• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    41
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.

Not true. Plenty of people decide to end their lives for perfectly legitimate reasons. Even some other animals do so. Some people don't end their lives, but spend the entirety of them wishing they could.

There is no risk involved in preventing something from ever living in the first place. There is lots of risk involved in forcing something into life without its consent.
 
Not really. We can predict your decisions neurologically 7 seconds before you become aware of having made them. Consciousness and humanity is increasingly concrete.

Can you prove this? I'd (really) like to see the study.

At the moment, the difference is that the computer performs functions without presenting its own will. But when we reach such a point that a computer can express its own will? To me, there is no difference, and they should be granted the same rights that other sentient beings have. How they become sentient is irrelevant.

Functionalism...

...you realize you just justified killing people so computers can replace them, right?

For example, what's stopping the entire working class from being killed and replaced by robots to satisfy elites' impressions of personhood?
 
It's not really an issue of men controlling women, seeing that there are many women as well that share the povs of those same men. Men are a part of the voting block so, as it goes, men do have a right to vote based on their beliefs. Is it controlling to vote based on your beliefs? Imo, no. I am sure there are women who have voted on issues that have affected men; is that controlling as well? And besides that, your poll options do seem rather biased. Perhaps your questin should have been phrased a little better to acknowledge that men have the right to vote on what they believe. As Goshin stated, many women are pro-life; my mother, aunts, sister, etc are all a part of that group.

For one the notion that most women are pro-choice needs to end. It's dishonest to ignore the many women who are pro-life, and even more dishonest to claim those women are brainwashed.

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.
 
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.

That's simply wrong. How can there be an honest conversation on this if this is the kind of militancy which goes around? This kind of absolutism, whomever it comes from, helps nothing and no one.
 
Can you prove this? I'd (really) like to see the study.

Sure. It's pretty neat.

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them

Functionalism...

...you realize you just justified killing people so computers can replace them, right?

For example, what's stopping the entire working class from being killed and replaced by robots to satisfy elites' impressions of personhood?

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.
 
Yes, all voters have the right to vote for politicians who agree with their views.
 
Your question is three parts

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

MEN? No. No single person has an inherent RIGHT to control a persons body other than the person in question

4. Does a male dominated government have the right to legislate controls over women's health issues and reproduction?

First, obviously you're not speaking about the United States government since our governmental system is in part controlled at its very foundation by its citizens which hosts a majority of women.

Second, in a general sense Government? Depends on how you define "Control". If the government regulates how one buys and operates a firearm, does the government CONTROL your firearm? If the government regulates how you provide power to your car, does it "Control" your car?

I guess it would depend if you are fine in the government "Controlling" other segments of health care. Are you fine with them "Controlling" prescriptions? Fine with them "Controlling" whether or not a hospital has to see someone? Fine with them "Controlling" what insurance providers cover? Fine with them "Controlling" what kind of procedures can be done? Then yeah...they can to a certain extent "Control" a woman or a man's body in regards to medical issues.

5. Does a male dominated religion have the right, through its teachings and doctrine, to have to control over women's health issues and reproduction ?

Which religion are you speaking of that has a majority male population?

And a religion has the right to believe, teach, and in doctrine anything it wishes and people have the right to disagree or agree with it however they wish. If a woman doesn't agree with the teachings of a religion...she can choose either to ignore those teachings or even just not practice that religion.
 
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.

Truly, with such an astounding ability to determine exactly what the intent and thoughts are of an entire segment of the population...even when they themselves don't even believe that's what their actual intent and thought is....you really should not be wasting your time on a forum. Please, call up the CIA and let them know of your amazing and astonishing gift so they may hire you out to fight terrorism or something. I am truly in awe of your awesome ability to determine with factual clarity what large groups of people's actual purposes are.
 
Not true. Plenty of people decide to end their lives for perfectly legitimate reasons. Even some other animals do so. Some people don't end their lives, but spend the entirety of them wishing they could.

You are using the very rare exceptions as though they're the rule. The function of life is to live; survival is the genetic default mode.


There is no risk involved in preventing something from ever living in the first place.

NO risk? How do you know what you're destroying? How many Beethovens, Ghandis, and Einsteins? Of the 42 million abortions per year, not one of them could ever have been a world-changer? None? Or even someone who would have saved, say, a busload of kids?


There is lots of risk involved in forcing something into life without its consent.

Like what?
 
Truly, with such an astounding ability to determine exactly what the intent and thoughts are of an entire segment of the population...even when they themselves don't even believe that's what their actual intent and thought is....you really should not be wasting your time on a forum. Please, call up the CIA and let them know of your amazing and astonishing gift so they may hire you out to fight terrorism or something. I am truly in awe of your awesome ability to determine with factual clarity what large groups of people's actual purposes are.

Pardon, but this made me LOL.
 
You are using the very rare exceptions as though they're the rule. The function of life is to live; survival is the genetic default mode.

It's not "very rare." It's exceptionally common in certain demographics, like the very ill. Survival is the default mode, but the more intelligent the creature the more likely they are to override their defaults.

NO risk? How do you know what you're destroying? How many Beethovens, Ghandis, and Einsteins? Of the 42 million abortions per year, not one of them could ever have been a world-changer? None? Or even someone who would have saved, say, a busload of kids?

That is not a risk. That life never existed, and what it turned out to be is largely dependent upon when are where it was born (if it is ever born - nature is the more prolific abortionist).

But this argument is just as easy to turn around: how do you know they aren't aborting a future tyrant or serial killer? How do you know that one of those sperm in the condom you just unloaded into wouldn't have been the next Einstein? Should we just never use contraception on the off chance that the resulting child won't be just the average Joe? This is a ridiculous argument on its face.

Like what?

You are ultimately responsible for putting that person in the situation they are in, whether they like it or not. They never had any say in the matter.

If you abort, on the other hand, nothing ever happens to the person because there never was a person.

We have children for our own selfish reasons. Not because an embryo was just begging to be born to a crack-addicted teenager.
 
It's not "very rare." It's exceptionally common in certain demographics, like the very ill. Survival is the default mode, but the more intelligent the creature the more likely they are to override their defaults.



That is not a risk. That life never existed, and what it turned out to be is largely dependent upon when are where it was born (if it is ever born - nature is the more prolific abortionist).

But this argument is just as easy to turn around: how do you know they aren't aborting a future tyrant or serial killer? How do you know that one of those sperm in the condom you just unloaded into wouldn't have been the next Einstein? Should we just never use contraception on the off chance that the resulting child won't be just the average Joe? This is a ridiculous argument on its face.



You are ultimately responsible for putting that person in the situation they are in, whether they like it or not. They never had any say in the matter.

If you abort, on the other hand, nothing ever happens to the person because there never was a person.

We have children for our own selfish reasons. Not because an embryo was just begging to be born to a crack-addicted teenager.

OK. All this is just as much an argument for killing infants at will. Or anyone who can't give informed consent. That's a pretty grisly world it would lead to.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom