|
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 April 26 2017 01:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:47 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on. If you really want to have this discussion, define consciousness. Also define human consciousness. No. I am asking people to consider the consciousness of a late-term fetus. The deflections... Jesus Christ. I'm not defining, in absolute terms, what is consciousness, which is scientifically impossible, currently (which is why the mirror test is BS). I'm just asking "does a late-term fetus have a consciousness?" We do know consciousness exists, obviously. And we can detect it, often through common-sense means, but also from brain-waves. EEG. The struggles to avoid answering the question simply is kind of... I am disappointed. I'll take a break. Because, I'm a little flustered at the inane deflections. If your guys' answer to people's concerns towards late-term abortions is to compare human-babies to pigs, or declare them simply "not human", then this discourse is permanently fucked. You're the ones drawing a line that shouldn't exist and can't be defined -- or should I say, is already clearly defined. If we can't accept that new-born babies are human, anatomically, biologically, common-sense, human, with a sentience that is human, then we've gone off the deep-end.
You're the one who brought up consciousness and human consciousness as if they were categorically different. And then when someone said "well, that's basically a soul" got all upset. Either define the difference between "mere" consciousness and human consciousness or accept that pigs are people too. Albeit rather diminished people who walk around on 4 hoofs and habitually get turned into bacon. Hmmmm. Bacon.
|
On April 26 2017 02:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:
Similarly, I argue that the same happens when people choose to partake in an activity that can lead to a pregnancy. If you leave the house and get shot, don't complain, that's on you. Every time you leave the house there's a risk you could get shot, and you know that because you know some people have guns. See how stupid your argument is?
If I literally make the person assaulting me shoot me? Yeah.
See how stupid your rebuttal is?
|
On April 26 2017 02:12 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:
This entire discussion hinges on the theory that the mothers obligations and burden to the child end after birth. Many abortions are preformed for economic reasons and we cannot limit the discussion to the 9 months of pregnancy. But that can be rather easily solved by just simplifying adoptions.
The foster system in the US is a nightmare and provide poor care for children. It is chronically underfunded at all times. And raising taxes to fix roads is hard enough. Getting funding for foster children and the staff to place them in good homes isn't a political reality. Also, adoption is expensive.
Outlawing abortion costs money and a lot of it if the goal is to properly care for the children put up for adoption.
|
My arguments against unrestricted abortion --> 1) personal responsibility. 2) Temporary loss of autonomy vs permanent loss of life. 3) I value my own life, so I wouldn't appreciate being aborted.
My arguments against ban on abortion from conception --> 1) Practically terrible for society. 2) Personal Autonomy given no value.
end result: somewhere in the middle, who knows where, let's not go off the deep end.
|
On April 26 2017 02:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:50 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:47 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Define soul-stuff.
The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on. If you really want to have this discussion, define consciousness. Also define human consciousness. No. I am asking people to consider the consciousness of a late-term fetus. The deflections... Jesus Christ. I'm not defining, in absolute terms, what is consciousness, which is scientifically impossible, currently (which is why the mirror test is BS). I'm just asking "does a late-term fetus have a consciousness?" We do know consciousness exists, obviously. And we can detect it, often through common-sense means, but also from brain-waves. EEG. The struggles to avoid answering the question simply is kind of... I am disappointed. I'll take a break. Because, I'm a little flustered at the inane deflections. If your guys' answer to people's concerns towards late-term abortions is to compare human-babies to pigs, or declare them simply "not human", then this discourse is permanently fucked. You're the ones drawing a line that shouldn't exist and can't be defined -- or should I say, is already clearly defined. If we can't accept that new-born babies are human, anatomically, biologically, common-sense, human, with a sentience that is human, then we've gone off the deep-end. You're the one who brought up consciousness and human consciousness as if they were categorically different. And then when someone said "well, that's basically a soul" got all upset. Either define the difference between "mere" consciousness and human consciousness or accept that pigs are people too. Albeit rather diminished people who walk around on 4 hoofs and habitually get turned into bacon. Hmmmm. Bacon.
No. I don't have to define the consciousness itself, all I have to do is define the being that possesses said consciousness. And, for starters, it's not a pig.
