said woman did not affect you personally. In which case, you now have your answer as to why the whole people should not get involved in things they do not have a personal stake in line is fundamentally flawed, and half-applied.
If she's not asking for help from anyone, in some manner, then no, people should mind their business. Again, lots of couples enjoy consensual BDSM play, and it would be silly for us to stick our noses into their business to offer unwanted "help."
Of course-- and here is the flaw with your reasoning-- it does not matter whether or not they ask for help or if they want help. I cannot do ill to someone, and simply because that individual does not complain about it, get away with it. Or are you saying it should be that way?
If a person doesn't complain, there may be psychological trauma that needs to be sorted out, and this would justify an investigation. But if the person, clear-mindedly and free of duress, states that they are okay with this arrangement... then that's their decision.
OMG, respecting a person's freely-made choice... what a radical notion!
Is that not what is advocated around here [advocating for people, without them wanting it or having asked for it]?
Progressive advocates fell into this trap frequently in the past, although the calling-out of the inherent colonialism of this approach has reduced its incidence.
People have to ask for help, and the help that is given has to be what they ask for. Otherwise, you're not helping them so much as making them pawns of your own agenda. (See: women in Iraq, circa 2003)
No. The question was how far someone had to differ from the norm physically to not be considered a human being. One would think that if the question was easy to answer, you would have answered it already. Funnily enough, though, you have expended about ten times as much effort avoiding the question as it would have taken to answer the question. When people do that, it is usually a tell-tell sign that they cannot answer the question posed to them
I leave the question open because of its utterly ridiculous nature.
You have to keep in mind, BornIn1984, I'm not arguing your points to try to convince you. That would be beyond pointless. Rather, I'm arguing them so that everyone else reading this forum can see why your arguments are bunk, and maybe even learn a new pro-choice point or two.
In other words, you are helping to make the pro-choice movement stronger. I'm sure you'll walk away from this thinking you have the stronger argument because you haven't changed your mind---and really, nothing I say will prevent that---but other folks here, not least those on the fence, will see why you've got nothing.
Keep asking that question, please!
And then there are still the questions as to what tissue is and what type of tissue the unborn are, since you believe they are tissue.
You and I are tissue. You and I are cells. Lots of different kinds of tissues and cells. Too bad you don't have more of the "brain" variety.
Barring rape, it is only there because of the actions of the woman. That is kind of a rather big deal which blows a huge hole in your argument (which was the point of my last point, which you conveniently tossed aside).
What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously going to suggest that the supposed rights of the fetus are contingent on the prior acts of another person? That the fetus's "inalienable right to life" depends on whether or not its father is a criminal? How does that argument work?
Go ahead and try it. You will soon be relegated to obfuscation as you usually are.
Yes, I'm certainly resigned to getting it from you. Perhaps the Libertarian anti-choicers can make their points more cogently.
I have noticed that you continually base your argument on some concept of self-ownership without realizing that there is no such thing.
I guess people can be forcibly given vaccinations, and made to donate organs against their will, then. Woohoo, we're living in a dystopia already!
And what is even worse, is that you somehow ignore the fact that, even granting some kind of right of self-ownership, there is no right to own others, which is essentially what you are arguing in the case of abortion, as you take away the ability of another to goven their own life. But you do not understand this, so continue on with your regularly scheduled arguments.
Refusing someone the use of your own body is "essentially" owning them? That's a rather strange definition of ownership you have there.
Although if you define ownership as "taking away the ability of another to govern their own life," you're basically saying that the fetus owns the woman surrounding it. I thought you felt slavery was a bad thing!
Yes, because it works contrary to every other law. For some odd reason or another, though, you somehow believe that the fact that abortion is held to a lower standard than everything to be wrong, and that it should be held to an even lower standard. That really does boggle the mind.
I don't consider "makes self-righteous people feel good about themselves" to be a particularly good standard. "Responsive to and respectful of the needs of women" sounds a lot better to me.
It goes to show that you either do not understand your own argument, or you somehow do not really understand what it means to be a person under the law. Normally, that would be a bit of a false dichotomy, but in this case it is correct.
If the fetus were a born person that had somehow crawled up into a woman's uterus, hooked into her circulatory system, and now depended on her for his/her life, none of the arguments, nor her rights, would be any different.
And why is that? To claim it is idiotic, you have to be defining what it is to be a person, which to do you would have to imposing your own personal definition of personhood on the legal definition of personhood, which would make you an idealogue, which is more-or-less the accussation levied against pro-lifers.
Yes, I'm an ideologue for not granting a single-celled organism the same rights and considerations as a born person.
Please keep making this argument, however. The more disconnected from reality anti-choicers seem, the better for us.
Ah, yes. When you do not like science, pass it off as semantics.
Yes, science gives clear-cut answers to all these kinds of questions, like whether viruses are alive or not.
It would only be logically inconsistent if you ignored the difference between positive and negative rights, as you consistently do. But then, you ignoring this difference would not make it logically inconsistent. It means you would simply be living under a veil of ignorance (and not the one John Rawls talked about).
Do you have an actual argument to make using +/- rights, or are you just going to keep referring to them and my supposed ignorance of them as a cheap substitute for one?
And yet, you are back to not understanding the differences between negative and positive rights. I suppose the fact that, when abortion was illegal, mandatory organ donation was very much illegal, simply means that the law was logically inconsistent and that everyone at the time was merely ignorant.
People sure were pretty ignorant when Dred Scott was decided, wouldn't you say?
And since SCOTUS never mentioned, nor has ever mentioned, mandatory organ donation in any of their abortion related cases, would mean that they are ignorant of this fact, too. Indeed, everyone is ignorant except you (And Are). It possibly could not be the fact that you have an understanding of rights and duties rivaling that of a first grader, which is why you continue to fail to see the difference between mandatory organ donation and preventing someone from killing another.
Oh, I do see the difference between those. I don't see so much of one between mandatory organ donation, and being forced to provide biological life support to another organism/person against one's will.
I am beginning to think Truth was right about your choice in names.
Well, I certainly wouldn't be ProChoiceGuineaPig, would I?
Not that you really care about this, but do you know that ever since Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, SCOTUS has been slowly whittling away at Roe v. Wade, correct? Ehhh, probably not, though. Ignorance is, as they say, bliss.
They say politics is cyclical, like a pendulum. Which reminds me of that scene from The Simpsons Movie with Homer and the wrecking ball...
Let us start with something simple. The fact that you do not give the arguments of the very group you said you would give more credence to more credence than other groups even though they would be disproportionately affected by bans on abortion, as you would rather give more credence to privileged and post-menopausal pro-choice women, who would be less affected by bans on about e their views more closely match the views of the group you said you were going to give credence to but did not because they did not match your views.
That's all you got? Seriously, why do you even bother?
The credibility of an argument is not a function of the privilege (or lack thereof) of the person making it. Anyone can make a uncredible argument. Credibility comes from having a position that is in line with the reality of the subject in question. If you are privileged, you could just as well educate yourself on the subject, or be sheltered from it completely. If you are unprivileged, you are less sheltered from the subject, yet that still doesn't preclude ignorance. If you are directly and inescapably affected by it, however, it's a lot less likely that your argument is going to amount to useless posturing, because you're going to know the reality and it's your ass that's on the line.
The reality of abortion in the U.S. is that women go in for them when it is beneficial to their lives and the lives of those around them not to give birth to a child. Half the arguments against abortion boil down to saying that some other person who is not the woman has a better idea of what is best for her and those around her than the woman herself. The other half boil down to saying that the woman's body does not belong to her. Both fail utterly at persuading anyone who genuinely cares about women as the human beings they are.
