Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[StrangeSox]

I believe it is an extreme point of view because I don't think you can turn biology into an -ism. There are certain things that only men or women can do. It is a biological fact. It would be like saying passing a tall gene on to someone is anti-dwarf.

 

You're going to have to explain that link.

 

The argument is that it is sexist because it ignores women's rights to their own bodies and whether they are ready for and want childbirth. Focusing on the fetus and elevating its status above that of the mother necessarily restricts the mother's rights and it happens to only one gender.

 

You can believe it's an extreme point of view if you wish, but it doesn't make sense.

[Balta1701]

I believe it is an extreme point of view because I don't think you can turn biology into an -ism. There are certain things that only men or women can do. It is a biological fact. It would be like saying passing a tall gene on to someone is anti-dwarf.

However, it is also a fact that both a man and a woman are currently required for the production of a fertilized embryo, while only one of these 2 sexes is forced biologically to deal with the physiological results.

[Jenksismyhero]

We can be sure that where you've seemingly set the line, very preliminary neural activity, there is no sentience because there's no nervous system or brain.

 

 

 

This enforces a penalty on women that men never have to face and removes agency over their own bodies. You've assumed your conclusion by calling it a baby and assigning it rights. You've given women less control over themselves than men and children.

 

I think they had full control in getting pregnant in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

Sure, but that's why i'm creating the hard line that once the being is "alive" it has rights.

 

But your comparison still fails because we don't decide a fetus was "alive" and a human with rights because it was aborted and not "alive" and not a human with rights if it is miscarried, just as we don't change a person's status based on how they die.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

 

 

Thats not entirely true. Some one who is brain dead is technically considered dead, even if their heart is fine.

 

http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/720341...0-accident.html

 

 

 

So under your definition, the firefighter isnt dead, yet his family is harvesting his organs. Would you consider them murderers?

 

Would he have a heartbeat if they unplugged him? No.

[southsider2k5]

However, it is also a fact that both a man and a woman are currently required for the production of a fertilized embryo, while only one of these 2 sexes is forced biologically to deal with the physiological results.

 

So nature is sexist? Sorry, I don't buy that.

[southsider2k5]

You're going to have to explain that link.

 

The argument is that it is sexist because it ignores women's rights to their own bodies and whether they are ready for and want childbirth. Focusing on the fetus and elevating its status above that of the mother necessarily restricts the mother's rights and it happens to only one gender.

 

You can believe it's an extreme point of view if you wish, but it doesn't make sense.

 

How does that elevate the fetus's status? Unless we are talking about a health situation the mother lives regardless. The fetus doesn't. At worst that makes their rights equal.

[StrangeSox]

So nature is sexist? Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

Don't buy what? This line of objection doesn't even make sense. If only one sex bears the burden of restricted rights, it's pretty much inherently sexist.

[StrangeSox]

How does that elevate the fetus's status? Unless we are talking about a health situation the mother lives regardless. The fetus doesn't. At worst that makes their rights equal.

 

The mother loses autonomy over their own body. Her desires regarding her own body are made secondary to am embryo or fetus.

[southsider2k5]

Don't buy what? This line of objection doesn't even make sense. If only one sex bears the burden of restricted rights, it's pretty much inherently sexist.

 

Again that is like saying tall people are anti-dwarf because they weren't born short. It is biological, not discriminatory.

[southsider2k5]

The mother loses autonomy over their own body. Her desires regarding her own body are made secondary to am embryo or fetus.

 

And the fetus is dead, and has what control of its body? So its rights are gone.

 

My views here have totally changed since having kids. I can't imagine intentionally killing my kids, because of my irresponsibility. I used to buy into the whole "rights" thing. I can't do it anymore. Kids have changed me there, and I can't apologize for that.

[StrangeSox]

Again that is like saying tall people are anti-dwarf because they weren't born short. It is biological, not discriminatory.

 

No, this doesn't make any sense, because we aren't restricting the rights of talls or dwarfs over their own bodies. Stating that men and women are, in fact, biologically different does not remove sexism from the discussion.

[southsider2k5]

No, this doesn't make any sense, because we aren't restricting the rights of talls or dwarfs over their own bodies. Stating that men and women are, in fact, biologically different does not remove sexism from the discussion.

 

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't see babies and parents as equals.

[Jenksismyhero]

But your comparison still fails because we don't decide a fetus was "alive" and a human with rights because it was aborted and not "alive" and not a human with rights if it is miscarried, just as we don't change a person's status based on how they die.

 

But in my view I consistently consider a 9-11 week old fetus "alive" with rights, regardless of whether it dies from a miscarriage (natural and not by choice) or from an abortion (not natural and a choice). I can't very well not like something (which btw, many women DO have severe emotional reactions to miscarriages, at any time, especially with a planned pregnancy) that humans have no active role in causing.

[StrangeSox]

And the fetus is dead, and has what control of its body? So its rights are gone.

 

My views here have totally changed since having kids. I can't imagine intentionally killing my kids, because of my irresponsibility. I used to buy into the whole "rights" thing. I can't do it anymore. Kids have changed me there, and I can't apologize for that.

 

Lots and lots of assumptions there, that a fetus is a kid or was really alive and has rights and that an abortion is done because of irresponsibility.

 

And you've gone and elevated children and fetuses above women in this very post, even going as far as to put their reproductive and bodily rights into scare quotes.