You guys are creating arbitrary goalposts that science can't define.
And yet, what I'm continually asking us is to consider what science can define. And the difference in biology between a late-term fetus and a newborn is...? Not much.
The biological differences are much greater during the middle-stages of pregnancy. Somewhere in there are developmental stages that we should consider, clinically.
And the reason we should do so is not just create a more "humane" law, but to cool the discourse. One side wants to say, "all life is sacred", and the other seems to reject any notion that humanity exists at all, at least not until the person is walking and talking. LOL, I've honestly just been looking for middle-ground. LOL. It's so bad.
|
On April 26 2017 02:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:14 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 01:50 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:47 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on. If you really want to have this discussion, define consciousness. Also define human consciousness. No. I am asking people to consider the consciousness of a late-term fetus. The deflections... Jesus Christ. I'm not defining, in absolute terms, what is consciousness, which is scientifically impossible, currently (which is why the mirror test is BS). I'm just asking "does a late-term fetus have a consciousness?" We do know consciousness exists, obviously. And we can detect it, often through common-sense means, but also from brain-waves. EEG. The struggles to avoid answering the question simply is kind of... I am disappointed. I'll take a break. Because, I'm a little flustered at the inane deflections. If your guys' answer to people's concerns towards late-term abortions is to compare human-babies to pigs, or declare them simply "not human", then this discourse is permanently fucked. You're the ones drawing a line that shouldn't exist and can't be defined -- or should I say, is already clearly defined. If we can't accept that new-born babies are human, anatomically, biologically, common-sense, human, with a sentience that is human, then we've gone off the deep-end. You're the one who brought up consciousness and human consciousness as if they were categorically different. And then when someone said "well, that's basically a soul" got all upset. Either define the difference between "mere" consciousness and human consciousness or accept that pigs are people too. Albeit rather diminished people who walk around on 4 hoofs and habitually get turned into bacon. Hmmmm. Bacon. No. I don't have to define the consciousness itself, all I have to do is define the being that possesses said consciousness. That is all I have asked or ever put forward. And the "soul" business is such an obvious cop-out. That is how science currently handles the matter, and that's how I'm handling it. Deflections galore.
So is human consciousness a difference of category? Or a difference of scale. If it's a difference of scale, do you acknowledge that newborns are lower on that scale than (healthy) adults? If it's a difference of category, then some further explanation is going to be needed about the difference between human consciousness (can we please just call it personhood in that case) and animal consciousness.
|
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation?
|
United States42839 Posts
On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation?
Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant.
|
On April 26 2017 02:14 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:06 Gahlo wrote:On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:
Similarly, I argue that the same happens when people choose to partake in an activity that can lead to a pregnancy. If you leave the house and get shot, don't complain, that's on you. Every time you leave the house there's a risk you could get shot, and you know that because you know some people have guns. See how stupid your argument is? If I literally make the person assaulting me shoot me? Yeah. See how stupid your rebuttal is?
The world outside is who you're fucking with. The gun toting loony is the elusive sperm that somehow gets by all contraceptives, in this case laws, that are put in place to protect you.
|
On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation?
Personally, I frequently perform abortions when playing as zerg in bw due to spamming s s on accident
|
On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant.
EDIT: Literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use.
This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started. But we still don't cover menstrual accessories.
|
On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use.
Although I find the discussion a bit eye rolling, it is one that has to happen between men. But you are not wrong that we all lack the specific context of having to worry about getting an abortion and if it will be legal/available.
|
Wat? I am personally seriously worried about my wife having the option to get abortion, should we involuntarily conceive as no contraception method barring sterilization is completely reliable.
|
On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use. This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started.
A couple assumptions you're making here.
Do you think all women are in complete agreement on this issue?
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/
Men and women express similar views on abortion: 57% of each say it should be legal in all or most cases.
According to this, women are as equally divided on it as men are.
Which I have to say, I'm a little surprised at.
|
On April 26 2017 02:45 opisska wrote:
Wat? I am personally seriously worried about my wife having the option to get abortion, should we involuntarily conceive as no contraception method barring sterilization is completely reliable.
