- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,992
- Reaction score
- 12,381
- Location
- Oregon's High Desert
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Not sure I agree with your premise. Esp dont agree with #1, altho in the early stage, pills are available.Any rational discussion of abortion is based on three indisputable facts:
Abortion is a medical procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
Abortion has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away
Women in need of abortion regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from getting the abortion.
Any discussion starts with those facts, abortion is not a complicated procedure to learn or perform, it will always be available and women will always get abortions if they need them. You can talk morals and ethics until your throat runs dry. They matter only to yourself. Those facts are historical, they have been proven true for millenniums, they are recorded history they have always overridden any religious, government, sect, group cultural or philosophical morality or ethics. There is only one question at the start of a discussion of abortion. Will it be legal or illegal. And it can only realistically be supported or refuted on that question: legal or illegal.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Not sure I agree with your premise. Esp dont agree with #1, altho in the early stage, pills are available.
As for #3, too many assumptions, IMO it's as simple as, if a woman needs an abortion, she will get one, legal or not.
Pretty sure you cant claim that morals and ethics in abortion are only relevant the individual pregnant woman...the way our laws are created, based on our US Constitution, means that other people's ethics/morality cant be forced on preg women...but that isnt the case elsewhere. And people can be concerned about issues even if they are not personally affected by them. (Even there, a boyfriend/ husband and any family all may have legitimate moral/ethical concerns about a woman having an abortion...in the US they just cant force those on that woman.) And as people having feelings...the bf/husband, other family...ethically/morally their feelings may matter. Just not as much as the woman's.
For ex. I have a number of moral objections to hunting African elephants. IMO, I am completely justified in those objections. I dont think this OP, as phrased, works well. Just IMO. I'll step out.
Any rational discussion of abortion is based on three indisputable facts:
Abortion is a medical procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
Abortion has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away
Women in need of abortion regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from getting the abortion.
Any discussion starts with those facts, abortion is not a complicated procedure to learn or perform, it will always be available and women will always get abortions if they need them. You can talk morals and ethics until your throat runs dry. They matter only to yourself. Those facts are historical, they have been proven true for millenniums, they are recorded history they have always overridden any religious, government, sect, group cultural or philosophical morality or ethics. There is only one question at the start of a discussion of abortion. Will it be legal or illegal. And it can only realistically be supported or refuted on that question: legal or illegal.
Not sure I agree with your premise. Esp dont agree with #1, altho in the early stage, pills are available.
As for #3, too many assumptions, IMO it's as simple as, if a woman needs an abortion, she will get one, legal or not.
Pretty sure you cant claim that morals and ethics in abortion are only relevant the individual pregnant woman...the way our laws are created, based on our US Constitution, means that other people's ethics/morality cant be forced on preg women...but that isnt the case elsewhere. And people can be concerned about issues even if they are not personally affected by them. (Even there, a boyfriend/ husband and any family all may have legitimate moral/ethical concerns about a woman having an abortion...in the US they just cant force those on that woman.) And as people having feelings...the bf/husband, other family...ethically/morally their feelings may matter. Just not as much as the woman's.
For ex. I have a number of moral objections to hunting African elephants. IMO, I am completely justified in those objections.
I dont think this OP, as phrased, works well. Just IMO.
I'll step out.
I hope you don't step out. I don't think our views are actually very different. I'm suggesting, but maybe didn't explain it well, that the discussion of how we handle abortion in the US omit the input from the very extremes of religious beliefs expressed by conservative males who post here because they are hopes and beliefs without a way to verify the benefits of their view points nor are they able to give any scientific reasons why their religious beliefs promote ethical behavior. For example; claiming that dis-allowing abortion will stop abortion only leads to a "yes it will not it won't" bicker without advancing anyone's understanding of how abortion should be handled in the US.
The abortion threads on this site including this one, mostly all suffer the same problem of looking at the tree and not seeing the forest.
In this case you have left out the one vital , absolutely necessary element in an abortion discussion. Which is that of the place of women in society.