Indeed, if you erroneously equate terminating a pregnancy to murdering a born individual. If you\\\'re going to put a fresh coat of paint on your \\\"abortion is murder!\\\" argument, at least give it some time to dry!
Uh-huh...
You: A social system in which a woman has to kill one of her children so that the other four may live is utterly broken.
Me: If this is the case, then explain to me how abortion, as a social system, is not broken because it allows a woman to do just that.
You: But abortion is different because it an an unborn child versus a born child!
Me: And why does that make it different?
You: Because it does!
Me: And why does it?
You: Because it does!
Me: And why does it?
You: Because it does!
Me: And why does it?
You: Because...
And so on and so forth. You see, in order to prove your point, you have already implicitly assumed that there is a difference between a woman killing her born child to feed her other four children and a woman killing her unborn child to feed her other four children. Of course, when asked what the difference is, you just turn around and repeat that one is born and one is unborn, and that it is what it is, which is a classic case of begging the question. But I have pointed this out to you before, and you still do it. Like I have said many times before, you are not very smart.
The answer is \\\"never\\\" if we are talking about born individuals. Again, killing a zygote equals murder? Good luck with that argument.
The existence of fetal homicide laws render your born vs. unborn distinction false. So yet again I ask you, when has murder been a matter of personal opinion? It either is or is not. Murder is not murder so long as the one doing it does not think it is.
If her first impulse is to kill her (born) children, then, well, that\\\'s why we have psychiatric commitment.
And the above does not relate to a woman who wants to kill her unborn child because...? It is funny how you continue to predicate all of your arguments on an assumption which just so happens to also be your conclusion.
Elaborating an argument is not the same as self-contradiction, nor throwing out parts of it, genious. Though I\\\'m sure you\\\'ll continue looking for little inconsistencies, as in whose opinions I give weight to. God forbid the anti-choice argument win on the strength of its own merits rather than a dialectic technicality.
When I say throwing out parts of your own argument you do not like, I mean throwing out parts of your own arguments you do not like. You have a knack for making all kinds of claims, and when someone applies those claims unilaterally, you turn around and cry foul. For example:
How does killing her youngest (born) child flow from her owning her own body? The child is not connected to her body in any way. If the woman does not want the child, she can give it up to foster care.
Pack up your bags and go home, for you just lost.
If someone owns their body, then any action that individual engages in stems from the fact that they own their body. Simplified, a woman who kills her child does so precisely because she has the ability to do so via the fact that she owns her body and can act according to her own will. To turn around, then, and prevent that women from acting according to her will, to deny her the ability to engage in an action bestowed upon her via the fact that she owns her body, is to deny some facet of self-ownership.
Of course, that is just ridiculous, as I have pointed out before, because there is no such thing as the right to act according to your own will, much less a right to self-ownership as it relates to owning your own body. As I am tired of trying to explain this to you, just read the following:
Full self-ownership is often held to have implications that it in fact does not have. It is sometimes held to entail, for example, that one owns one’s entire body. This does not follow automatically since it depends on whether the self-owning being is identical with his/her body. If the being in question is a mental being that need not occupy a body to exist (e.g., a Cartesian soul), then self-ownership alone does not guarantee ownership of the body.
Full-self ownership is sometimes thought to guarantee that the agent has a certain basic liberty of action, but this is not so. For if the rest of the world (natural resources and artifacts) is fully (“maximally”) owned by others, one is not permitted to do anything without their consent (since it involves the use of their property). The protection that self-ownership affords is a basic protection against others doing certain things to one, and not a guarantee of liberty. But even this protection may be merely formal. For a plausible thesis of self-ownership must allow that some rights (e.g., those that imprisonment violates) may be lost as a result of past injustices committed by an agent. Hence, if the rest of world is owned by others, then anything one does without their consent violates their property rights, and as a result of such violations one may lose some or all of one’s rights of self-ownership. This point shows that, because agents must use natural resources (occupy space, breathe air, etc.), self-ownership on its own has no substantive implications. It is only when combined with assumptions about how the rest of the world is owned (and the consequences of violating those property rights) that substantive implications follow.
It is often supposed that full self-ownership gives one property rights in ones’ products, but this is so only if the products are part of oneself (e.g., an improvement in one’s ability to do mental arithmetic). For any products that involve natural resources involve materials that may belong to others, and a person who makes something from stolen materials may not own the product. Again, it all depends on how the rest of the world is owned.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O7oD-FIjogJ:klinechair.missouri.edu/on-line%2520papers/self-ownership%2520%28Ency%2520Ethics%29.doc+self-ownership+action&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Of course, you will probably ignore this all the same, but here is hoping.
Do you really have no better response to my arguments than wild misreading and exaggeration? I can just see your argument against the death penalty: \\\"What\\\'s to stop the state from just arresting and killing any person it wants?? Helloo, Stalin regime!\\\"
Not understanding what you are seemingly trying to argue does not mean that someone is engaging in wild misreadings or exaggeration. It means that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
What males think of abortion is immaterial except to the extent that it unduly impinges on the decision of women whether or not to have one. If those men love love love abortion, but they\\\'re not pressuring women to have them (or not have them), then there\\\'s no problem.
Funny how you go on about internalizing oppression when it comes to women opposing abortion, the opposition of which could possibly be done entirely of her free will, yet turn around and completely throw out such a rationale when it comes to women supporting abortion. Why, exactly, do you do this?
Sure, there are issues of how freely women can make decisions when there is an oppressive social script that they are expected to conform to. This is the basis of why radical feminists make seeming outre points such as, \\\"All sex is rape.\\\"
While that is nice and all, it does not address what I wrote out. As I say quite often, it incredibly funny how you refuse to scream about patriarchy when confronted with a situation in which abortion is promoted by the patriarch as a way to serve their interests (no children, or fewer children than they would have otherwise), and women who have abortions for reasons related to the fact that those men would not want to be fathers or to take care of her children to be promoting and reinforcing the patriarch. Surprising? Not really. Why not? Because anything which does not paint opposition to abortion as a result of patriarchy, or support for abortion as being a result of rejecting patriarchy, you ignore.
However, you are making the point about how women may not necessarily have full agency in a given social context, to argue in favor of fully depriving them of agency (by prohibiting abortion). I suppose your solution to the whole stay-at-home versus working mother dilemma is to just make that decision for everyone, too.
Ummm, no. See my above response. Oh, and I see we are back to you not understand what self-ownership is. I cannot say I am too terribly surprised.
You\\\'re asking me how denying women control over their own bodies and reproductive processes is linked to patriarchy?
Indeed I am, because to claim patriarchy you would have to, one, explain how the desire to limit abortion is predicated on controlling women instead of preventing women from killing someone else and, two, explain how this rationale would hold up in a society where women, in general, are more disapproving of abortion then are men who are disapproving of abortion (or just are all-around more disapproving of abortion then men, in general). I have asked this before with no answer, so I am asking again. They are not hard questions.
I suppose next you\\\'re going to ask me what abortion has to do with womens\\\' health.
I would ask that too while pointing out that the majority of abortions are done for a reason completely unrelated to the health of the women, but you would ignore it just the same.
What backtracking? It\\\'s not my problem that you are incapable of considering young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group. I\\\'m guessing \\\"marketing demographer\\\" wouldn\\\'t be a good career for you.
