View Poll Results: Do Men Have the Right to Control Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 7.69%
  • No

    42 80.77%
  • Under Certain Circumstances(s) - Briefly list what circumstance(s))

    5 9.62%
  • Does a male dominated government?

    2 3.85%
  • Does a male dominate Religion?

    1 1.92%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 10 of 41 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 410

Thread: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    How did I do that? If AI's and organic humans have the same rights, how is it justified to kill humans?

    The example you give would not be equal rights. It would be rights skewed in favor of the AI.
    I'm not talking about AI here (I don't think real AI is possible, it would just use statistical randomness combined with massive databases). I'm talking about industrial capacity. A functional definition of personhood would justify ostracizing and exterminating people for not being impressive enough.

    For example, if someone was really sadistic and conniving, someone could design a computer program to socialize in your social circles and cast you out based on some simple premises:

    1) People don't have indefinite memories.
    2) People don't think to indefinite orders of logic.
    3) It's cool to be stupid and politically correct to play dumb. At the very least, people enjoy teasing those who try hard.

    Ergo, as long as the program learned general syntax and continually updated associates' particular tastes (i.e. food, clothes, holidays, music, jobs, etc.), the program could eventually make you look inferior.

    Even humor can be simulated. You just have to quantify absurdity and hierarchy to make people feel anxious, and have enough experience to say stuff others are partially unfamiliar with.

  2. #92
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,177

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Please tell me how this pertains to something with no awareness whatsoever, and no interest in the continuity of its own existence? A dog at least has that. They feel pain, which is why we protect them from harm. They desire to continue living. A ZEF can't do that any more than my kidney can.
    First of all, bull****. Prove it.

    Second of all, for the sake of argument, I will assume this is true. And you think this isn't true of a 9-month old fetus? And before you start going on about how "i'm not talking about a 9 month old fetus, i'm talking about an embryo". No, you're not. You are the one contending that there is no difference between giving birth to a fetus or terminating a fetus. Therefore, if the two actions are truly equivalent, there should be no difference between giving birth to a 9 month-old fetus and terminating a 9 month-old fetus.

    You initially claimed its ok to terminate a fetus on the basis that it cannot consent. Then, after my counterexample, you moved away from "consent" and moved to "it's not ok to kill a living organism if its sentient and seems to have a desire to live." Is this is not a correct interpretation as to why you think it's not ok to kill a dog in cold blood, feel free to correct me.

    If that is an accurate interpretation, would you say that conditional applies to a 9 month old fetus?

    If your answer is no, then why not? What leads you to conclude that a dog has a desire to live and is sentient, but that a 9 month old fetus does not and is not?

    If you answer is yes, then you must agree that terminating a 9 month old fetus is not equivalent to giving birth to a 9 month old fetus. Therefore, giving birth and abortion are not morally equivalent actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Again, how is it more justifiable to force life on something than it is to not grant life? Why is everyone ignoring this point?
    Again, there is a simple counterexample to demonstrate the difference. In keeping with the dog theme, let's suppose your dog develops heartworms. You think there's no difference between giving your dog heartworm medication and letting it die?

    I'm guessing your answer will be the same as to my last counterexample - that dogs desire to live and are sentient, therefore we should give them heartworm medication. In which case my rebuttal circles back to my above remarks.

  3. #93
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    OK. All this is just as much an argument for killing infants at all. Or anyone who can't give informed consent. That's a pretty grisly world it would lead to.
    How so? At that point a life already exists. I am making the argument that there is no consequence for preventing a life from ever happening.

    We also have other qualifiers that protect life in the absence of intellectual consent, such as behaviors and functions that indicate a will to live. We apply this to, for example, our pets (though not the animals we choose to eat, which means most people are perfectly ok with killing sentient life en masse as long as it isn't human and isn't an animal they are attached to - but that's a whole different debate).

    I notice that none of this addresses any of the points I made.

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    NO risk? How do you know what you're destroying? How many Beethovens, Ghandis, and Einsteins?
    You realize this is no different then saying how many could be Hitlers, Kim Jong Ils, Bundys, Vandersloots, Mengeles, etc

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    It certainly is an issue of males trying to control women that is all it's about. There is no other way to see it. It has zero to do with that fetus.
    But that's just baseless speculation. No, that's not "what this is all about." The issue has always been about the unborn child; you are seeing this in a very partisan light, my friend.

  6. #96
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You realize this is no different then saying how many could be Hitlers, Kim Jong Ils, Bundys, Vandersloots, Mengeles, etc
    Not when you say there's "no risk" in preventing something from living; the risk is losing a positive force in the world. But true when discussing risk of someone being born.

    But what is our default line of thinking? Do we not typically wait until someone actually does something bad before assuming they're bad? Do we not consider the potential for good to outweigh the potential for bad, especially when we know most people are good?

