EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2662
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On September 23 2020 09:42 Wegandi wrote: I can tell you don't understand libertarianism at all with your analogy. I do though. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 23 2020 10:19 Danglars wrote: It sounds like you know some pretty extreme libertarians. Sounds more like anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians are divided on weighing the rights of the baby against the rights of the mother. I’ve never seen a clean preference towards either end of the spectrum. Considering I've been some type of anarchist for much of my life (post structural for the past decade, which is a variant that finds revolutions unappealing, but I was more extreme when I was younger), me hanging around with ancaps who were only professing to be libertarians isn't that surprising to me. Ancaps are actually hated more than any other non-fascist groups by leftist anarchists. Then again, libertarians (as in real ones, members of the party) are hard to understand and can be very out there, much moreso than the ones that vote GOP, as is seen at their party conventions. Weld and Johnson got the nods because they were viewed as sane enough to appeal to the mainstream. Johnson getting booed in 2016 for saying blind people shouldn't be able to drive was particularly memorable. Then there are always the rants about the age of consent and various other unpleasant things. I was friends with one of the volunteers in Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 Iowa runs, and recall the experience was deeply diillusioning to him (he's a never trumper now and has written for the occasional conservative media site from the Christian perspective on it). He's the only normal libertarian (ie, one who votes republican) I've ever known well. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 23 2020 09:34 KwarK wrote: Not really because abortion isn’t anything like murder, it’s refusing to surrender your own person to support another who cannot support themselves. It’s the most fundamental of libertarian rights, bodily autonomy. No libertarian would say that there exists a legal mandate to donate blood to people who would die without it, and pregnancy is far, far more intrusive than that. Not really what? Are you doubting the empirical fact that many people think abortion is baby murder? That many people who love Ayn Rand but are still religious think abortion is murder? Or are you arguing that it isn't really murder? You don't have to argue with me about that. This country would be a better place if everyone agreed that abortion wasn't murder. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On September 23 2020 11:13 IgnE wrote: Not really what? Are you doubting the empirical fact that many people think abortion is baby murder? That many people who love Ayn Rand but are still religious think abortion is murder? Or are you arguing that it isn't really murder? You don't have to argue with me about that. This country would be a better place if everyone agreed that abortion wasn't murder. You’re right. I misread your post and responded as if you thought it, rather than you saying that some people think it. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4416 Posts
On September 23 2020 08:08 Wegandi wrote: That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). Of course, the laws are already on the books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] Personally I'm hoping he nominates Lagoa.Politically a good move since she's Hispanic from Florida.I'm sure they will meet when Trump travels to Miami, her home city, on Friday.Keep Amy Barrett for his second term she can replace Thomas when he retires. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 23 2020 08:08 Wegandi wrote: That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho) As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30) To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). It very definitely is about women and their body. That's an inextricable part of it, and trying to reframe the argument to 'oh so you're pro baby murder are you' is about trying to hide that. Never mind that abortions are already illegal after a certain point and extremely uncommon past another. You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. Also: The actual Vice President of the actual USA government has said that we'll see abortion banned in the USA in his lifetime. Which is probably a bit ambitious but it's a pretty solid indication of where things are going. If states want to make abortions illegal they should be prevented from doing so. End of. Same as if one of the states wants to remove all voting rights from black people or reinstitute slavery. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 23 2020 19:35 iamthedave wrote: It very definitely is about women and their body. That's an inextricable part of it, and trying to reframe the argument to 'oh so you're pro baby murder are you' is about trying to hide that. Never mind that abortions are already illegal after a certain point and extremely uncommon past another. You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. Also: The actual Vice President of the actual USA government has said that we'll see abortion banned in the USA in his lifetime. Which is probably a bit ambitious but it's a pretty solid indication of where things are going. If states want to make abortions illegal they should be prevented from doing so. End of. Same as if one of the states wants to remove all voting rights from black people or reinstitute slavery. Of course abortion has to do with a woman's body, but we're talking about the reason why a group of people (anti-abortion folks) want to restrict it and that is not about "control of woman's body". That's not why they're anti-abortion and silly bumper sticker rhetoric gets no one anywhere. This isn't a simple issue like determining property rights in a contract dispute, or what have you, it's weighing the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the woman. You don't believe the unborn worthy of such rights, but other people disagree and it's not an unreasonable position to hold contrary to your belief. It's better to let local polity's decide this issue, and if someone wants an abortion they can go to where it is legal (and before you say well that's an inconvenience, ya, and so are all the regulations and laws re: gun rights). This is nothing like slavery jfc. You're so far up your own ass you can't see the grand canyon size difference. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 23 2020 13:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Of course, the laws are already on the books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act Personally I'm hoping he nominates Lagoa.Politically a good move since she's Hispanic from Florida.I'm sure they will meet when Trump travels to Miami, her home city, on Friday.Keep Amy Barrett for his second term she can replace Thomas when he retires. I wonder what the pro-abortion folks think of this. I mean they obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all, nor do they seem to believe a fetus to be resembling anything of a person/human. Feel free to chime in folks. Do you think these laws should be axed? | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On September 23 2020 20:22 Wegandi wrote: I wonder what the pro-abortion folks think of this. I mean they obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all, nor do they seem to believe a fetus to be resembling anything of a person/human. Feel free to chime in folks. Do you think these laws should be axed? Pro-choice. The prospective mother's rights supersede the rights of the unborn. End of story. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X.  | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 23 2020 20:18 Wegandi wrote: Of course abortion has to do with a woman's body, but we're talking about the reason why a group of people (anti-abortion folks) want to restrict it and that is not about "control of woman's body". That's not why they're anti-abortion and silly bumper sticker rhetoric gets no one anywhere. This isn't a simple issue like determining property rights in a contract dispute, or what have you, it's weighing the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the woman. You don't believe the unborn worthy of such rights, but other people disagree and it's not an unreasonable position to hold contrary to your belief. It's better to let local polity's decide this issue, and if someone wants an abortion they can go to where it is legal (and before you say well that's an inconvenience, ya, and so are all the regulations and laws re: gun rights). This is nothing like slavery jfc. You're so far up your own ass you can't see the grand canyon size difference. Rather you're easily swayed by extremely weak arguments into thinking there's a reasonable discussion to be had. There's a reason the rest of the western world isn't wracked with moral arguments about whether abortion should be legal or not. I don't give a shit about the reason people want to take rights away from women, that's still what they're trying to do. And I'm dismissive because these arguments haven't moved one iota for decades. There's no new discussion to be had, no new arguments, no new framing. It is what it is. The only element that's even worth one second of thought is the exact stage of pregnancy where abortions should be restricted, but guess what? That's been done to death too and at this point abortion rules are about where they ought to be. The bullshit surrounding abortion in the US is embarrassing and the fact anyone can run on a strict anti-abortion platform and its considered a positive is even worse. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 23 2020 20:18 Wegandi wrote: Of course abortion has to do with a woman's body, but we're talking about the reason why a group of people (anti-abortion folks) want to restrict it and that is not about "control of woman's body". That's not why they're anti-abortion and silly bumper sticker rhetoric gets no one anywhere. This isn't a simple issue like determining property rights in a contract dispute, or what have you, it's weighing the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the woman. You don't believe the unborn worthy of such rights, but other people disagree and it's not an unreasonable position to hold contrary to your belief. It's better to let local polity's decide this issue, and if someone wants an abortion they can go to where it is legal (and before you say well that's an inconvenience, ya, and so are all the regulations and laws re: gun rights). This is nothing like slavery jfc. You're so far up your own ass you can't see the grand canyon size difference. Just putting your privilege on full blast here, I see. Pretty sure "these restrictions are too onerous" is one of the fundamental arguments that 2A advocates make to try to stop gun restriction laws. Tying back to our last discussion of respecting legitimacy, precedent, etc., it's a pretty well-established precedent by most courts that having a right in name only isn't actually freedom at all; overly onerous burdens on one's right to do something is functionally the same as not having that right at all. As to reasoning, progressives are skeptical of conservatives' reason for denying