You do realize that you have gone from young women of reproductive age and meager means as a group, to young women of reproductive age and meager means as individuals when it was pointed out to you that that said group was generally disapproving of abortion, correct? No? Then let me refresh your memory because you said, and I quote verbatim:
God forbid minority females of reproductive age and meager means have a different take on things than other segments of their own minority.
That is called backtracking.
Oh, you are under the misconception that \\\"having control over your body\\\" means \\\"you can do anything you want with your body, including going all stab-stab-stabby on other people around you.\\\" It does not. It does, however, mean that you cannot be required to donate an organ/tissue, be given a vaccination, or ingest something against your will, among other things.
And now you know!
You just, as you often do, let me run you into a glaring contradiction. You say that having control over your body does not mean that you can do to others as you want regardless of the effect it has on another. If this is true, then abortion becomes impermissible for then you are doing to the unborn regardless of the effects it has on them. But if this is permissible, then so, too, is it permissible to allow one to do to another as they see fit. Of course, you will respond that you are not doing to the unborn, but rather refusing to do for the unborn, but this is false because pregnancy requires a physical interaction between the mother and unborn, whereas something is already being provided, and the only way to end that connection without natural birth would require impeding upon the life of the unborn. Yet again, this is one of those things you cannot work yourself out of.
If she\\\'s not asking for help from anyone, in some manner, then no, people should mind their business. Again, lots of couples enjoy consensual BDSM play, and it would be silly for us to stick our noses into their business to offer unwanted \\\"help.\\\"
Except it is not BDSM. It is 100% assault and battery.
If a person doesn\\\'t complain, there may be psychological trauma that needs to be sorted out, and this would justify an investigation. But if the person, clear-mindedly and free of duress, states that they are okay with this arrangement... then that\\\'s their decision.
If someone does not ask for help, they should be left alone. But if that person does not complain, then it is probably because they may be sufferring psychological trauma, which is cause for intervention. See the problem? You have just justified getting involved, either through the fact that the woman asks for help or the fact that she does not ask for help. As is usual, you are playing games you cannot lose.
OMG, respecting a person\\\'s freely-made choice... what a radical notion!
Do you really have that short of a memory span that you do not remember what you typed out about a minute prior?
Progressive advocates fell into this trap frequently in the past, although the calling-out of the inherent colonialism of this approach has reduced its incidence.
People have to ask for help, and the help that is given has to be what they ask for. Otherwise, you\\\'re not helping them so much as making them pawns of your own agenda. (See: women in Iraq, circa 2003).
No, actually, they do not, and I really cannot believe you would make that assertion on this site, of which there are quite a few articles declaring that people speak out on behalf of women being abused in country X. It is hard for me to imagine that you could be this ignorant of things.
I leave the question open because of its utterly ridiculous nature.
Actually, it is not ridiculous, since you apparently believe that you can determine what a human being is based on the way it looks.
You have to keep in mind, BornIn1984, I\\\'m not arguing your points to try to convince you. That would be beyond pointless. Rather, I\\\'m arguing them so that everyone else reading this forum can see why your arguments are bunk, and maybe even learn a new pro-choice point or two.
Yes, PCF. My arguments are so bunk, that you ignore them left-and-right.
In other words, you are helping to make the pro-choice movement stronger. I\\\'m sure you\\\'ll walk away from this thinking you have the stronger argument because you haven\\\'t changed your mind---and really, nothing I say will prevent that---but other folks here, not least those on the fence, will see why you\\\'ve got nothing.
Apparently, I have more than you.
Keep asking that question, please!
I will. After all, there is nothing better than to watch someone continue to deliberately refuse to answer a question they themselves invited :)
You and I are tissue. You and I are cells. Lots of different kinds of tissues and cells. Too bad you don\\\'t have more of the \\\"brain\\\" variety.
Uh-huh... Well, someone apparently failed basic biology.
subatomic part -> atom -> molecule -> cell parts -> tissues -> organs -> organ systems -> individuals -> populations -> communities -> ecosystems
http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
At any rate, explain to me how you and I could be tissue, PCF? Last I checked, tissue is a cellular organizational level intermediate between cells and a complete organism defined an aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function. For you and I to be tissue, both of those definitions would have to be false. And, for the record, there are not lots of different kinds of tissue. As far as animals are concerned, there are only four. So since you believe you are tissue, what kind of tissue are you? :)
What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously going to suggest that the supposed rights of the fetus are contingent on the prior acts of another person? That the fetus\\\'s \\\"inalienable right to life\\\" depends on whether or not its father is a criminal? How does that argument work?
It does not depend on whether or not the father is a criminal or not. It depends upon whether the rights of another were violated, with rape being a violation of autonomy.
Yes, I\\\'m certainly resigned to getting it from you. Perhaps the Libertarian anti-choicers can make their points more cogently.
Oddly enough, you try to give the same, failed, psuedo-snarky comments to every pro-lifer. Should I start digging up some of your comments directed towards arex, or Vera or Progo35?
I guess people can be forcibly given vaccinations, and made to donate organs against their will, then. Woohoo, we\\\'re living in a dystopia already!
The lesson here is to not argue things you do not understand. Just see my link provided above.
Refusing someone the use of your own body is \\\"essentially\\\" owning them? That\\\'s a rather strange definition of ownership you have there.
It is only strange if you somehow refuse to note the difference between refusing something and taking something away from someone. Actually, since you recognize the fact that you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but you will go to jail if you forcibly take a kidney away from someone, it is evident that you do understand the difference. For whatever reason, though, you simply refuse to acknowledge this difference when it comes to abortion. But seeing as how that is what you typically do, it is not surprising in the least.
Although if you define ownership as \\\"taking away the ability of another to govern their own life,\\\" you\\\'re basically saying that the fetus owns the woman surrounding it.
Only if the woman has no choice in whether or not she becomes pregnant as when compared to the unborn who, has no choice in whether or not it is conceived or not.
I thought you felt slavery was a bad thing!
It is.
I don\\\'t consider \\\"makes self-righteous people feel good about themselves\\\" to be a particularly good standard. \\\"Responsive to and respectful of the needs of women\\\" sounds a lot better to me.
Well, I see you are back to claiming that you are responsive and respectful of the needs of women, except you are not all that responsive and respectful to the needs of women when it comes to areas outside of abortion, nor are really respectful of women as a whole who disagree with you on abortion, as then their opinions are deemed irrelevant, themselves enablers of a patriarchal society and self-righteous. Convenient how that turns out.
If the fetus were a born person that had somehow crawled up into a woman\\\'s uterus, hooked into her circulatory system, and now depended on her for his/her life, none of the arguments, nor her rights, would be any different.
Yes, the argument would be no different if you ignored the forcible entry part.
Yes, I\\\'m an ideologue for not granting a single-celled organism the same rights and considerations as a born person.
Please keep making this argument, however. The more disconnected from reality anti-choicers seem, the better for us.
Indeed you are, because then you are deciding what human is worth protecting and what human is not. At any rate, it never ceases to be a source of amusement whenever a pro-choicer claims that pro-lifers are disconnected from reality, when pro-choicers themselves seem to live in a world where the majority of Americans do not perceive abortion as murder, where the majority of Americans do not believe that the unborn should have its rights protected from conception onwards, where the majority of Americans would limit abortions to specific instances and where younger generations are far less supportive of abortion than their elders. So, I suppose, the question is who, exactly, is disconnected from reality?
