|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 28 2015 08:37 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder. these are all philosophical opinions, not facts the rest of your post is a questionable analogy, because denying a fetus access to your womb is not something i would call inaction
So are we going to force prospective mothers to stop drinking alcohol and smoking? Smoking pot? In those states where it's legal?
Because those behaviours have some potentially serious consequences for the health of the baby. Does the baby's health come ahead of ALL the rights of the mother? Does the moment she becomes pregnant, become basically a walking talking incubator, obliged to do whatever the doctor tells her to do, for the sake of the baby?
If not, and I am, for the sake of argument, going to assume that you agree that she cannot be forbidden from living her life as she wants, is she entitled to stick a coathanger up her snatch? It's her snatch after all. Presumably if she wasn't pregnant, she would be allowed to stick a coathanger up it. It would be a very stupid thing to do, but she would be allowed to. So now that she's pregnant, do we forbid her from doing that? And how do we enforce that? Is there going to be a criminal investigation after every miscarriage? This sounds like a fun country to live in, as a woman!
|
On August 28 2015 08:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse.  Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage.
No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm using the correct terms. An abortion is an active measure by definition - it is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. A miscarriage is an entirely different thing - it is defined by being unplanned. Your post needs some clarification before I can actually respond. The abuse of body (i.e. heroin addict) is not a parallel to an abortion and thus does not hold any moral relevancy to the current discussion. If you point is that a women could purposefully starve herself to the point of miscarriage because she couldn't get an actual abortion that is equivalent to the anorexic who we currently happily force-feed if we must.
I'm really not the ideal person to represent the pro-life side as I don't really agree with it (I have referred multiple women as well as actually carried out multiple abortions through my prior positions). But at least use the correct arguments to highlight the issues with the position.
|
no, because the people who follow that logic are still in the minority at that point
and as i stated earlier, i'm pro choice, i just can see the other side's reasoning, even if it leads to a few absurd conclusions
|
On August 28 2015 09:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal. The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights? Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder. We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society. I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless. Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS. However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44912
This is what started this run in the thread.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44920
Then you made a direct comparison between ISIS and the republican party.
But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
|
On August 28 2015 09:11 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:53 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse. Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage. No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm using the correct terms. An abortion is an active measure by definition - it is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. A miscarriage is an entirely different thing - it is defined by being unplanned. Your post needs some clarification before I can actually respond. The abuse of body (i.e. heroin addict) is not a parallel to an abortion and thus does not hold any moral relevancy to the current discussion. If you point is that a women could purposefully starve herself to the point of miscarriage because she couldn't get an actual abortion that is equivalent to the anorexic who we currently happily force-feed if we must. I'm really not the ideal person to represent the pro-life side as I don't really agree with it (I have referred multiple women as well as actually carried out multiple abortions through my prior positions). But at least use the correct arguments to highlight the issues with the position.
Most women would miscarry before dying of hunger. It is hard to construe not eating as an active measure.
In such a situation, not carrying the baby to term would have absolutely no active component, yet still be a deliberate choice by the prospective mother.
Making the distinction between active and passive not so easy. I will agree that going to a clinic to have your uterus vacuumed is an active measure, but the concept of abortion does not require such a measure.
EDIT: sorry, forgot to address the point that force feeding her would be a solution to the practical problem, but not to the philosophical one you are attempting to address.
|
United States43676 Posts
On August 28 2015 09:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:03 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal. The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights? Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder. We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society. I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless. Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS. However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44912This is what started this run in the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44920Then you made a direct comparison between ISIS and the republican party. But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
You still don't seem to know how comparisons work. Nobody called anyone ISIS. She said that we expect terrorist groups to have extreme views (on women) but not people in America. She was suggesting that people who answer yes to questions like "should we force 12 year old girls to carry their incest baby to term" are stone age newbs. At no point did she suggest that they'd also like to start beheading Shiites or blowing up historical monuments.