Some here make a big deal over the constitutional rights and claim the law is on their side. They give no consideration to the fact that the laws and interpretation of the constitution still in america, lean to a christian perspective. And the christian perspective is still that of women are second class people who should, by gods command, be obedient to men. That the purpose of a women is to birth children for their man. Any interests she may have, any career she may hold any other purpose she may decide on is thrown away if she becomes pregnant. Because a women is only judged by her ability to give birth.
How many threads on abortion here where women have not been called names such as slut, evil, immoral, selfish and not capable of rational decisions. Most of the pro lifers here do fall into the category of having demonised women for their choices.
These arguments on abortion will always keep reappearing in america because women have never really been considered the equal of a man.
If you do not think america is all that anti women then ask yourself what are the chances of a woman becoming president.
I agree the basic problem is that our male population identifies heavily with conservative Christian unresolved issues with sex that lead to disrespect and denial of equality for women. ( They are still blaming Eve for their disobedience to God). But, one battle at a time. Opportunity without the ability to structure one's life and time to make use of it means there really isn't opportunity. Contraceptives that women control and abortion if they fail allow women to take advantage of opportunity instead of it slipping away because of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, birth, lactation and child raising are consuming all the woman's time.
As you say with opportunity so it is with choice. When a poor black woman in america who is single gets pregnant the only real choice she has is abortion. Or she faces a pregnancy without support, a condition that is more likely to kill her as it a white woman with finance. And that is just the pregnancy after the birth she is more than likely to see her child die of drugs, crime or cop. American women speak of pro choice but what choice does someone have without support.
You cannot win the battle on abortion until you have made progress on women's rights.
Any rational discussion of abortion is based on three indisputable facts:
Abortion is a medical procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
Abortion has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away
Women in need of abortion regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from getting the abortion.
Any discussion starts with those facts, abortion is not a complicated procedure to learn or perform, it will always be available and women will always get abortions if they need them. You can talk morals and ethics until your throat runs dry. They matter only to yourself. Those facts are historical, they have been proven true for millenniums, they are recorded history they have always overridden any religious, government, sect, group cultural or philosophical morality or ethics. There is only one question at the start of a discussion of abortion. Will it be legal or illegal. And it can only realistically be supported or refuted on that question: legal or illegal.
By anybody? Really? Sure, you can use a coat-hanger or throw yourself down the stairs, but that is not really an abortion. I do not think it is fair to call it "easy" or something that can be done by "anybody". It takes a professional, but I am not really sure why the level of difficulty of the procedure would be relevant at all.Any rational discussion of abortion is based on three indisputable facts:
Abortion is a medical procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
This is not even an argument. There are a lot of bad things that have "always existed" and if this is your moral case for abortion, anti-abortionists will have a very easy time to refute you. This too is completely irrelevant to the matter.Abortion has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away
Yet another poor case. Come on. As a defender of abortion you should be better!Women in need of abortion regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from getting the abortion.
Completely irrelevant. Emphasising this implies that you would not favour a woman's right to have an abortion had it been as complicated as rocket-science or if abortion was a modern phenomenon that emerged yesterday.Any discussion starts with those facts, abortion is not a complicated procedure to learn or perform, it will always be available and women will always get abortions if they need them.
Morals and ethics matter. The concept of individual rights are necessary for a society to function in a civilised way. If you want a barbaric society, you call for "subjective morals" and if you want a rational one, you point at objective morals.You can talk morals and ethics until your throat runs dry. They matter only to yourself. Those facts are historical, they have been proven true for millenniums, they are recorded history they have always overridden any religious, government, sect, group cultural or philosophical morality or ethics. There is only one question at the start of a discussion of abortion. Will it be legal or illegal. And it can only realistically be supported or refuted on that question: legal or illegal.
Any rational discussion of abortion is based on three indisputable facts:
Abortion is a medical procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
Abortion has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away
Women in need of abortion regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from getting the abortion.