Yes, science gives clear-cut answers to all these kinds of questions, like whether viruses are alive or not.
Some question, yes. Some questions, no. Whether or not the unborn at all stages are human beings? Most definitely.
Do you have an actual argument to make using +/- rights, or are you just going to keep referring to them and my supposed ignorance of them as a cheap substitute for one?
Indeed I do. For as long as you are fail to notice the difference between not being killed and not being provided for, then I will continue to point it out.
People sure were pretty ignorant when Dred Scott was decided, wouldn\\\'t you say?
Not ignorant, since it was wildly decried in the North (and eventually renderred moot by the 13th Amendment).
Oh, I do see the difference between those. I don\\\'t see so much of one between mandatory organ donation, and being forced to provide biological life support to another organism/person against one\\\'s will.
Actually you do not, for the right of someone to not be killed is not contingent upon what someone else wants or does not want, henceforth why I will continue to point out to you the difference between negative versus positive rights. If you do not want to provide for the unborn, then that is easily avoided by not getting pregnant.
Well, I certainly wouldn\\\'t be ProChoiceGuineaPig, would I?
Because then you would be overestimating your brain power.
They say politics is cyclical, like a pendulum. Which reminds me of that scene from The Simpsons Movie with Homer and the wrecking ball...
Except it really is not.
That\\\'s all you got? Seriously, why do you even bother?
Because you bother to type things out and then turn around and conveniently forget what you said.
The credibility of an argument is not a function of the privilege (or lack thereof) of the person making it. Anyone can make a uncredible argument. Credibility comes from having a position that is in line with the reality of the subject in question. If you are privileged, you could just as well educate yourself on the subject, or be sheltered from it completely. If you are unprivileged, you are less sheltered from the subject, yet that still doesn\\\'t preclude ignorance. If you are directly and inescapably affected by it, however, it\\\'s a lot less likely that your argument is going to amount to useless posturing, because you\\\'re going to know the reality and it\\\'s your ass that\\\'s on the line.
And the backtracking continues. Since you do not remember what you wrote out initially, then I will refresh your memory.
Yes, if the anti-abortion argument is being made by a woman, of reproductive age, and without the means of traveling to another state (or country) to obtain an abortion if she ever needed one, then that would have more credence. Because then her own reproductive autonomy would be affected as much as other womens\\\'.
And:
No, I dismiss their views if they can escape the effects of the legal regime they want to bring about. Apparently, that is hard for you to understand!
It is funny how quickly you forget what you originally typed out and change your argument. You have gone from giving credence the an argument based on whether or not that person is able to get around said instituted abortion bans to giving credence to an argument so long as it is not based on ignorance, which as far as you are concerned is an argument which argues in favor of access to abortion. You see, the reason you have done so is because reality, which you profess to love but seemingly do not, says that the more likely you are to be affected by a ban on abortion, the more likely you are to support bans on abortion restrictions. Of course, because that contradicts the premise of your argument entirely, you throw it out, even though you were the one who initially brought it up. That is irony for you.
The reality of abortion in the U.S. is that women go in for them when it is beneficial to their lives and the lives of those around them not to give birth to a child. Half the arguments against abortion boil down to saying that some other person who is not the woman has a better idea of what is best for her and those around her than the woman herself. The other half boil down to saying that the woman\\\'s body does not belong to her. Both fail utterly at persuading anyone who genuinely cares about women as the human beings they are.
Ugh, right. Yeah, see. This is why, as I point out quite often, future generations are much less likely to support abortion (which is a trend that has been true since the 1980s). You somehow rationalize an action based on the feelings of the one engaging in it and someone argue that an action is okay so long as the person who engages in it engaged in it (as it was not okay, they would not have engaged in it). This is utterly nonsensical, and ignores the effect such an action has on another. Just because someone wants to kill someone else, does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Just because they do so, does not mean it was an acceptable choice. Just because the unborn has to reside in the woman for nine months does not mean it is hers to do with as she pleases (and indeed it is not for those full nine months). We, as a society, do not apply this logic elsewhere, and we should not apply it to abortion.
For whatever reason of another, though, you do not understand this and are content go going on about how those arguments do not persuade anyone who does not genuinely care about women. If that then, is true, then apparently few people care about women, because those arguments have been far more persuasive at shaping public opinion towards abortion than do whatever feeble arguments regarding feminism, the right to privacy, abortion being a matter about equality and freedom from religion that you like to throw around. But I have pointed this out to you hundreds of times as is, and you have ignored it every time, so I am not holding my breath.
Pack up your bags and go home, for you just lost.
Born - honestly I wish you would pack it up and go home. You are annoying, belligerent, rude, and immature. You bring absolutely nothing to this conversation. You have done nothing to change my views. I am even more staunchly PROCHOICE than ever before.
There's a big difference between having a personal moral objection to abortion -meaning you would never consider having one yourself, but you can still understand and would support other women's right to have one
On what moral grounds could a woman object to abortion that she thinks might not apply to someone else? I would be very interested in hearing the reasoning behind that one. An example or two would be quite helpful.
Snerk. Try this. My moral grounds are not universal territory.
My moral grounds are not universal territory.
Then how or why would they ever prevent you from doing something you were tempted to do? Why wouldn't you always simply bend them to suit your present desires?
Universal morals are the only ones that matter. Any other kind are no morals at all.
Then how or why would they ever prevent you from doing something you were tempted to do? Why wouldn't you always simply bend them to suit your present desires?
It's called discipline.
And there are many examples of people adhering to a set of behaviors they don't presume on imposing on everyone else.
there are many examples of people adhering to a set of behaviors they don't presume on imposing on everyone else.
So, back to my original question: What is an example of moral reasoning that would lead a woman to reject abortion as an option for herself, yet find that the same reasoning might not apply to other women?
I already gave examples below under "easy." Your body and health is yours to risk and sacrifice for your principles but no one else's is.
How about I am personally willing to sacrifice my body, my youth and my efforts to create a baby because I couldn't have an abortion
But why couldn't you have an abortion?
You can't think of any reasons someone wouldn't have an abortion?? I call bullshit. I donate blood because I believe it helps people, but I don't think it should be forced on anyone because what I do with my body is up to me. Maybe someone wouldn't want to stop with a process that results in a human, or that a fertilized egg is a human being or maybe she just wants a baby. Whatever the reason, what you are asking is why someone wouldn't force another to make a similar sacrifice.
Some people adopt stray dogs because they think it's the right thing to do but don't say everyone now has to suffer and do the same no matter that they hate dogs.
Universal morals are the only ones that matter. Any other kind are no morals at all.
Good point!
And it just so happens that the universal morals that everyone will live by will be those decreed by Allah and his prophet Muhammed (praise be upon him). Therefore, all liquor- and pork-related businesses will be shut down, men will be prohibited from shaving their beards, women will be required to cover their hair and dress modestly, and everyone will pray toward Mecca five times a day.
Yes, of course you have to do it. Do you dare suggest that our morals are non-morals by dint of being optional?
There are very rarely any "universal" morals. Similarly, just because a person understands morals are mutable with regard to various people doesn't mean they don't have a personal moral code or that they shift from moment to moment or situation to situation with regard to their adherence to that code (e.g., a person can be a thief but not a liar). Just because I'm not a fundamentalist doesn't mean I'm immoral or don't have morals... it means I don't necessarily share YOUR morals and I don't expect everybody else to share mine.
People who tend to view the world through that lens also tend to be VERY limited in their understanding or acceptance of differences.