I apologize if it came across as that we were all devoid of concern on the subject. Of course I also care that my wife has access to abortion and birth control. I meant to say that we are not burden with making the final call or submitting our bodies to the procedure.
On April 26 2017 02:47 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use. This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started. A couple assumptions you're making here. Do you think all women are in complete agreement on this issue? http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/Show nested quote +Men and women express similar views on abortion: 57% of each say it should be legal in all or most cases. According to this, women are as equally divided on it as men are. Which I have to say, I'm a little surprised at.
Those numbers change pretty quickly if set to "Abortion in all forms should be illegal." People don't want it to be illegal, but do want some limitations. The problem comes when those limitations are put into place by lawmakers who want to elimination abortion through restricting access.
|
On April 26 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:45 opisska wrote:
Wat? I am personally seriously worried about my wife having the option to get abortion, should we involuntarily conceive as no contraception method barring sterilization is completely reliable. I apologize if it came across as that we were all devoid of concern on the subject. Of course I also care that my wife has access to abortion and birth control. I meant to say that we are not burden with making the final call or submitting our bodies to the procedure. Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:47 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use. This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started. A couple assumptions you're making here. Do you think all women are in complete agreement on this issue? http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/Men and women express similar views on abortion: 57% of each say it should be legal in all or most cases. According to this, women are as equally divided on it as men are. Which I have to say, I'm a little surprised at. Those numbers change pretty quickly if set to "Abortion in all forms should be illegal." People don't want it to be illegal, but do want some limitations. The problem comes when those limitations are put into place by lawmakers who want to elimination abortion through restricting access.
Agree. Almost all limitations legislated are from dishonest politicians who legislate based on irrelevant criteria, i.e. Texastan banning abortion clinics over building-code procedures. And, yes, the numbers become heavily pro-choice if the question is made binary and absolute.
But, point is, there isn't really a gender-gap in the polling.
|
On April 26 2017 02:58 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2017 02:45 opisska wrote:
Wat? I am personally seriously worried about my wife having the option to get abortion, should we involuntarily conceive as no contraception method barring sterilization is completely reliable. I apologize if it came across as that we were all devoid of concern on the subject. Of course I also care that my wife has access to abortion and birth control. I meant to say that we are not burden with making the final call or submitting our bodies to the procedure. On April 26 2017 02:47 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use. This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started. A couple assumptions you're making here. Do you think all women are in complete agreement on this issue? http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/Men and women express similar views on abortion: 57% of each say it should be legal in all or most cases. According to this, women are as equally divided on it as men are. Which I have to say, I'm a little surprised at. Those numbers change pretty quickly if set to "Abortion in all forms should be illegal." People don't want it to be illegal, but do want some limitations. The problem comes when those limitations are put into place by lawmakers who want to elimination abortion through restricting access. Agree. Almost all limitations legislated are from dishonest politicians who legislate based on irrelevant criteria, i.e. Texastan banning abortion clinics over building-code procedures. And, yes, the numbers become heavily pro-choice if the question is made binary and absolute. But, point is, there isn't really a gender-gap in the polling.
I also am not saying women all agree, I'm just saying it would be nice if we could leave just what to do with the beings inside of their own bodies to them, since men have locked down final authority for all other beings outside of their womb (speaking about US politics).
If women decided to outlaw/ban it then so be it, if they decide for more restrictions fine, if they decide to force them on Republicans we can come back to the discussion.
How about we talk about why men won't share the cost for the basic sanitary products women need if they aren't pregnant?