|
On August 28 2015 09:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:53 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse. Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage. No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm using the correct terms. An abortion is an active measure by definition - it is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. A miscarriage is an entirely different thing - it is defined by being unplanned. Your post needs some clarification before I can actually respond. The abuse of body (i.e. heroin addict) is not a parallel to an abortion and thus does not hold any moral relevancy to the current discussion. If you point is that a women could purposefully starve herself to the point of miscarriage because she couldn't get an actual abortion that is equivalent to the anorexic who we currently happily force-feed if we must. I'm really not the ideal person to represent the pro-life side as I don't really agree with it (I have referred multiple women as well as actually carried out multiple abortions through my prior positions). But at least use the correct arguments to highlight the issues with the position. Most women would miscarry before dying of hunger. It is hard to construe not eating as an active measure. In such a situation, not carrying the baby to term would have absolutely no active component, yet still be a deliberate choice by the prospective mother. Making the distinction between active and passive not so easy. I will agree that going to a clinic to have your uterus vacuumed is an active measure, but the concept of abortion does not require such a measure.
Making the distinction between the 2 is really easy. The act of eating is an action. Not doing a action is inaction.
|
On August 28 2015 09:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:03 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal. The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights? Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder. We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society. I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless. Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS. However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44912This is what started this run in the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44920Then you made a direct comparison between ISIS and the republican party. But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more.
It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law.
Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story.
|
On August 28 2015 09:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:14 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 09:03 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal. The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights? Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder. We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society. I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless. Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS. However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44912This is what started this run in the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44920Then you made a direct comparison between ISIS and the republican party. But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more. You still don't seem to know how comparisons work. Nobody called anyone ISIS.
Alright you're correct. I'm sorry for confusing your intent and acuseing you of calling someone worse then ISIS.
|
United States43676 Posts
On August 28 2015 09:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:16 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2015 09:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:53 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse. Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage. No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm using the correct terms. An abortion is an active measure by definition - it is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. A miscarriage is an entirely different thing - it is defined by being unplanned. Your post needs some clarification before I can actually respond. The abuse of body (i.e. heroin addict) is not a parallel to an abortion and thus does not hold any moral relevancy to the current discussion. If you point is that a women could purposefully starve herself to the point of miscarriage because she couldn't get an actual abortion that is equivalent to the anorexic who we currently happily force-feed if we must. I'm really not the ideal person to represent the pro-life side as I don't really agree with it (I have referred multiple women as well as actually carried out multiple abortions through my prior positions). But at least use the correct arguments to highlight the issues with the position. Most women would miscarry before dying of hunger. It is hard to construe not eating as an active measure. In such a situation, not carrying the baby to term would have absolutely no active component, yet still be a deliberate choice by the prospective mother. Making the distinction between active and passive not so easy. I will agree that going to a clinic to have your uterus vacuumed is an active measure, but the concept of abortion does not require such a measure. Making the distinction between the 2 is really easy. The act of eating is an action. Not doing a action is inaction.
Ronda Rousey gets pregnant. She doesn't want the baby. She does want to keep up her MMA training and compete actively. Is the inevitable a miscarriage or abortion? I would argue that taking up a less strenuous lifestyle that doesn't involve so many kicks to the abdomen would be an active change while business as usual would be passive.
The assumption that a fetus growing inside you is a passive part of your normal day to day life and doing anything that disrupts it is tantamount to pulling the lever in the trolley problem is bad logic.
|
On August 28 2015 09:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:53 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:50 Ghostcom wrote:On August 28 2015 08:39 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2015 07:44 Chocolate wrote:
I'm very much pro-choice but I was raised in an environment where most of my peers and adult figures were not. This is what they believed. For you to say this is about controlling women is ludicrous. For them, it's about protecting human life. Maybe there's a lot of faulty thinking involved in that process, but the principle makes sense from a religious perspective.