How about I am personally willing to sacrifice my body, my youth and my efforts to create a baby because I couldn't have an abortion, but I don't presume to make the same choice for someone else because I'm not an asshole. Or I don't eat mammals or birds. But I don't try hard to make you go to jail for eating mammals and birds. That would make me an asshole.
On what moral grounds could a woman object to abortion that she thinks might not apply to someone else?
Well... religion for one. See, some people think their beliefs apply to everybody and everybody should believe they way they believe. On the other hand, some people realize that their religious beliefs certainly aren't everybody's and they don't expect everybody else to kowtow.
Similarly, a woman might not feel abortion in response to rape is personally appropriate but recognizes she has no idea how that experience might affect some other woman.
On what moral grounds could a woman object to abortion that she thinks might not apply to someone else?
Well... religion for one. See, some people think their beliefs apply to everybody and everybody should believe they way they believe. On the other hand, some people realize that their religious beliefs certainly aren't everybody's and they don't expect everybody else to kowtow.
Unless it's a purely personal, customized faith, one's religion is certainly going to apply to others, and represents much more of a universal than a personal morality. What it really boils down to, though, is not whether one thinks their morals are universal or not, but how one goes about making a moral decision. Few people actually do something that's wrong just because they prefer to do evil. Everyone who does something some might consider wrong - even aborting a baby - believes that while they may be doing something evil, they're doing it to achieve a greater good. The problem is that the weight of the good and evil effects that someone expects from a decision can be wrong, either through dishonesty or ignorance.
The objective of pro-abortion forces is to maintain this dishonesty or ignorance, so the true weight of the good and evil effects won't be known. One way they do this is by fighting efforts to ensure that women considering abortion know all the facts about what they're doing (e.g. by viewing ultrasound). Another is to use justifications based on extreme circumstances to excuse actions that occur in circumstances far different than those on which the justification is based (e.g. abortion should be legal because those pregnant by rape or incest shouldn't be forced to bear their attacker's baby). An analogy is that you ought to be permitted to shoot a man because if he were to point a gun at you if you surprised him while he was burglarizing your house, you'd be justified in shooting him.
No, you Pro"lifers" prefer to uphold the dishonest and ignorant view that women are stupid. Women already KNOW what they are aborting. What else would an ultrasound tell a woman other than that? Gee, I knew it wasn't about informed consent. It was just about ASSumptions, after all....
Btw, you are advocating for rape by medical instrument, on TOP of the generally accepted idea of rape and the nine-month rape ProLifers, such as yourself, would like to force on women. Hmm, I've heard all the justifications to allow that to happen, exCEPT the real truth. That you think women are subhuman, stupid and non-persons.
<<An analogy is that you ought to be permitted to shoot a man because if he were to point a gun at you if you surprised him while he was burglarizing your house, you'd be justified in shooting him.>>
Actually, you are.
Women already KNOW what they are aborting.
Really? Then why when I describe what they're aborting do the pro-aborts argue so vehemently that it is something else?
Btw, you are advocating for rape by medical instrument
If those who are ostensibly horrified at the requirement that a vaginal ultrasound be used where it would provide a better image of the baby than the abdominal type could convince me that they wouldn't express just as much opposition to a law that requires only the abdominal variety, perhaps I would take their concerns seriously.
Really? Then why when I describe what they're aborting do the pro-aborts argue so vehemently that it is something else?
Because when you describe it as "a precious innocent little human being baby-person," you're doing something a lot different than mere description.
If those who are ostensibly horrified at the requirement that a vaginal ultrasound be used where it would provide a better image of the baby than the abdominal type could convince me that they wouldn't express just as much opposition to a law that requires only the abdominal variety, perhaps I would take their concerns seriously.
You already don't take the concerns of rape victims seriously. Excuse us if we find attempting to convince you to show any sort of empathy for women an exercise in futility.
Because when you describe it as "a precious innocent little human being baby-person," you're doing something a lot different than mere description.
I've never used such language to describe an embryo/fetus to be aborted. I've only referred to them in simple and biologically-relevant terms such as a complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human being.
You already don't take the concerns of rape victims seriously.
I don't believe I've said anything that would suggest that. And your circular reasoning doesn't impress.
unconditionally viable
Uh, wha? A fetus is by no means 'unconditionally viable' in the first half of a pregnancy. It is only viable on the condition that it remains in the woman's womb (and sometimes not even then). You consistently gloss over the fact that a fetus is feeding off the woman it resides in.
A fetus is by no means 'unconditionally viable' in the first half of a pregnancy. It is only viable on the condition that it remains in the woman's womb
The term "viable" as it is typically used when discussing abortion is a special use of the term that implies a condition, that being "outside the womb." I say "unconditionally" viable to make it clear that I'm using the simplest definition of viable, which is simply, "capable of living." This is the same sense of the term used by fertility specialists and embryonic stem cell researchers, who refer to "viable embryos" quite regularly.
You consistently gloss over the fact that a fetus is feeding off the woman it resides in.
The fetus doesn't "feed off" the mother's body. Her body simply passes through some of the water, oxygen and nutrients that she takes in to the baby rather than using it all herself. I have never denied this or the fact that the mother's body provides a suitable environment to the embryo/fetus (even though the latter still has to battle its mother's immune system in order to survive). I have also emphasized that the mother provides nothing special to the embryo/fetus - it's the same water, oxygen and nutrients that we continue to need after we're born until the day we die.
I say "unconditionally" viable to make it clear that I'm using the simplest definition of viable, which is simply, "capable of living."
You and i clearly have different interpretations of the term 'unconditionally'.
The fetus doesn't "feed off" the mother's body. Her body simply passes through some of the water, oxygen and nutrients that she takes in to the baby rather than using it all herself.
You say potato, I say potahto. Regardless of if you use active or passive language, the fetus gets it's food from the mother's body. And you've consistently used language that ignores this fact when convenient--you haven't denied it, exactly, but you have implied it.
You and i clearly have different interpretations of the term 'unconditionally'.
No, we don't. It's just that you're using it to describe the viability of the fetus/baby, and I'm using it to identify the form of the term "viable" that I'm using, as I described. We're both right in our respective use of the word, but since your meaning is the one assumed in this context by simply saying that a fetus is "viable" or not, then it's me who has to take the extra step of clarification, which is what I did.
you've consistently used language that ignores this fact when convenient
I would only do so to counter statements that imply falsehoods about the relationship between a mother and her unborn baby, in an attempt to emphasize the biologically correct view. I have no reason to hide anything that is true.
I don't believe I've said anything that would suggest that.
You would be wrong.
You would be wrong.
You would need to provide an example.
Keep in mind that ultrasound, even the transvaginal variety, can be a normal component of a medical abortion.
http://www.prochoice.org/education/cme/online_cme/m4ultrasound.asp
The constant claims of patriarchy and the like were mildly amusing at first, but now they are just old and tired.
Yes, we figured you would think womens' rights are so gauche and passe. Carrying unwanted pregnancies to term is the modern, hip thing to do!
See above
"Apparently, holding a woman accountable for that she helped to create is misogyny"
And legislating what a woman does with that "creation" certainly is misogynistic as it implies that the woman should have no autonomy over her body.