    As I said, if you want to look at the "risk" one-way, then why not kill everything before it has the chance to do bad? We don't think that way. We're not wired to think that way. We consider that kind of thinking evil, actually.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #97
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    First of all, bull****. Prove it.

    Second of all, for the sake of argument, I will assume this is true. And you think this isn't true of a 9-month old fetus? And before you start going on about how "i'm not talking about a 9 month old fetus, i'm talking about an embryo". No, you're not. You are the one contending that there is no difference between giving birth to a fetus or terminating a fetus. Therefore, if the two actions are truly equivalent, there should be no difference between giving birth to a 9 month-old fetus and terminating a 9 month-old fetus.

    You initially claimed its ok to terminate a fetus on the basis that it cannot consent. Then, after my counterexample, you moved away from "consent" and moved to "it's not ok to kill a living organism if its sentient and seems to have a desire to live." Is this is not a correct interpretation as to why you think it's not ok to kill a dog in cold blood, feel free to correct me.

    If that is an accurate interpretation, would you say that conditional applies to a 9 month old fetus?

    If your answer is no, then why not? What leads you to conclude that a dog has a desire to live and is sentient, but that a 9 month old fetus does not and is not?

    If you answer is yes, then you must agree that terminating a 9 month old fetus is not equivalent to giving birth to a 9 month old fetus. Therefore, giving birth and abortion are not morally equivalent actions.
    No, I'm not talking about a 9-month-old fetus except in very select circumstances. Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

    In the case of a 9-month-old fetus, if it comes down between saving the woman and saving the fetus, I'll vote for the woman every single time and without reservation.

    Like I've said numerous times, we have other protections for organisms that can't give intellectual consent, but can display a desire to survive. This can be applied to a 9-month-old fetus. But, just like in every other case where we apply this, the sentient human wins out at the end of the day. Especially if the non-sentient being is the aggressor.

    What I'm talking about, mostly, is elective abortions. Elective abortions are uncommon after the 1st trimester, and almost unheard of in the 3rd. Therefore, this has nothing to do with my argument.

    Your argument accounts for none of the nuance that exists in actual reality. Are you telling me there is no difference between an embryo and a 9-month-old viable fetus? Then what is the difference between a sperm and an adult human? Before you tell me a sperm can't become a human on its own, neither can an embryo.

    Again, there is a simple counterexample to demonstrate the difference. In keeping with the dog theme, let's suppose your dog develops heartworms. You think there's no difference between giving your dog heartworm medication and letting it die?

    I'm guessing your answer will be the same as to my last counterexample - that dogs desire to live and are sentient, therefore we should give them heartworm medication. In which case my rebuttal circles back to my above remarks.
    Yes, there's a difference. The difference is actually demonstrated perfectly by my example above, where when it comes down to the life of a woman or a 9-month-old fetus, the woman wins.

    But there's a second argument that could made here which also applies to an unwanted pregnancy. The heartworms aggressively and nonconsensually threatened the life of the dog. Ethically, the dog's desires in that situation are automatically more important than the heartworm's desires, in the same way that killing is generally acceptable if it's in self-defense. This can be applied just as readily to a ZEF in a woman who never desired to be pregnant. That ZEF is posing imminent risk to her health without her consent, and even the most textbook pregnancies leave some nasty scars.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-04-12 at 04:34 PM.

  8. #98
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    07-07-17 @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    It's a faulty comparison.

    The one thing all life has in common is its directive to live. Even the smallest, one-celled life takes steps to survive.
    Half the women are pro choice. Why should they bother to take the pill or do anything else to protect a sensitive male? Protect yourself or don't moan.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  9. #99
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    07-07-17 @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    Is contraception perfect?



    What's "really arrogant" is tolerating moral hazard in the pursuit of emotional relief for social competition and assimilation.
    Why do you think a pro choice women is obligated to be concerned about your feelings when it comes to the fetus? Even if contraceptives aren't perfect if you are so concerned about abortions you personally would do all you can to prevent them. If you don't then you add to the number of abortions. That would make you pro choice.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  10. #100
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    How so? At that point a life already exists. I am making the argument that there is no consequence for preventing a life from ever happening.
    No, you were putting it in terms of consent, as in, a fetus can't consent to life. Neither can an infant.

    And there's no real physical difference between an infant about to be born and and infant a minute after birth. Or really, any viable fetus, except for size. So, if an infant is a "life," then so is any viable fetus. (Which is why it's permissible to restrict abortion after the point of viability.)

    We also have other qualifiers that protect life in the absence of intellectual consent, such as behaviors and functions that indicate a will to live. We apply this to, for example, our pets (though not the animals we choose to eat, which means most people are perfectly ok with killing sentient life en masse as long as it isn't human and isn't an animal they are attached to - but that's a whole different debate).
    Using your "consent" touchstone, why should there be? And what "risk" is there in terminating them?

    I notice that none of this addresses any of the points I made.
    I'm following the point you said no one was addressing.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 10 of 41 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •