On abortion

[4est_4est_Gump]

I just did.
You're a man. You have zero say in what a woman chooses to do with her body and her [first trimester] pregnancy, with one exception.... if you are the father, you get to tell her what you think, but in the end it doesn't make a difference to her choice.
How come men don't understand that?

He said that.

"I happen to be pro-choice, at least during the first trimester."

Everyone has the right to an opinion, we're all in this together unless, of course there is reciprocity, e.g., women have no say in matters of war because it's men getting shot at.

Now, what do you tell the woman who does not discover her pregnancy until the second trimester?

You HAVE to have the baby?

The way I see it, everyone wants to tell a woman what she can do with her body, it's a magic timeline that makes them feel comfortable about it. The exception to that rule is our President who wants the viable survivors terminated.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

saying that a man has zero say in what a woman chooses to do with her body is a silly thing to say.

someone being a man doesn't preclude them from having them opinion, nor a right to express it.

other men, and other women, are constantly telling us what we can, and can't do - with and without our bodies.

ultimately it's not the person's gender that dictates their right to impose their will on another human being, it's either a legal or ethical imperative.

him being a man doesn't make his opinion moot.

When a man says he's 100% pro-abortion with no limitations and that he wants no say in the choice, then they respect his right to an opinion.

Of course, imho, a fair amount of those men want the woman to feel it is a perfect choice when contraception, i.e., responsibility, has become nothing more than an afterthought so that they are free to flit from flower to flower without consequence...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Once again, I'll trot out my Amicus Abortion Challenge. Watch Ish pretend I don't exist as I skillfully annihilate his Abortion Is Murder derp:

There are actually six separate arguments that comprise the "Is Abortion Moral" debate, not one as Ish claims:

1. Is it alive?
2. Is it human?
3. Is it a person?
4. Is it physically independent?
5. Does it have human rights?
6. Is abortion murder?

Let's see if we can find some common ground here.

1. Is it alive? My answer is yes.

2. Is it human? Again, I'll answer yes.

3. Is it a person? No, it's a "potential person", which is both separate and distinct from a "person", inasmuch as an acorn is distinct from an oak tree.

4. Is it physically independent? Absolutely not. A fetus is dependent upon another human being for nutrients and oxygen. It's worth noting that many of the anti-abortion folks raise the false equivalency that because a newborn infant is also dependent upon another for nutrients and oxygen, a fetus should be considered the functional equivalent of a newborn. This shows an inability to distinguish between the concepts of "physical independence" and "social independence". Social independence is where a child depends on society to feed, clothe and nuture him/her. Physical independence, on the other hand, is when something depends on the physical body of another for its continued existence. This seems to be a point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

5. Does it have human rights? A qualified yes. A human fetus has rights to the extent that the do not infringe upon the rights of another, in this case the woman carrying the fetus. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body, because one will automatically have veto power over the other, and by definition this precludes "equal rights".

6. Is abortion murder? No. It's only murder when it's an independent person. Infants, even premature infants, are considered "independent" of their mother and are accorded full human rights.

 

[warrior queen]

He said that.

"I happen to be pro-choice, at least during the first trimester."

Everyone has the right to an opinion, we're all in this together unless, of course there is reciprocity, e.g., women have no say in matters of war because it's men getting shot at.

Now, what do you tell the woman who does not discover her pregnancy until the second trimester?

You HAVE to have the baby?

The way I see it, everyone wants to tell a woman what she can do with her body, it's a magic timeline that makes them feel comfortable about it. The exception to that rule is our President who wants the viable survivors terminated.

He also said " Abortion is murder, there is no other word that fits. You may call it the elimination of an 'nonviable tissue mass', or any other phrase you want, but it's still murder."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He also said " Abortion is murder, there is no other word that fits. You may call it the elimination of an 'nonviable tissue mass', or any other phrase you want, but it's still murder."

I agree with that sentiment 100%.

Sometimes a homicide is justifiable, but too often, far too often, it is executed as a mere convenience and that is callous, callow and a severe erosion of our culture's moral fiber. If a young girl cannot bring herself to protect herself, then a pregnancy, unwanted as it is might prevent her from being a Typhoid Mary for STDs...