"Name me a medical procedure a man can go through which involves the death of another"
There it is folks, it's a no win situation for the women as she is the only creature capable of "killing" this so called independent entity which exists only inside a woman. Ah, don't ya love it - only women can "murder " what's inside their own body. But then, according to the Catholic church, the woman carries the seed of "original sin" so women as fetus murderers does seem to go along with the patriarchal, misogynist world view. The man who helps to "create" this so called "human being" gets a free pass in order to go spread the sacred semen someplace else. But the woman - she's a "baby killer" - burn the witch.....or put her in jail for life!!!!
Oh, and if embryos, in vitro labs, are little babies, why aren't they baptized? Should the anti-choicers be lobbying to shut tthe labs down because if the labs discard the "babies" in the petri dishes, they are committing murder. Just saying....
And remember, when you're on the blob, and the tears of your weeping womb are extra-heavy and clotty, DO NOT FLUSH!
Proceed directly to the nearest Forced Birther Clinic Harassers protest, and DEMAND they come to your can and baptize the bowl!
The heavenly repose of innocent non-persons may rely on it!
"Being pro-choice is in no way a system of oppression. It is the very opposite"
Yes, Yes. Free us from the shackles of contraception and abortion and liberate us into a world of unfettered reproduction and the prospect of living in poverty till we die because our bodies are just worn out with the joy of constant child birth and parenting too many children. Oh, yes, let us be free to breed and live like those wonderful women in places like Brazil and the Phillipines (where contraception and abortion is banned due to the influence of the oldest all males club in the world) where our children can be free to roam the streets and eat their meals on garbage dumps. Oh, yes, let us be free to be burdened with children whose co-creators can't support them and thus leave us to carry on their legacy even in a society that would deprive us of social services and subsidized child care. Yes, yes. And who cares about our education which could allow us the fullfillment of a career. Let us have as many children as our bodies will allow.
Ah, liberation.
Born is having his usual trouble understanding simple concepts, I see. Patriarchy is NOT determined by WHO supports it. Patriarchy is determined IF someone supports it. Meaning that if there are those who support the continuation of male privilege and its benefits, then, yes, it exists. Anti-Choice women DO support its continuation thus they ARE a part of patriarchy. SO sorry delusional one.
Begging the question is, correct?
Yes, I do. But I don't think you do, since there wasn't any of that going on, here. SO sorry. If you support male privilege and benefits, then yes, you are supporting the patriarchy. I was NOT using male privilege and benefits as existing beCAUSE of it.
fine born, don't believe in the patriarchy, continue to hold your stereotyped, ignorant, hateful views about feminism, continue to believe that a zygote is an adorable little baby. Obviously there's no one here whos going to change your mind.
But do know, that on all those topics, literally every single person on here, with the exception of maybe kevin, knows a hell of a lot more then you. Don't talk about Feminism to feminists. You sound like an ass.
You forgot shallow too,
using gallup polls to determine the best social policy, without looking deeper than answers people give to yes-or-no questions, answers which often contradict each other, pretending that recent poll trends will continue, because everyone knows all trends continue, refusing to ask real women why they had abortions, citing lifesite quotes out of context as legitimate biological scholarship, looking at early feminist quotes out of context in a google search as historical study, all the consistent behavior of a shallow person.
Read a book, talk to people, there's no search engine shortcut to personal depth.
Knowing how to look things up are the signs of a shallow person (yes, that was sarcasm).
I would point out to you the numerous number of lies contained in your above post (like quoting Lifesite articles, or the fact that you have somehow ignored actual pear reviewed studies studying abortion attitudes since the 1980s), but I figure why waste my time? You are completely impervious to facts and are content to live in your own world. I suppose that is why when faced with something you cannot answer, you ignore it.
Do you remember what I said about the guy (or girl) who sits on the corner of the street yelling at people, yet wonders why no one takes him seriously? Well, you are kind of like that guy.
There is a reason why relatively few people take feminists/feminism seriously, and it has to do with the fact that the people who generally carry around the feminist sign have a propensity to claim misogyny or patriarchy at every little thing, and/or label those with whom they disagree with as misogynists. I mean, just look at this site. The number of times that word gets thrown around is frightening. So much so, to the point where it becomes laughable. But, I suppose, the problem is not so much of you, as it is people being dominated by a patriarchal society. Really. It is.
But on a serious note, considering the number of incorrect statements, backtracking and ridiculous amount of hypocrisy your side engages in, it is quite hard to assert that they are more knowledgeable than I. Especially when you consider the propensity of some here to not go and look things up before they state them (which is mind-boggling, to say the least).
I would like to echo Robin Marty's Bravo to Courtroom Mama's Imagining a world without political distractions:
We will never have paid sick leave (or subsidized daycare, or universal healthcare) as long as abortion gets to be the red herring taking us off the path to true family values as a nation. We will never have a truly supportive environment for women (both in and out of the workplace) and children if people can't get over their obsession with controlling what happens in other people's bedrooms
The only way the few people on the top get to keep their power & privilege is by divide and conquer ... and the amount of [censored] they throw at feminism is an indication of how dangerous some ideas are. (& I complain against Gender Role enforcement & Blame the Poor for Being Poor lies because I'm trying to lessen the power of the divide & conquer social training.) Sometimes a "little thing" is a little thing. Sometimes it's speaking truth to power. And Power, of course, (if it's greedy & wants to preserve it's privilege) is going to belittle valid criticism as being inconsequential.
example of projection. One for the textbooks:
Do you remember what I said about the guy (or girl) who sits on the corner of the street yelling at people, yet wonders why no one takes him seriously?
Why don't any of us take you seriously, born, ever wonder about that? Oh yes, we hate men, easy-peasy. ;?
You levy the same accusations no matter who the pro-lifer is (I have seen you do it to arex, Progo, that Paul guy, that Kevin guy and that Anonymous guy), and then turn around and go from thread to thread talking about misogyny, patriarchy and wonder why feminism is viewed so negatively in society-at-large (which I suppose you blame on patriarchy).
I know, I'm awesome enough to be followed. You forgot that Bei guy, oops I forgot you're still denying you're him.
I'm pretty happy with my posts, myself. And unlike you, I have learned a lot at this site and have actually put my philosphy to work and made differences in women's lives by helping them get abortions. They thank me too. It must suck that you haven't been able to actually stop any abortions. You must be a very lonely and frustrated individual.
I know, I\'m awesome enough to be followed. You forgot that Bei guy, oops I forgot you\'re still denying you\'re him.
I do not need to follow you. You have a tendency to respond to my posts in thread after thread, even if they are not directed towards you. And, yes, I will deny being someone who I am not. If you want to be paranoid, then that is your prerogative.
I\'m pretty happy with my posts, myself. And unlike you, I have learned a lot at this site and have actually put my philosphy to work and made differences in women\'s lives by helping them get abortions. They thank me too. It must suck that you haven\'t been able to actually stop any abortions. You must be a very lonely and frustrated individual.
Actually, I am a very happy individual. Why? Because the future is bright for the pro-life movement. It makes me happy inside to know that future generations are less accepting of abortion then their elders. You? Not so much, which is why I suppose why every other post of your contains some petty insult directed towards me (should I go and post some of your quotes?). I guess you cannot help being angry, though. Generally speaking, when people are wrong and have no arguments, they resort to petty insults.
I am a very happy individual. Why? Because the future is bright for the pro-life movement.
That's it? That's all you have to be happy for? I'm so sorry.
I suppose why every other post of your contains some petty insult directed towards me
Because I really want you to leave so people can have a real conversation, instead of one that doesn't offer anything new and revolves around petty definitions and shallow observations backed by pro-life compilations of data. I don't know why you haven't been banned. I'll ban myself if it bans you. Because there are, unlike me, some very informed, provocative and vivid minds writing on this site and it pains me that their most important work is appended by idiotic propaganda and links to such.