Things can be about more than one thing. This is why we are encouraged from a young age (hopefully) to think about the consequences of our actions, and its why we should hold politicians and public figures to a higher standard of thinking. The fact is, although the main purpose of pro-life thinking is to conserve life, the way it is implemented is usually to completely disregard the rights, needs and life of the already alive. I believe George Carlin said something like this once. In disregarding actual living beings in this way, pro-lifers are not thinking about the consequences of their actions, or they don't care about the consequences of their actions. So, they are either oppressive or completely dumb. Now that's obtuse. Pro life people understand their actions they simply value peoples lives over peoples rights. Its in the basic name scheme between the two sides. Pro choice people believe that peoples right to chose is more important then peoples right to live. I propose that pro life people be put on a registry for mandatory non fatal organ donation then. Whenever someone is dying and needs an organ that can be extracted without killing the donor (kidneys, partial liver and so forth) they take one from a pro lifer. If they resist then we'll chant resistance is murder at them and then make laws that allow us to take the organs by force. You may call me a little extreme but think of all the lives that would be saved. The two situations are not actually morally comparable. It's the classic trolley problem just rephrased. In this case, pushing the fat man on the tracks is the abortion whilst changing the tracks is the organ donation. If you really wanted a good parallel you would quote Judith Jarvis Thomson and the violinist issue. Which can also arguably be deconstructed. You're assuming that an abortion has to be an active measure and that babies just passively happen if you don't change your prepregancy routine. Firstly, that's not how it works. Secondly, the counterexample of a woman who abuses her body routinely to the point of an induced miscarriage. No, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm using the correct terms. An abortion is an active measure by definition - it is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. A miscarriage is an entirely different thing - it is defined by being unplanned. Your post needs some clarification before I can actually respond. The abuse of body (i.e. heroin addict) is not a parallel to an abortion and thus does not hold any moral relevancy to the current discussion. If you point is that a women could purposefully starve herself to the point of miscarriage because she couldn't get an actual abortion that is equivalent to the anorexic who we currently happily force-feed if we must. I'm really not the ideal person to represent the pro-life side as I don't really agree with it (I have referred multiple women as well as actually carried out multiple abortions through my prior positions). But at least use the correct arguments to highlight the issues with the position. Most women would miscarry before dying of hunger. It is hard to construe not eating as an active measure. In such a situation, not carrying the baby to term would have absolutely no active component, yet still be a deliberate choice by the prospective mother. Making the distinction between active and passive not so easy. I will agree that going to a clinic to have your uterus vacuumed is an active measure, but the concept of abortion does not require such a measure. EDIT: sorry, forgot to address the point that force feeding her would be a solution to the practical problem, but not to the philosophical one you are attempting to address.
I agree completely: most women would have a miscarriage before they would die by going on hungerstrike. However, before they would have their miscarriage they would be force-fed. We have as a society already decided that that is morally sound (we do it with anorectics). The women was before being pregnant not allowed to starve herself to the point necessary to induce miscarriage and her pregnancy didn't change that - it was thus more than merely a practical solution. Sure the fetus would suffer and the child would likely face many healthconcerns, but she would be force-fed before miscarriage, thus the parallel as proposed by KwarK does not stand.
EDIT: This entire debate is stupid really. None of us are actually pro-life.
EDIT2: Uhh I meant having the debate between me and the other pro-choice people was dumb. I know we have people in this thread who are pro-life.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the respect women thing is really a rhetorical/emotional appeal to women voters who feel a certain way about some issues. not much substance behind it. when women see discussions about abortion etc that sideline the impact on their lives, it's reasonable to see the prolife crowd as disrespectful. does it matter to proponents of women's rights that, a medieval chauvinistic knight 'respects' women, or a feudal emperor respects his favorite pet. no, and they are also not interested in a discussion of what constitutes respect etc.
so taking issue with this marketing slogan/slant of the issue is silly and only serves to vent some sort of disdain against the silly women and so on.
the real issue is whether women's autonomy and rights is considered and respected.
|
...I only have one question. Okay, maybe a few questions. When the child is born, whom will feed the child? Pay for their education? And make sure the mother has a chance in life, and not have to drop out or lose their previous life. Especially for at risk mothers, teen mothers, rape victims. They are the ones who birth children. As much as I hate to say it, some men just walk away. Some children don't even know their fathers. Some women choose the responsibility of taking care of the child. Some fathers will pitch in. Some won't. So what are we going to do, saddle the unwilling father with the unwilling mother? Even for a one night stand that developed into a pregnancy? Many people have multiple partners, argument for/against monogamy/polygamy can take a side seat. That is simply how it works.
Again, no right answer honestly, we can all argue until the sun explodes, but damned if we will ever get the "right" answer.
|
On August 28 2015 09:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:14 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 09:03 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 08:36 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2015 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2015 07:59 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but in their effort to enforce their views on human life and abortion, they are demanding another person who has suffered sexual assault to go through an eminence, life altering process and give birth to another person. And while making this proposed law, they are offering no solution beyond the victim of sexual assault to care for the child or give up custody into the broken system that is US foster care.