Because as I see it, the two issues have more than a casual link.



Now, feel free to hate me.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The way I see it, everyone wants to tell a woman what she can do with her body, it's a magic timeline that makes them feel comfortable about it. The exception to that rule is our President who wants the viable survivors terminated.

The only people that I've seen who want to tell a woman what she can do with her body are social conservatives.


....and not-Republicans like you.

 

[oggbashan]

Abortion is murder, there is no other word that fits.

The first assertion is incorrect, therefore everything that follows is based on a false premise.

Abortion has a legal definition which varies according to the country's legislation.

Murder also has a legal definition which varies according to the country's legislation.

I know of no country which defines abortion as murder. Some countries, perhaps where legislation is influenced by religion, might define it as a crime, but not as murder.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, about that, you and Phelia...


When the NAZIs began executing the Final Solution, they first made it LEGAL...





So I'll concede the point, it is a LAWFUL killing of a human being. You got me on that one! Kudos!

 

[MKvDeepSea]

Bullshit

Brain dead bullshit. End of story!!

 

[bg23]

If you read what I wrote, I did say the man had the right to say what he thinks.
He does not, however, have the same right to choose [or not] an abortion.
Only the woman has that.

Nope. You made it pretty clear you don't think a MAN has a right to enter the debate.

Aaaaaaaaannd....
Another MAN comes into the debate.

 

[eyer]

Murder is the intentional killing of innocent human life...

 

[Liar]

Murder is the intentional killing of innocent human life...

Incorrect. First of all, human life is too vague. Human person, would be correct. And that brings us to the definition of person. Hello can of worms. If you don't think your chosen definition is arbitrary, you're a moron.

Second, killing of guilty human life is also murder unless sanctioned by law and carried out by government officials. Or in narrowly specific self defense situaions.

/sophistry, sometimes not a bad thing

 

[BoyNextDoor]

An abortion is a minor surgical procedure.

 

[Ishmael]

There are lots of reasons, to be sure.

Could you please answer my last question, re: allowing your vote to be swayed by the gay marriage issue? Maybe you were joking, but I found the tone of your post condescending, i.e. "sure hope them womens know better than to vote with their lady parts come November!"

As I stated, I don't think it's outrageous to favour a politician who respects my right to make decisions regarding my own body. At any rate, I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense than voting to outlaw something that has literally no bearing on your life in the name of protecting the sanctity of marriage. I am curious to know where your opinions fall in that regard.

Finally, aside from the fact that I don't find abortion to be morally wrong, I think your pro-choice justification is very rational. It doesn't give you any pause when a politician disagrees?

I'll try to cover all your points here, maybe.

Legal is merely what passes for fashion during any given period. Hitler's killing of millions was all quite legal. As was Stalin's and Mao's killing of their citizens. And that's just to address some more recent history. Most of the most morally abominable events that took place throughout history were all done quite legally. So using a 'legal' definition of 'murder' has no sway on me at all. You might as well go back to 1859 and be arguing that slavery is legal.

Neither the constitution, nor the courts, should be polluted with matters of sex or marriage. That is a matter for the various states to decide.

My own opinion re. gay marriage is well known and of long standing on this board, don't presume that you can read my mind when a little research will allow you to read my exact words.

Ishmael

 

[oggbashan]

I'll try to cover all your points here, maybe.

Legal is merely what passes for fashion during any given period. Hitler's killing of millions was all quite legal. As was Stalin's and Mao's killing of their citizens. And that's just to address some more recent history. Most of the most morally abominable events that took place throughout history were all done quite legally. So using a 'legal' definition of 'murder' has no sway on me at all. You might as well go back to 1859 and be arguing that slavery is legal.

Neither the constitution, nor the courts, should be polluted with matters of sex or marriage. That is a matter for the various states to decide.

My own opinion re. gay marriage is well known and of long standing on this board, don't presume that you can read my mind when a little research will allow you to read my exact words.

Ishmael

You live in a republic that has democratic institutions, not a dictatorship ruled by a corrupt elite.