That\'s it? That\'s all you have to be happy for? I\'m so sorry.
Equal rights for all is a reason to be happy.
Because I really want you to leave so people can have a real conversation, instead of one that doesn\'t offer anything new and revolves around petty definitions and shallow observations backed by pro-life compilations of data. I don\'t know why you haven\'t been banned. I\'ll ban myself if it bans you. Because there are, unlike me, some very informed, provocative and vivid minds writing on this site and it pains me that their most important work is appended by idiotic propaganda and links to such.
Yes, because the NCHS or CDC or former directors of Planned Parenthood or data compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are pro-life compilations of data (you, for the record, have ignored each and every one). I have only linked to one pro-life website, and that was to point out the self-reporting of violence that each camp (pro-life and pro-choice) have reported.
But you are free to continue to label things are false assertions and ignore those links provided to you which prove you wrong. Ignoring things do not make them false.
You conveniently ignored my links too.
You conveniently ignored my links too.
Actually, I did not, considering the fact that I have been over the same thing time and time again with people trying to find a silver lining. It is a well-known* (well, to anyone who has kept up with the abortion debate), that generally speaking Americans would limit abortions to the first trimester, but place multiple restrictions on abortion (i.e., informed consent laws, parental consent laws, waiting periods and spousal notification laws) and limit it to certain circumstances.
With respect to circumstances, most Americans agree that abortion should be available when there is a medical problem, whether involving the woman or the fetus. They generally disapprove of abortion in cases involving lifestyle decisions. Public opinion surveys indicate the following rank order of approval for abortion under specific circumstances:
Life of the woman: 84%
Physical health of the woman: 83%
Rape or incest: 79%
Mental health of the woman: 64%
Baby would be mentally impaired: 53%
Baby would be physically impaired: 51%
Would force teenager to drop out of school: 42%
Woman/family can’t afford the baby: 39%
Woman/family want no more children: 39%
Couple does not want to marry: 35%
Fertility selection (when fertility process creates multiple embryos): 29%
Would interfere with woman’s career: 25%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#5
Situation/Should Be Legal/Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases: 57%/42%
To Save Womans Life: 88%/10%
To Save Womans Health: 82%/14%
In Cases of Rape/Incest: 81%/17%
Physically Impaired Baby: 54%/40%
To End Unwanted Pregnancy: 42%/57%
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions: 23%/69%
Pregnancy is 6 Months+: 11%/86%
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/abortion_poll030122.html
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations...
Legal/Illegal/Unsure
If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest
10/23 - 24/07: 70%/21%/9%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 74%/21%/6%
If the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk
10/23 - 24/07: 73%/15%/12%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 83%/12%/5%
If the pregnancy puts the mothers mental health at risk
10/23 - 24/07: 56%/28%/16%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 62%/30%/8%
If the baby has a fatal birth defect
10/23-24/07: 53%/30%/18%
If the pregnancy is unwanted
10/23 - 24/07: 39%/50%/11%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 43%/49%/8%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about [see below]?
Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure
When the womans life is endangered
85%/11%/2%/2%
When the womans physical health is endangered
77%/17%/4%/2%
When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest
76%/19%/2%/3%
When the womans mental health is endangered
63%/32%/3%/2%
When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired
56%/37%/4%/3%
When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired
55%/39%/3%/3%
When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child
35%/61%/2%/2%
Thinking more generally: Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy? How about [see below]?
Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure
In the first three months of pregnancy
66%/29%/3%/2%
In the second three months of pregnancy
25%/68%/4%/3%
In the last three months of pregnancy
10%/84%/4%/2%
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm
I do not feel like pulling up anymore. I think that should be enough, though, as you should get the point.
Late edit: Sorry. Had to fix something.
You levy the same accusations no matter who the pro-lifer is (I have seen you do it to arex, Progo, that Paul guy, that Kevin guy and that Anonymous guy), and then turn around and go from thread to thread talking about misogyny, patriarchy and wonder why feminism is viewed so negatively in society-at-large (which I suppose you blame on patriarchy).
Why yes, trying to overturn established social norms is not a recipe for popularity. Got any more insights for us, Captain Obvious? :-)
Why yes, trying to overturn established social norms is not a recipe for popularity. Got any more insights for us, Captain Obvious? :-)
Odd. I am pretty sure that gender equality is a readily accepted social norm. Unluckily for you though, that does not translate to acceptance of abortion which, I suppose, in your world means that equality is not a readily accepted social norm. Apparently, acceptance of abortion is the litmus there.
Odd. I am pretty sure that gender equality is a readily accepted social norm.
Saying that "gender equality is a readily accepted social norm" is certainly a readily accepted social norm.
Unluckily for you though, that does not translate to acceptance of abortion which, I suppose, in your world means that equality is not a readily accepted social norm. Apparently, acceptance of abortion is the litmus there.
It sure beats your world, where "gender equality" somehow doesn't rule out "forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term."
Saying that \"gender equality is a readily accepted social norm\" is certainly a readily accepted social norm.
No. A fact.
It sure beats your world, where \"gender equality\" somehow doesn\'t rule out \"forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.\"
Yes, because women cannot be truly equal unless they are allowed to kill their unborn children. And yet you wonder why most people-- yes, even women-- eschew the notion that abortion is integral to gender equality. Well, actually, you do not wonder, because you just blame that on a patriarchal society.
No. A fact.
Yes, and racism is dead, because we elected a Black man president.
Yes, because women cannot be truly equal unless they are allowed to kill their unborn children. And yet you wonder why most people-- yes, even women-- eschew the notion that abortion is integral to gender equality. Well, actually, you do not wonder, because you just blame that on a patriarchal society.
You can call it "killing their unborn children," "failing at their duty to be a mother," or even "doing the most evil thing a human can possibly do." That doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, you support forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term without their consent, taking control of their own bodies into your hands. And you will never know how horrific that is until the day that you are a woman, have a growing, unwanted pregnancy, and find yourself surrounded by people all telling you that a minuscule blob of tissue inside you is more important in determining the course of your life (if not death) than your own free will.
Yes, and racism is dead, because we elected a Black man president.
Readily accepted equals dead?
You can call it \"killing their unborn children,\" \"failing at their duty to be a mother,\" or even \"doing the most evil thing a human can possibly do.\" That doesn\'t change the fact that at the end of the day, you support forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term without their consent, taking control of their own bodies into your hands. And you will never know how horrific that is until the day that you are a woman, have a growing, unwanted pregnancy, and find yourself surrounded by people all telling you that a minuscule blob of tissue inside you is more important in determining the course of your life (if not death) than your own free will.
Number one, the unborn is not tissue. Honestly. Pick up a basic embryology book or something. Number two, it does not matter if I am a male. If I were female, you would not suddenly heed my argument. In fact, you would just turn around and talk about patriarchy and whatever else you can think up. So why even bother going down this road? I know as well as you do that gender is unimportant to the actual argument.
Do you know what the next level below organs IS. Tissue. Feoti in the early stages do NOT have organs. Guess what, apparently SHE knows more about embryology than you do...?
Gender is unimportant to the actual argument? There you go. Born just admitted to his misogyny. Let's see, a woman who is ACTually pregnant (what she was REALLY talking about) DOES have more weight than someone with male organs who will never GET pregnant, after all....
Readily accepted equals dead?