Any discussion starts with those facts, abortion is not a complicated procedure to learn or perform, it will always be available and women will always get abortions if they need them. You can talk morals and ethics until your throat runs dry. They matter only to yourself. Those facts are historical, they have been proven true for millenniums, they are recorded history they have always overridden any religious, government, sect, group cultural or philosophical morality or ethics. There is only one question at the start of a discussion of abortion. Will it be legal or illegal. And it can only realistically be supported or refuted on that question: legal or illegal.
Shooting someone in the face is a procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
Murder has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away.
Men in need of getting rid of their children/wife/enemies regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from murdering their children.
So, your argument kinda sucks, and that's coming from someone who is pro-choice.
By anybody? Really? Sure, you can use a coat-hanger or throw yourself down the stairs, but that is not really an abortion. I do not think it is fair to call it "easy" or something that can be done by "anybody". It takes a professional, but I am not really sure why the level of difficulty of the procedure would be relevant at all.
This is not even an argument. There are a lot of bad things that have "always existed" and if this is your moral case for abortion, anti-abortionists will have a very easy time to refute you. This too is completely irrelevant to the matter.
Yet another poor case. Come on. As a defender of abortion you should be better!
The reason abortion should be legal is not down to "subjective preference", it is rather down to the universal and objective truth that is individual rights. Calling it "subjective" is handing your opponent a huge advantage.
Completely irrelevant. Emphasising this implies that you would not favour a woman's right to have an abortion had it been as complicated as rocket-science or if abortion was a modern phenomenon that emerged yesterday.
How hard and how old it is has nothing to do with anything.
Morals and ethics matter. The concept of individual rights are necessary for a society to function in a civilised way. If you want a barbaric society, you call for "subjective morals" and if you want a rational one, you point at objective morals.
A woman has the right to get an abortion because it is her body. Period.
The abortion threads on this site including this one, mostly all suffer the same problem of looking at the tree and not seeing the forest.
In this case you have left out the one vital , absolutely necessary element in an abortion discussion. Which is that of the place of women in society.
Some here make a big deal over the constitutional rights and claim the law is on their side. They give no consideration to the fact that the laws and interpretation of the constitution still in america, lean to a christian perspective. And the christian perspective is still that of women are second class people who should, by gods command, be obedient to men. That the purpose of a women is to birth children for their man. Any interests she may have, any career she may hold any other purpose she may decide on is thrown away if she becomes pregnant. Because a women is only judged by her ability to give birth.
How many threads on abortion here where women have not been called names such as slut, evil, immoral, selfish and not capable of rational decisions. Most of the pro lifers here do fall into the category of having demonised women for their choices.
These arguments on abortion will always keep reappearing in america because women have never really been considered the equal of a man.
I agree on all points. But I don't expect anyone on the pro-life side to admit to any of this publicly. They're far more likely to deny that such is the case.
They have to deny it otherwise their thinking just does not hold water. They are dependent on the idea that life is sacred, another religious viewpoint. It would seem that women's empowerment and christianity are two conflicting ideas.
Shooting someone in the face is a procedure that is easy to learn and easy to perform by almost anybody.
Murder has always existed and is not ever going to be forgotten or go away.
Men in need of getting rid of their children/wife/enemies regard that need a higher morality than anybody's ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, religion or punishments and they will not be restrained from murdering their children.
So, your argument kinda sucks, and that's coming from someone who is pro-choice.
Shooting a person is not a medical procedure.
A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Which is why keeping any discussion free from religious beliefs and opinions and focused only on facts that are indisputable and in disputable is a way for people with opposing views and beliefs to make progress toward regulation of abortion and prevents a regression into assignment of immorality to one side or the other.
And how is that working out so far?
They have to deny it otherwise their thinking just does not hold water. They are dependent on the idea that life is sacred, another religious viewpoint. It would seem that women's empowerment and christianity are two conflicting ideas.
Not well at all.Either Nobody can leave their own opinions and morals out of the discussion or they aren't really interested in making progress in how abortion is managed by the state. There's a third reason: I stated the OP so badly they haven't a clue what I meant so they can't respond.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?