|
United States42839 Posts
On April 26 2017 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:58 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2017 02:45 opisska wrote:
Wat? I am personally seriously worried about my wife having the option to get abortion, should we involuntarily conceive as no contraception method barring sterilization is completely reliable. I apologize if it came across as that we were all devoid of concern on the subject. Of course I also care that my wife has access to abortion and birth control. I meant to say that we are not burden with making the final call or submitting our bodies to the procedure. On April 26 2017 02:47 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use. This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started. A couple assumptions you're making here. Do you think all women are in complete agreement on this issue? http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/Men and women express similar views on abortion: 57% of each say it should be legal in all or most cases. According to this, women are as equally divided on it as men are. Which I have to say, I'm a little surprised at. Those numbers change pretty quickly if set to "Abortion in all forms should be illegal." People don't want it to be illegal, but do want some limitations. The problem comes when those limitations are put into place by lawmakers who want to elimination abortion through restricting access. Agree. Almost all limitations legislated are from dishonest politicians who legislate based on irrelevant criteria, i.e. Texastan banning abortion clinics over building-code procedures. And, yes, the numbers become heavily pro-choice if the question is made binary and absolute. But, point is, there isn't really a gender-gap in the polling. I also am not saying women all agree, I'm just saying it would be nice if we could leave just what to do with the beings inside of their own bodies to them, since men have locked down final authority for all other beings outside of their womb (speaking about US politics). If women decided to outlaw/ban it then so be it, if they decide for more restrictions fine, if they decide to force them on Republicans we can come back to the discussion. How about we talk about why men won't share the cost for the basic sanitary products women need if they aren't pregnant?
Nope. Doesn't work that way. You're using privilege badly. Male privilege doesn't mean that they need to recuse themselves from any abortion discussions, it only means that if a woman is talking about her experiences relating to not having access to abortion or whatever then a man shouldn't attempt to correct her.
|
On April 26 2017 03:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2017 02:58 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2017 02:45 opisska wrote:
Wat? I am personally seriously worried about my wife having the option to get abortion, should we involuntarily conceive as no contraception method barring sterilization is completely reliable. I apologize if it came across as that we were all devoid of concern on the subject. Of course I also care that my wife has access to abortion and birth control. I meant to say that we are not burden with making the final call or submitting our bodies to the procedure. On April 26 2017 02:47 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2017 02:28 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Don't be silly. You don't have to be directly impacted to understand the philosophy of an issue. The only time those directly impacted get special consideration is when they're speaking about their own experiences dealing with it. Women don't have any special insight that men lack regarding the philosophy of liberty, they only have special insight regarding what it is like to be pregnant. literally no one here (arguing anyway) knows what it feels like to actually have an abortion or struggle with the choice, so I'd say they are lacking more context than you suggest. It's just obnoxious seeing men argue about taking away something they can't personally use. This argument would be over if men got pregnant, like the argument for whether dick hardening pills are covered by insurance was over before it started. A couple assumptions you're making here. Do you think all women are in complete agreement on this issue? http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/Men and women express similar views on abortion: 57% of each say it should be legal in all or most cases. According to this, women are as equally divided on it as men are. Which I have to say, I'm a little surprised at. Those numbers change pretty quickly if set to "Abortion in all forms should be illegal." People don't want it to be illegal, but do want some limitations. The problem comes when those limitations are put into place by lawmakers who want to elimination abortion through restricting access. Agree. Almost all limitations legislated are from dishonest politicians who legislate based on irrelevant criteria, i.e. Texastan banning abortion clinics over building-code procedures. And, yes, the numbers become heavily pro-choice if the question is made binary and absolute. But, point is, there isn't really a gender-gap in the polling. I also am not saying women all agree, I'm just saying it would be nice if we could leave just what to do with the beings inside of their own bodies to them, since men have locked down final authority for all other beings outside of their womb (speaking about US politics). If women decided to outlaw/ban it then so be it, if they decide for more restrictions fine, if they decide to force them on Republicans we can come back to the discussion. How about we talk about why men won't share the cost for the basic sanitary products women need if they aren't pregnant? Nope. Doesn't work that way. You're using privilege badly. Male privilege doesn't mean that they need to recuse themselves from any abortion discussions, it only means that if a woman is talking about her experiences relating to not having access to abortion or whatever then a man shouldn't attempt to correct her.
My argument isn't about that kind of privilege. I'm not saying men have to recuse themselves. They should just realize how shallow and stupid this conversation is and that since they refuse to let women have the final say on anything, they could concede this one thing, control over the beings inside of their own bodies.
It's not about whether men have anything of value to add to a conversation about abortion.
But how come men won't share the cost to deal with women's menstrual blood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