Oh, I'm sorry. Here, I'll put it in a form that you can comprehend:
"I am pretty sure that racial equality is a readily accepted social norm, because we elected a Black man president."
There, is that better? I'm sure many Blacks would not be surprised if you agreed with that.
Number one, the unborn is not tissue. Honestly. Pick up a basic embryology book or something.
I must have missed the part where it said "the embryo is not tissue." Would that be anywhere close to the part where it says "the fetus is not comprised of cells?"
Number two, it does not matter if I am a male. If I were female, you would not suddenly heed my argument. In fact, you would just turn around and talk about patriarchy and whatever else you can think up. So why even bother going down this road? I know as well as you do that gender is unimportant to the actual argument.
Yes, it's not like we're talking about an issue that primarily affects one of the sexes.
Oh, I\'m sorry. Here, I\'ll put it in a form that you can comprehend:
\"I am pretty sure that racial equality is a readily accepted social norm, because we elected a Black man president.\"
There, is that better? I\'m sure many Blacks would not be surprised if you agreed with that.
Indeed it is. Walk outside and say that Blacks and Whites should be treated differently and see how many people agree with said assertion.
I must have missed the part where it said \"the embryo is not tissue.\" Would that be anywhere close to the part where it says \"the fetus is not comprised of cells?\"
Is tissue totipotent?
Yes, it\'s not like we\'re talking about an issue that primarily affects one of the sexes.
And yet, you discount the views of the majority of that sex because they do not agree with you.
Equality definitely does NOT simply mean just not being treated differently, OF course.
Indeed it is. Walk outside and say that Blacks and Whites should be treated differently and see how many people agree with said assertion.
So you agree with me, then. Saying that "racial equality is a readily accepted social norm" is certainly a readily accepted social norm. Actual, real racial equality? Not so much.
Is tissue totipotent?
I dunno. Are cells?
And yet, you discount the views of the majority of that sex because they do not agree with you.
No, I disagree with them because they don't have enough skin in the game.
So you agree with me, then. Saying that \"racial equality is a readily accepted social norm\" is certainly a readily accepted social norm. Actual, real racial equality? Not so much.
No. It is a fact.
I dunno. Are cells?
Just the zygote, which I am sure you knew.
No, I disagree with them because they don\'t have enough skin in the game.
In other words, because they do not agree with you.
Nope, that is NOT what she meant. That was obvious even to me.... They don't have the same stakes. Or do you REALLY think that a woman who is pregnant is risking her health and life JUST AS MUCH as one who is not? Hmmm...?
No. It is a fact.
That's a mighty big knapsack you're carrying there, kiddo!
Just the zygote, which I am sure you knew.
So, according to your logic, the zygote is not a cell. Or is a cell. Or something.
Oh well, I guess embryos are tissue after all, then.
In other words, because they do not agree with you.
You can certainly believe that if it helps your self-esteem.
That\'s a mighty big knapsack you\'re carrying there, kiddo!
Indeed, it is not.
So, according to your logic, the zygote is not a cell. Or is a cell. Or something.
Oh well, I guess embryos are tissue after all, then.
So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. Since the zygote is totipotent, the embryo is tissue. Is that correct? The logical head scratchers aside, that begs the question, then, as to not only what kind of tissue are they, but this also begs the question as to what tissue is, since tissue is an aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function whereas, yet by your definition, tissue is the organism.
You can certainly believe that if it helps your self-esteem.
I can only believe what you write out :)
It's not an organism. Btw, when sperm meets egg, the ZBEF IS a cell, what's so hard to believe that, at later stages, it IS tissue?
I could quote a biology textbook, but this is so much more sweeter.
It\'s not an organism.
Zygote: The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/glossary-4338.htm#z
Btw, when sperm meets egg, the ZBEF IS a cell, what\'s so hard to believe that, at later stages, it IS tissue?
Because it is not. And it is rather stupid to assert as much because to do so you have to redefine what tissue is. But since you believe the unborn at any stage is tissue, then what kind of tissue is it?
BORN
No it is not tissue. It is a person, O.K, I'll go with that assertion. That means we are talking about a relationship between two humans, the potential mother, and the potential child. I’m not a biologist, and so I don’t have anything to add to that discussion. I do have a sense of what is fair, and I know a double standard when I see one. Looking at the fetus as a human brings much more relevant questions to bear than simply, is it alive? Because you can go round on that question for life and never get anywhere. As my Christian friend would say, “it is a faith issue”.
What human has the right to use and in the process permanently alter, another’s body and mind either in part or in whole, without that person's continued consent? In other words, does anyone have a claim to any part of your body or mind that can be considered more important than your own?
On the back of my driver's license there is a little box (checked) that says I am an organ donor. It is ok to use my organs to help the ill, the disabled or to save someone else's life. I had to consent to that, and I can revoke it at any time. Because that is what autonomy is all about, control of my body. The law assumes that we have that autonomy, not by the presence of a driver’s license, but by directly asking what we want done with the body at our death. If that box has not been checked, your organs cannot be used, even if that means a child dies.
It is important to note that the law does not so easily assume the same autonomy with regard to a woman’s uterus, or we would not be having this discussion. That in itself is a slice of patriarchal thought to ponder.
By your logic; if you drive, you must be morally consenting to organ donation, because no matter how you may try to prevent it you may die in a car accident and you get into the car knowing that. Of course you are excused if you were forced into the car by someone else, but otherwise, failure to donate your organs is potentially, murder. (Potential is relevant as a fetus, no matter how human, is yet a potential human with many obstacles to overcome) If you do not consent to the use of your organs someone could die. That person, just like anyone else, has a “right to life”, or to be more accurate, the right to fight for life.
Now keep in mind that in terms of the uterus, we are talking about an organ still in use by a living person. Logically, you could extend this idea to the living organs of post-born people. If someone needed your kidney and you still have a healthy pair, so that taking one would not endanger your life, you could be sued for it because what I hear you saying; is that organs are public property and belong under public control?
Think carefully there because, Born, we all have a “right to life”.
Hmm, why does Born always twist everything we say? Maybe that's because he knows he wouldn't have a point otherwise? HOW is forcing a woman to share her uterus (an organ) with a fetus, but ALLOWING someone else to consent to share their organs with another, equal rights? Oh, that's right, it's NOT.
.
Do you remember what I said about the guy (or girl) who sits on the corner of the street yelling at people, yet wonders why no one takes him seriously? Well, you are kind of like that guy.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that someone here cares about your opinion of them.
There is a reason why relatively few people take feminists/feminism seriously, and it has to do with the fact that the people who generally carry around the feminist sign have a propensity to claim misogyny or patriarchy at every little thing, and/or label those with whom they disagree with as misogynists. I mean, just look at this site. The number of times that word gets thrown around is frightening. So much so, to the point where it becomes laughable. But, I suppose, the problem is not so much of you, as it is people being dominated by a patriarchal society. Really. It is.
But on a serious note, considering the number of incorrect statements, backtracking and ridiculous amount of hypocrisy your side engages in, it is quite hard to assert that they are more knowledgeable than I. Especially when you consider the propensity of some here to not go and look things up before they state them (which is mind-boggling, to say the least).
Oh, look, it's a privileged male, berating and belittling the feminists. I've never seen that before.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that someone here cares about your opinion of them.
I am everyone? I have to say, that is news to me.
Oh, look, it\'s a privileged male, berating and belittling the feminists. I\'ve never seen that before.
You can see anything if you try hard enough to see things.
