Page 57 of 57 FirstFirst ... 747555657
Results 561 to 563 of 563

Thread: A great question for pro abortion types

  1. #561
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    NOW Beautiful Pasco County
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,516

    Re: A great question for pro abortion types

    Quote Originally Posted by D_NATURED View Post
    Choice is choice and mandates are mandates, it doesn't matter whether it's abortion or diet that we discuss. There are certainly some people who would favor taking away our choice to eat meat, too. I support choice in both areas.

    As for the conservatives and the spectrum of crazy with regard to fetal advocacy, the trend is not for Republican state houses to make "capricious" abortions illegal, they go right for the heartbeat. Besides, the problem with the word "capricious" is that ALL pregnancies are, potentially, harmful or fatal to the woman who endures it. Therefore, I consider it reasonable to leave them that choice absolutely. There is no such thing as a capricious defense of one's self or life.

    BTW, when authoritarians use the imaginary authority of god to propose subjugating women, they are violating both the constitution and the very idea of rational civil law. If you subtract the anti-choice people who are so inclined as a function of their faith, there would be very little serious opposition to the reproductive freedom of women.
    First, I agree with your last statement. God and politicians are water and oil.
    As to the rest, you seem to make a connection with pregnancy and mortality. Pregnancy in main is not lethal. Certainly, there have been sad cases where it was, but to make a case for abortion for convenience is to use those occasions in a particularly cruel way.
    Finally, after boiling down your reply, I have to wonder; are you making the assertion that pregnancy is a means to subjugate women?
    Regards,
    CP

  2. #562
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: A great question for pro abortion types

    Quote Originally Posted by concernedpuma View Post
    Of course I understood the attempt at analogy. If you noted, that was my objection. As analogy, to mean anything must be like/same comparison. I don't find diet and reproduction to be even remotely associated, as defined by this discussion.

    The terms capricious and legitimate cause abortion are problematic to this point, merely because the haven't been codified. A law protecting the unborn and mother from same will not be problematic.
    Regards,
    CP
    Unfortunately you do not seem to understand the comparison. For the analogy to work there does not have to be any association between diets and abortion. It is the reasoning that must be the similar which in that particular analogy it was.

    Again you miss the point. The terms legitimate or capricious can only be defined by the woman who is pregnant. It is her right to decide what happens to her body. The law has no real business making that decision for her.

  3. #563
    Guru

    D_NATURED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,929

    Re: A great question for pro abortion types

    Quote Originally Posted by concernedpuma View Post
    First, I agree with your last statement. God and politicians are water and oil.
    As to the rest, you seem to make a connection with pregnancy and mortality. Pregnancy in main is not lethal.
    I've known two different women who died unexpectedly in childbirth. All pregnancies are potentially lethal and, as such, I yield to the wishes of women whether it's a risk they'll take or not. The loss of a woman, with a name, a history, a personality, with human connections, including existing children, is a greater loss than any fetus.

    It seems an absurd contradiction to allow men to use lethal force in defense of their property but to deny women the right to stand their ground in defense of their very lives and health.

    Certainly, there have been sad cases where it was, but to make a case for abortion for convenience is to use those occasions in a particularly cruel way.
    Abortion isn't cruelty, it's a medical procedure. Even when women survive birth, they are often permanently harmed by it. Calling self preservation "convenience" is to soft-sell the risks. When men intentionally ignore the cost to women, there is an implied agenda there that I can't ignore.

    Finally, after boiling down your reply, I have to wonder; are you making the assertion that pregnancy is a means to subjugate women?
    No, but abortion restrictions are. Clearly, the laws being proposed are, largely, done by christian men, whose faith is notoriously misogynist. Telling women they don't have the right to decide who or what may use their bodily resources and, in so doing, potentially kill them, is a shamelessly obvious subjugation. I hope you understand that.

    I like babies as much as the next guy but I can't separate babies from women, in any way. It is only by the sacrifices of women that any of us exist and, without women, humankind would fade out of existence. It's too bad that they must exist in a Male-created binary paradigm of mother or whore. That we can't celebrate them absent their reproductive value to men is a sad commentary on the patriarchy that continues to resonate through our culture. Abortion laws are thinly veiled misogyny pretending to be the love of babies. NOBODY loves babies better than women do. If we loved women as much, abortions really would be rare.

Page 57 of 57 FirstFirst ... 747555657

Posting Permissions

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