Page 1 of 39 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 389

Thread: Abortion and Women's Rights

  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Seen
    10-19-19 @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    60

    Abortion and Women's Rights

    Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

    I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

    Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

    Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

    It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
    Last edited by jamesrodom; 10-29-18 at 10:33 AM.

  2. #2
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    54,741

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post
    Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

    I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

    Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

    Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

    It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
    That (bolded above) assertion ignores the SCOTUS decision preventing any state from making that definition before 'viability'. There is also the (accepted legal?) defintion of a person for census purposes. As to whether someone has the right to make personal moral, faith or conscience based decisions to be cariied out by others - why is assisted suicide not a legal 'privacy' right?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #3
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,221

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    No person is allowed to use the bodily resources of another for life support. One cannot be compelled to donate blood or bone marrow, even when that person is the only known compatible donor and the potential recipient will die without it. That was determined in McFall vs Shimp. If a born person cannot be forced to provide bodily resources to another born person, then s/he cannot be forced to provide them to an unborn person, should the unborn ever be declared persons. (Unlikely to happen in my country)

  4. #4
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,489

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post
    Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

    I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

    Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

    Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

    It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
    Any determination of being a 'person' is a legal one. For anyone under the Constitution.

    So yes, this has been very clearly determined. "Agreed upon" by the justice system.

    It was determined the same way full equality and recognition of rights were for blacks and women...except that after such legal consideration by the high court...the unborn were not recognized as such.

    U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
    (I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)

    If you ask any of the pro-life people how equal rights could be implemented for both women and the unborn...you wont get an answer. They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.

    They wont address the details of the legal aspects at all, just the emotional. And it's nearly impossible to get any of them to admit that legally and practically, the unborn and women cannot be treated equally. They just deny and then drop out of the discussion.
    Last edited by Lursa; 10-29-18 at 12:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems less like palliative care and more like a last meal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Parrots of the Caribbean For Abortion!
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #5
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Seen
    10-19-19 @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    60

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Any determination of being a 'person' is a legal one. For anyone under the Constitution.

    So yes, this has been very clearly determined. "Agreed upon" by the justice system.

    It was determined the same way full equality and recognition of rights were for blacks and women...except that after such legal consideration by the high court...the unborn were not recognized as such.

    U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8



    (I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)

    If you ask any of the pro-life people how equal rights could be implemented for both women and the unborn...you wont get an answer. They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.

    They wont address the details of the legal aspects at all, just the emotional. And it's nearly impossible to get any of them to admit that legally and practically, the unborn and women cannot be treated equally. They just deny and then drop out of the discussion.

    <<Any determination of being a 'person' is a legal one. For anyone under the Constitution.

    So yes, this has been very clearly determined. "Agreed upon" by the justice system.>>


    To the extent that any legal definition exists, a 'person' refers to one who has been born. Fetuses and embryos have no legal standing otherwise. Forget abortion: they aren't counted in the census. They can't inherit property. Miscarriages don't result in the issuance of death certificates. Tax deductions can only be taken starting the year a baby was born, not conceived.


    <<(I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)>>

    I didn't say that. Please reread what I wrote, with better comprehension in mind.

    <<They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.>>

    I really don't know what your point is. It sounds like your argument is with nature, not pro-lifers. There's a lot to be said legitimately against pro-lifers, but it isn't their fault that women are the ones who get pregnant. There is a misogynist element to the movement, as well as an anti-sex mindset; but otherwise, most pro-lifers aren't really anti-women; they just sincerely believe fetuses and embryos are persons from the moment of conception.

  6. #6
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,489

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post

    <<They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.>>

    I really don't know what your point is. It sounds like your argument is with nature, not pro-lifers. There's a lot to be said legitimately against pro-lifers, but it isn't their fault that women are the ones who get pregnant. There is a misogynist element to the movement, as well as an anti-sex mindset; but otherwise, most pro-lifers aren't really anti-women; they just sincerely believe fetuses and embryos are persons from the moment of conception.
    LOL Nature handles abortion just fine (miscarriages), but pro-lifers are the ones that are trying to end a woman's right to choose...and that can only happen thru legal means.

    So that remains the focus of my discussions, altho I have arguments for other aspects as well.

    So yes...pro-lifers are the ones that need to be addressed and educated and convinced to butt out of women's medical decisions because 'they have no legal right' to be involved.
    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems less like palliative care and more like a last meal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Parrots of the Caribbean For Abortion!
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #7
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,489

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post


    <<(I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)>>

    I didn't say that. Please reread what I wrote, with better comprehension in mind.

    <<They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.>>

    I really don't know what your point is. It sounds like your argument is with nature, not pro-lifers. There's a lot to be said legitimately against pro-lifers, but it isn't their fault that women are the ones who get pregnant. There is a misogynist element to the movement, as well as an anti-sex mindset; but otherwise, most pro-lifers aren't really anti-women; they just sincerely believe fetuses and embryos are persons from the moment of conception.
    I did read it. I read this:

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post
    Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

    I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.
    I realize that 'in reality' this is the case but what 'I read' was that it's an issue for the pro-life side because it only focuses on women's rights and that is not as important to men.

    From what I've read and heard, pro-life supporters overall dismiss women's rights as less important...if important at all...in pretty equal numbers. (which of course is the other side, but also accurate, of your comment on approval.)
    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems less like palliative care and more like a last meal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Parrots of the Caribbean For Abortion!
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,265

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post
    Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

    I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

    Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

    Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

    It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
    You make the mistake of assuming that when a woman says it is her right that she is referring to abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is a decision. And it is a woman's right to make that decision.

  9. #9
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Seen
    10-19-19 @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    60

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    You make the mistake of assuming that when a woman says it is her right that she is referring to abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is a decision. And it is a woman's right to make that decision.
    Word Salad

  10. #10
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    04-14-19 @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    25,803

    Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrodom View Post
    Word Salad
    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    You make the mistake of assuming that when a woman says it is her right that she is referring to abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is a decision. And it is a woman's right to make that decision.
    I agree SG. There is no Amendment in the Constitution that declares Abortion being a Right.

    And to expand on your point, (I'm trimming this up a bit, but) Roe v Wade, a Texas case, argued before the S.C., was the impetus of a "S.C. Decision", which in turn becomes a "judicial precedent". And that boils down to: In a common law system (any State Court, for example), "judges are obliged" to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject.

    In order to understand Roe v Wade, one must read the Supreme Court's decision. From that 'decision" women's "RIGHT" TO PRIVACY became the central theme of that decision, which is considered to be inherent to the 14th Amendments, Due Process Clause and "Equal Protection Under the Law Clause".

    BTW, a Judicial Precedent are "usually" derived from "DECISIONS" rendered by a Circuit Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

    OR: Cases decided by a common law court becomes a precedent, or guideline, for subsequent decisions involving similar disputes. If common law court's decision is disputed and qualifies to be "appealed to a higher court", these lower court rulings can be overturned by a State Supreme court, which can be overturned by an "US Appellate Court". If an Appellate decision ruffles the Supreme Court's feathers, it can overturn an Appellate decision. That's usually the final "precedent" made.

Page 1 of 39 12311 ... 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
  •