So while they may view themselves as protecting human life, they are doing so by depriving another person of their rights, even if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault. There is a difference between believing that abortion is taking the life of a child and attempting to enforce your belief on others. When you start asking that the state enforce these views, even though the Supreme Court has ruled the state cannot do that, its just as waste of everyone's time.
And doesn't even start on all the health issues that would be created by illegal abortions if it was against the law. Or all the issues that happen in countries where it is illegal. The problem with this argument (which is well constructed I must complement you on) is that you're arguing that the mother has the right to murder their child if they don't want to bring it to term. Can you understand and respect that people value the child's life more then the mothers rights? Inaction by the pregnant woman or opting out of the pregnancy is not the same thing as a murder. Choosing not to feed someone is not the same as starving someone, denying a fetus your womb to grow in is not the same as denying it life. Also even the Bible doesn't think killing a fetus is murder. We live in a society in which you can be a kidney donor match for someone who will die if they don't get your kidney and do nothing, even though you will be fine with just one. This is a society in which the freedom to pay for more truck, or a fancier phone, than you need is treasured over taxes that would definitely save lives. This is a society that respects liberty far more than it respects human life. And that's fine, the degree to which we are obliged to help others is a difficult question and nobody has a perfect answer to it. But forced medical procedures are a hell of a long way from where we're currently at as a society. I'm not arguing about abortion kwark. I can't actually argue with your first paragraph at all I've never seen it from that point of view.I'm arguing that calling half the country who don't agree with you, regardless of the issues let alone one thats so personally held on either side, terrorists and no better then ISIS is utterly unacceptable and completely shameless. Nobody said that the Republican party is literally ISIS. Only ISIS is literally ISIS. You're disagreeing with something that nobody anywhere said or thinks. Also nobody called anyone terrorists and nobody said anyone was no better than ISIS. However the comparison, in terms of religious fundamentalist views on controlling women, is apt. Maybe better comparisons could have been made but the comparison holds up. A comparison can have a limited scope. If I called you as dumb as a rock that doesn't mean I'm a making a comment about your hardness, durability or composition. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44912This is what started this run in the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=2246#44920Then you made a direct comparison between ISIS and the republican party. But the point I'm making is that the pro life crowd isn't about controling womens bodies its about the fetus's live being more important then the womens right. Thats why they call themselves pro life. Saying its about "a war against women" and "controling womens bodies" are both spins on the issue that the politicians created to motivate people that agree with them to vote nothing more. It is about controlling a womans body. The only way you can make a woman who doesn't want to have a child have the child is by force. That is the very definition of controlling her body. She's being required by law to give up dominion of her body to meet the wishes of other people/the law. Most people aren't pro-life to keep uppity bitches in their place. They're not trying to control women in that regard. But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is controlling her, end of story.
Yes but the issue is that one side thinks that killing a potential life is worse then controlling women and the other side thinking that controlling women is worse then the killing of a potential life.
|
On August 28 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote:
the respect women thing is really a rhetorical/emotional appeal to women voters who feel a certain way about some issues. not much substance behind it. when women see discussions about abortion etc that sideline the impact on their lives, it's reasonable to see the prolife crowd as disrespectful. does it matter to proponents of women's rights that, a medieval chauvinistic knight 'respects' women, or a feudal emperor respects his favorite pet. no, and they are also not interested in a discussion of what constitutes respect etc.
so taking issue with this marketing slogan/slant of the issue is silly and only serves to vent some sort of disdain against the silly women and so on.
the real issue is whether women's autonomy and rights is considered and respected.
If this was your take-away I think you ought to read the past pages again - the slogans should be left to the politicians. If you want an actual debate, have an actual debate - argue the points actually made by your debate-partner rather than twist his/her words.
|
Double post. I've said what I wanted to say.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you give yourself too much credit to think that i would read your posts carefully. 
|
I know, I usually take myself waaaaaaaaaay too seriously (and didn't actually see who posted before I replied  )
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in any case, the respect thing is a distraction when not understood in the sense in which the women's rights movement use the concept.
carry on with your squabblings.
|
On August 28 2015 09:38 oneofthem wrote:you give yourself too much credit to think that i would read your posts carefully.
Well thanks for dropping by then. We all feel blessed by your insight into the posts you didn't read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