abortion rights because they don't seem to give a damn about actually making lives any better. A true "pro-life" stance that really cared about saving and improving lives would advocate for improved sexual education and access to contraceptives (the only thing proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and something that conservatives vehemently oppose), improved social programs for mothers that are struggling economically (also strongly opposed by conservatives), improved access to perinatal healthcare and child healthcare (also opposed by conservatives), improved educational systems (also opposed by conservatives), and this list could go on. That stance also wouldn't advocate for the death penalty or for vigilante justice against perceived criminals (both incredibly common by conservatives). It's pretty dubious to say that the argument is "pro-life" when the only outcome of conservatives' actions will be to oppress women and make life harder for women and these potential children throughout their lives. Also, yes, this is actually comparable to slavery in some ways. You're advocating for forcing women to perform prolonged, relatively dangerous acts with their bodies that have potentially long-term and/or permanent physical, social, and economic consequences without their consent. Let's also not forget that abortion is a necessary medical procedure in many cases and, despite falsely claiming the opposite, conservatives want an outright, no-exceptions ban to the practice if they can get away with it, and you side-stepped and ignored this when called out on it. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5811 Posts
On September 23 2020 20:59 Gahlo wrote: Pro-choice. The prospective mother's rights supersede the rights of the unborn. End of story. Even if the whole situation was imposed on the baby by the actions of its parents? Why? | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. Most states in the country allow abortions until the 5th month of pregnancy, and more to the point of viability (generally with advances in technology that's somewhere in the 24-26 week area). There are very few states who want to completely ban abortions, more want to ban at 6 weeks (8 is more reasonable imo). I think the states should have the ability to decide this complex issue on their own with their own constituency. Over-turning Roe v Wade isn't going to destroy the country and moving from 20 weeks to 6 weeks isn't the most repressive thing ever (and certainly not enough to implode the entire system). I do agree that there should be healthy debate on this issue, but since Roe v Wade that can't be done. As an aside I do think that adoption laws should be heavily relaxed and given more light. https://www.businessinsider.com/latest-point-in-pregnancy-you-can-get-abortion-in-50-states-2019-5 | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote: I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. Most states in the country allow abortions until the 5th month of pregnancy, and more to the point of viability (generally with advances in technology that's somewhere in the 24-26 week area). There are very few states who want to completely ban abortions, more want to ban at 6 weeks (8 is more reasonable imo). I think the states should have the ability to decide this complex issue on their own with their own constituency. Over-turning Roe v Wade isn't going to destroy the country and moving from 20 weeks to 6 weeks isn't the most repressive thing ever (and certainly not enough to implode the entire system). I do agree that there should be healthy debate on this issue, but since Roe v Wade that can't be done. As an aside I do think that adoption laws should be heavily relaxed and given more light. https://www.businessinsider.com/latest-point-in-pregnancy-you-can-get-abortion-in-50-states-2019-5 This is still a poor argument. Roe v. Wade forces these states to leave abortion legal until viability, so removing it gives states the option to change this. You can't base your argument of "most states are going to be reasonable and not ban abortion" on the fact that states aren't allowed to ban abortion by the Supreme Court. Numerous states have attempted to ban abortion with no exceptions despite Roe v. Wade (something that you still haven't addressed), and even 6-week bans are incredibly onerous because 1) many women don't even know that they're pregnant at that time and/or 2) many conditions that make an abortion necessary don't develop until after that time. | ||
|
pajoondies
United States316 Posts
On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I think this gets to the heart of it- there's a crap load of nuance when it comes to just about anything in life so when people take the black and white approach. In this case, it's pro-life saying any abortion at any time is murder, pro-choice saying even late term is okay because the woman is the decider. A first term abortion is not the same as a late term abortion, and the circumstances and reasons in which an early vs late term abortion occur will likely be very different. How about a would-be mother who has received confirmation that her child will definitely have some serious developmental issues in life? I believe she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy to relieve the child of the suffering they would face, and the parents would face. I think the biggest problem with pro life people is what to do with an unwanted baby who would have been aborted but the law or affordable access prevented the mother from pursuing an abortion. It's easy to argue that an unborn child should be given the same rights, but when it's alive and needs care, foods, housing, clothes, education, etc, what do we do? That costs time and money. But what do the right typically also believe? No social policies, no 'handouts', no help, and so we add to the burden of a mostly younger generation because them aborting their would-be child hurts the conservatives' feelings. How about we solve the issues of socioeconomic inequality we currently face without adding to the problem? And for those eager to compare this to gun law and access, you not having easy access to guns is not the same as telling people what to do with their bodies, and their lives as a whole. For the record, I'm firmly for gun access and availability nationwide, but under stringent requirements and tests. Also, this isn't directly aimed at you Drone, just general thoughts. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