[StrangeSox]

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't see babies and parents as equals.

 

Question-begging, a fetus is not a baby.

 

It just plain doesn't make sense because you're comparing a situation where rights are restricted, rightly or wrongly, to one where they aren't. I could completely agree that a fetus is a person with rights and the comparison would still make no sense.

Edited August 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

But in my view I consistently consider a 9-11 week old fetus "alive" with rights, regardless of whether it dies from a miscarriage (natural and not by choice) or from an abortion (not natural and a choice). I can't very well not like something (which btw, many women DO have severe emotional reactions to miscarriages, at any time, especially with a planned pregnancy) that humans have no active role in causing.

 

Which is fine, but you made your comparison of murder v natural death in response to my illustration of long-standing cultural views of life vs. non-life and when a fetus becomes a human and our reactions to their loss. It still doesn't work.

 

eta most miscarriages aren't even known because they happen so early. Again, just illustrating that we've always held differing views of "personhood" based on the stage of development.

 

I also hope you can see the philosophical differences between being pro-choice and anti-capital punishment now, as well.

Edited August 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Question-begging, a fetus is not a baby.

 

It just plain doesn't make sense because you're comparing a situation where rights are restricted, rightly or wrongly, to one where they aren't. I could completely agree that a fetus is a person with rights and the comparison would still make no sense.

 

You've essentially bestowed a whole round of rights on someone because they are a woman. I couldn't have my fetus killed because I didn't want to take care of it/didn't want it, because I am a male. Is that sexist too? Should a father be able to force an abortion to get out of his parental responsibilities?

[StrangeSox]

You don't have a fetus, you never can and no one is attempting to restrict your rights to your own body and your ability to chose to have something keep growing inside of you. So no, you shouldn't have the right to control a woman's body.

Edited August 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Isnt pulling some one off the plug and them not having a heartbeat the same as removing a fetus from a womb and it not having a heartbeat?

 

The similarity being that in neither case can the person or fetus survive and therefore some one else has the final say?

 

To me they are similar.

 

Ss2k,

 

I agree about the entire a father cant kill a fetus but a woman can, which is why I really try not to frame this debate in a way where one sex is getting more say than the other sex. I would say that if a mother can terminate before X months than a father should be able to terminate his rights toward the fetus, meaning that the father would have no responsibility.

 

This is just one of those issues where there will never be a right answer, which is why I try and find the best answer based on how our laws treat similar circumstances.

[StrangeSox]

A father can't have an abortion because he doesn't have a womb, not because anyone is restricting his rights to do so. Not giving men control over a woman's reproductive functions isn't sexist or unfair and comparing a father's child support to pregnancy evades the entire women's rights issue and makes it one of "responsibility."

[NorthSideSox72]

My stances on issues, while they vary from issue-to-issue in terms of whether it fits in as "lefty" or "righty", are usually pretty strongly felt.

 

However this issue I have to admit, I have always been torn. I honestly don't know what to think, other than, this issue will probably never go away and never really be solved.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

You don't have a fetus, you never can and no one is attempting to restrict your rights to your own body and your ability to chose to have something keep growing inside of you. So no, you shouldn't have the right to control a woman's body.

 

So why is the father held responsible for it after its birth? That is contradictory.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is fine, but you made your comparison of murder v natural death in response to my illustration of long-standing cultural views of life vs. non-life and when a fetus becomes a human and our reactions to their loss. It still doesn't work.

 

eta most miscarriages aren't even known because they happen so early. Again, just illustrating that we've always held differing views of "personhood" based on the stage of development.

 

I also hope you can see the philosophical differences between being pro-choice and anti-capital punishment now, as well.

 

At the end of the day I think you're ignoring the huge distinction between abortion and miscarriages though. There's no need to debate the violation of a right of a 15 week old fetus because of a miscarriage. That's a natural, and almost common result during pregnancy for a lot of women. To say that the mother viewed that loss less when compared to a baby that dies shortly after birth is probably accurate. But that doesn't mean their feeling as to the fetus' "personhood" is any different. As I said earlier, how can someone be upset with loss when they have no role in causing it? That's completely different from abortion, where there is that role being played, and the violation of the fetus' right should rightly be called into question.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

At the end of the day I think you're ignoring the huge distinction between abortion and miscarriages though. There's no need to debate the violation of a right of a 15 week old fetus because of a miscarriage. That's a natural, and almost common result during pregnancy for a lot of women. To say that the mother viewed that loss less when compared to a baby that dies shortly after birth is probably accurate. But that doesn't mean their feeling as to the fetus' "personhood" is any different. As I said earlier, how can someone be upset with loss when they have no role in causing it? That's completely different from abortion, where there is that role being played, and the violation of the fetus' right should rightly be called into question.

 

Sure it does. A baby is going to be named, a funeral will likely be held. It is unquestionably a human being. A miscarried fetus, on the other hand, is not viewed as a dead human. There's no name, no death certificate, no funeral rites. Some people treat stillborns that way, but that's significantly later in development, when there's actually a functional brain. That doesn't mean miscarriages can't be traumatic; they often are if you've being trying to get pregnant and you're far enough along to realize it.

 

This isn't about guilt or blame or responsibility or causes. It's simply pointing out that culturally we view a miscarried embryo or fetus and a still-born or a dead 1-day old baby as very different entities. Only when it comes to abortion does a fetus suddenly gain personhood and rights and domain over the mother's body.