Your claim that Hitler's killing of millions was 'legal' is dubious. While there were laws enacted to strip Jews and others of German citizenship, to send people to concentration camps and forced labour where they died, there was no law passed to condemn them to death.

The current law in the US allows abortion. If the law is to be changed, it requires legislation. At present, any political party suggesting changing the law on abortion in the US would probably lose an election despite your arguments.

 

[zipman]

I'll try to cover all your points here, maybe.

Legal is merely what passes for fashion during any given period. Hitler's killing of millions was all quite legal. As was Stalin's and Mao's killing of their citizens. And that's just to address some more recent history. Most of the most morally abominable events that took place throughout history were all done quite legally. So using a 'legal' definition of 'murder' has no sway on me at all. You might as well go back to 1859 and be arguing that slavery is legal.

Neither the constitution, nor the courts, should be polluted with matters of sex or marriage. That is a matter for the various states to decide.

My own opinion re. gay marriage is well known and of long standing on this board, don't presume that you can read my mind when a little research will allow you to read my exact words.

Ishmael

Of course using the legal definition of murder has no sway on you. That would take a level of common sense and logic that seems way beyond your capabilities.

How in the world can you discuss whether or not something is murder without discussing the legality of it? Legality is at the core of the definition of murder. It is impossible to discuss it without acknowledging the legal aspects.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Abortion is State sanctioned murder just like capital punishment, death by drone or the M16A2 5.56mm rifle. Fetuses should have right to carry.

 

[CHNOPS]

Abortion? Should be called a-BORE-tion, amiright??

We'll be back right after these messages.

 

[tripleflip]

All cultures at all times have defined some children as unwanted and provided for their elimination. Most American Plains Indian tribes considered twins as an ill omen and both babies were killed at birth, usually by exposure. In China, boy babies were (are) favored and many girl babies were killed. In our time, Peter Singer, at Princeton, apparently believes that children only live at their parent's pleasure until puberty. Choicers haven't yet gone that far.

In our culture, a woman who decides, after deciding to have sex, that she doesn't want the resulting baby, gets a do-over. This is at least as valid reason than a bad omen or desire for a male heir. Some people appear to believe that we should have gotten past the killing of children, but it isn't going to happen.

Practically everyone agress that the woman has the right to choose whether to become pregnant. Some people believe that if a woman chooses to have sexual intercourse, she implicitly consents to the posible result of sexual intercourse, which means she consented to the pregnancy. They believe that the resulting fetus is a child, and that the child is, or should be, considered a person and protected by law.

I don't believe that. Let's just agree to disagree. I have the right to equally as snarky as a man, and if I get pregnant, it will crimp my style, and I have the right not to have my style crimped.

Five judges told me so.

Disclaimer: Mom was date-raped "legitimately," and I was the result, so I guess legitimate rape DOES cause pregnancy. Mom was Catholic, and she should have tanked me so she could have continued her Olympic skating career, but her religious superstions got in the way.

I'm conflicted on this issue it's true. I'm just not as unselfish as mom was. It's all about "me," isn't it?

 

[Lancecastor]

I don't see what this has to do with Lance doping.

I did not take no stereo!

http://www.elitetrack.com/images/blog/ben-johnson-steroids.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[CHNOPS]

A court decision created it, a court decision can end it. Of course, legislation can resurrect it.

A court decision that upheld legislation, while we're being micro-parsing subject-changers.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah, about that, you and Phelia...


When the NAZIs began executing the Final Solution, they first made it LEGAL...




So I'll concede the point, it is a LAWFUL killing of a human being. You got me on that one! Kudos!

Teh Chief Goes Godwin...I'm shocked.

What teh Chief fails to mention is that the Nazis actually outlawed abortion for Aryans and legalized it for "undesirables" (gypsies, Jews, slavs, etc).

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://ideas4ideals.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/c-section.jpg

Question: In the movie Prometheus, does Dr. Elisabeth Shaw

1) abort the alien baby growing inside of her using the Med Pod 720i?

2) extract the alien baby growing inside of her using the Med Pod 720i?