I'll take Dave's framing: On September 23 2020 19:35 iamthedave wrote: You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. That's right, that is the central discussion. Obviously, however, one of the rights being discussed is the right to continue living, which we as a society value very highly. If the right of person #1 to remain living is weighed against the right of person #2 to do something else, we almost always agree that person #1 should not die if there is any alternative. + Show Spoiler + I realise that I am making this statement in the shadow of BLM, so I will reiterate that I believe black people should not die when interacting with cops, and if some republican somewhere believes otherwise, his view does not change the fact that this is a core value society is built on. Therefore, the question the whole thing turns on is whether the child should be afforded that right. I think it's very important to stop and realise that this is not a technical or medical question; it's an unanswerable moral question. This is why the issue is so vexed. If the child is considered human, his/her human right to remain alive trumps almost anything else. If the fetus is not, then the whole thing becomes an issue of women's health, which almost nobody here has any business holding an opinion on. Both positions flow completely from their premise, and the premise is unprovable one way or the other. To me, this is almost intractable, but it's certainly not helped by each side calling the other baby-murderers or misogynists, and that seems to happen a lot both elsewhere and around here. Drone's position seems very reasonable to me and is a good place to start, even if I don't entirely agree. Comparisons to slavery are not. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22372 Posts
On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote: I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all.I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 23 2020 21:57 Belisarius wrote: This is probably the only issue that comes up on TL where you will find me agreeing with Danglars, and certainly with Nettles. I don't generally see it as one that's productive to discuss, but it keeps coming up lately, so, ok. I'll take Dave's framing: That's right, that is the central discussion. Obviously, however, one of the rights being discussed is the right to continue living, which we as a society value very highly. If the right of person #1 to remain living is weighed against the right of person #2 to do something else, we almost always agree that person #1 should not die if there is any alternative. + Show Spoiler + I realise that I am making this statement in the shadow of BLM, so I will reiterate that I believe black people should not die when interacting with cops, and if some republican somewhere believes otherwise, his view does not change the fact that this is a core value society is built on. This is also obvious, but I think it's very important to stop and realise that is not a technical or medical question; it's an unanswerable moral question. This is why the issue is so vexed. If the child is considered human, his/her human right to remain alive trumps almost anything else. If the fetus is not, then the whole thing becomes an issue of women's health, which almost nobody here has any business holding an opinion on. Both positions flow completely from their premise, and the premise is unprovable one way or the other. To me, this is almost intractable, but its intractability is not helped by each side calling the other baby-murderers or misogynists, and that seems to happen a lot both elsewhere and around here. Drone's position seems very reasonable to me and is a good place to start, even if I don't entirely agree. Comparisons to slavery are not. You put an important qualifier in there: "If there is any alternative". It's actually generally accepted premise in most western societies (culturally and legally) that you can't force an individual to take an action, much less sacrifice their well-being, to support another's life if the giving party doesn't consent. Pregnancy places significant physical, emotional/social, and economic hardship on a woman. One of the primary arguments of the pro-choice view is that women don't consent to becoming pregnant just because they are physically capable of it. Therefore, forcing a woman to carry to term is a non-consensual coercion of a woman into sustaining another life to her own detriment for a prolonged period of time. If, as you said, there was a viable alternative (fetuses could be removed and cared for/carried to term without significant burden to the woman) then this wouldn't be a discussion; the fetus could have that right and a woman would be on her way. The problem is that this isn't a viable alternative. The pro-life position necessarily forces a woman to undergo prolonged hardships and suffering to support another life without her consent. | ||
| ||
