Jump to content

Republican 2012 Nomination Thread


Texsox

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:16 PM)
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.

 

We also view murder and accidental death as two different things culturally as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM)
We also view murder and accidental death as two different things culturally as well.

 

We don't view the dead person differently or claim that they are a different entity, which has been pointed out several times in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:18 PM)
We don't view the dead person differently or claim that they are a different entity, which has been pointed out several times in this thread.

 

Yes we do. We don't go after a person for an accidental death, versus an intentional one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:19 PM)
Yes we do. We don't go after a person for an accidental death, versus an intentional one.

 

That doesn't change the status of the dead person, which is the correct comparison to our views of a dead fetus. They don't become a person or not a person or lose or gain any other traits based on why they died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other reason I dont get into controlling your own body is the govt already has laws that prevent us from controlling our body. Cant use certain drugs, etc.

 

Northside,

 

Im kind of the same way. I usually have strong opinions, this is one where I just dont see a great answer. Which is why I go with the answer that makes the most sense based on all of our other laws and science.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:20 PM)
If a woman can abort a pregnancy and a man can't, apparently so.

 

Men can make whatever decisions they desire regarding their own bodies. Men cannot make decisions for women regarding the woman's body, and women cannot make decisions for men. Seems fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:26 PM)
Strangsox,

 

Thats just not true.

 

If I want to go out and smoke a bunch of marijuana and top it off with a few rails of cocaine, I cant. So the govt doesnt let me do whatever I want regarding my body.

 

And they are even more regimented when your actions endanger the life of another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:23 PM)
Men can make whatever decisions they desire regarding their own bodies. Men cannot make decisions for women regarding the woman's body, and women cannot make decisions for men. Seems fair?

 

In the logic you are using, they are. They are allowing their sperm to either make a kid, or abort it. Without the mans sperm, there is no decision to make. Thus they are making a decision over their body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:46 PM)
And they are even more regimented when your actions endanger the life of another.

 

You've expanded the scope of the argument from rights over your own body and personal medical decisions which aren't going to endanger the lives of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:48 PM)
You've expanded the scope of the argument from rights over your own body and personal medical decisions which aren't going to endanger the lives of others.

 

Abortion doesn't endanger anyone else? the fetus would beg to differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:47 PM)
In the logic you are using, they are. They are allowing their sperm to either make a kid, or abort it. Without the mans sperm, there is no decision to make. Thus they are making a decision over their body.

 

The sperm is not your body any more than your urine is, or the scab from your arm. The man has free will to engage in sex or not, after that his role in reproduction is over. He does not have to go through pregnancy and childbirth, bearing the stress it places on the body. No one, at any point, is restricting him from making choices regarding his own body.

 

Your bizarre claim that a woman retaining choice over going through pregnancy or not is, somehow, exerting control over a man's body is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:51 PM)
The sperm is not your body any more than your urine is, or the scab from your arm. The man has free will to engage in sex or not, after that his role in reproduction is over. He does not have to go through pregnancy and childbirth, bearing the stress it places on the body. No one, at any point, is restricting him from making choices regarding his own body.

 

Your bizarre claim that a woman retaining choice over going through pregnancy or not is, somehow, exerting control over a man's body is ridiculous.

 

It is not any more bizarre than this somehow being sexist. That is whole point. That is some crazy left wing stuff there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:57 PM)
That is some crazy left wing stuff there.

 

Why do crazy right wingers want to abort life on a grand scale? They don't mind polluting air, water, etc. These are the foundation of life on our planet. By destroying these things they are destroying potential life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as I said earlier, that there are sexist elements to anti-abortion arguments doesn't mean all anti-abortion arguments are sexist. However, there's undeniably a sexist element to some anti-abortion arguments and movements.

 

I'll outsource to Chait:

 

I object to the automatic equation of opposition to legalized abortion with sexism. Opposition to abortion rights can reflect a desire to control women, but it can also simply reflect a belief that a fetus is a human being. That's not a belief I share, but it's a values question and I can't say that those on the other side are wrong. The notion of letting women decide whether or not to have an abortion only comes into play if you think the fetus does not have human rights, or if the question is murky. If you do believe that the fetus is human, then you don't have to harbor any desire to control women's reproductive choices to oppose letting them choose to take that life away. (Very few feminists would support abortion at 8 months and 29 days, which shows that the question of the fetus's rights, not one's disposition to trust or distrust female sexual autonomy, is the crucial question.)

 

I'm not denying that sexism plays a role in the politics of abortion rights. But the common tendency to assume sexist motives among abortion rights opponents is unfair.

 

That the results are inherently sex-based does not make the motivation sexist.

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:00 PM)
Why do crazy right wingers want to abort life on a grand scale? They don't mind polluting air, water, etc. These are the foundation of life on our planet. By destroying these things they are destroying potential life.

 

Where's the eye roll emoticon when you need it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:03 PM)
Where's the eye roll emoticon when you need it?

 

Logically speaking, what's the difference between some non-sentient cells in a woman's body and the building blocks of life (amino acids, water, oxygen, etc) on a planet? It just takes a shorter amount of time for those non-sentient cells to turn into something sentient when comparing it to the long term processes involved in creating life on a planet.

 

EDIT: And there's no guarantee that in either case a living being will ultimately be created.

Edited by BigSqwert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:09 PM)
Logically speaking, what's the difference between some non-sentient cells in a woman's body and the building blocks of life (amino acids, water, oxygen, etc) on a planet? It just takes a shorter amount of time for those non-sentient cells to turn into something sentient when comparing it to the long term processes involved in creating life on a planet.

 

EDIT: And there's no guarantee that in either case a living being will ultimately be created.

 

Um, the human element?

 

And no, there's not. But I'd say the chance of creating life after becoming pregnant is pretty damn high.

 

Edit: and the rolling eyes comment was more for making this a partisan issue when for 10 pages it hasn't been really.

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...