Because I assumed by your avatar that you were probably in the military.
The problem with the pro-life movement is that it has always aspired to use punishment instead of honey to achieve its goals. Furthermore, there is an absence of focus on the behavior of men! So it leads me to doubt their stated motivations- which seems to lean in to control- of women..
In the context of what I wrote, I'm not understanding your distinction. I see their choices the same based on what I wrote.
To reply to the actual O.P., I would say that women never have total bodily autonomy, so ... but no one has total bodily autonomy. No one is totally free. Humans are a collection of cells from other organisms. Our behavior is predicated on genes but also epigenetic, hormones, economic circumstances, cultural demands and expectations, parents, husbands. And so forth. We do not really have free will, I.M.O. We ,Americans, grow up in our extremely violent cultures which transmits to women that our bodies are valued , not our brains. The value of children?- our politics does not suggest we value mothers and children. MAGA supporters apparently believed it was fine to separate children from parents. Many of our "faith leaders" have betrayed women and children.Nope. Not a pacifist, either, if that's where you are going with it. There are times where others' decisions make violence against them justifiable.
Ok, I did not see that series . Actually thought it might be a character from McHale's NavyYou assumed from a picture of the main character of the BBC adaptation of the Terry Pratchett fantasy novel Going Postal (in which a captured con man has to run a post office as his punishment) that I was in the military?
How, exactly, does that work?
Sorry, I am not following. Obviously, these threads are not designed to convince anyone. I don't know you from Adam. Just trying to figure out what is the basis of your philosophy. Your posts are typically thoughtful - hence my questions.Respectfully, that is a projection of the antithesis of your own motives onto people who support the antithesis of your means. Would you say that what motivates your position here is your desire to kill babies?
It's the difference between "this child has downs syndrome, so, abort it, specifically" and "black people are more likely to produce violent children, so, abort black babies"
.....Ok, I did not see that series . Actually thought it might be a character from McHale's Navy
Sorry, I am not following. Obviously, these threads are not designed to convince anyone. I don't know you from Adam. Just trying to figure out what is the basis of your philosophy. Your posts are typically thoughtful - hence my questions.
I don't equate an embryo with a baby
Not at all. My example would be, a couple who knows they have Huntingdon's Disease in their family and accidentally get pregnant. That woman should have no obstacles to deciding to abort that unborn.
In this example, it is, at all. That was the argument given (Aborting the children of [category of people] is justified because [category of people] are more likely to have violent children), and, the poster even acknowledged the eugenics flavor it carried.
I didnt really focus on that specifically, but I did provide an answer. A direct answer to that, except for the woman as an individual, and a decision on an individual basis. So no, not as a category as you mention.
I would agree with that assessment, and find the defenses of abortion that either explicitly state or seem to run right up adjacent to that argument particularly abhorrent.I didnt realize that there was a movement, or even suggestion, that society should incentivize black women to abort...as a reality, that seems rather far afield. It dehumanizes black women.
I was responding to choice one's argumentif you wish to make a separate argument, that is fine, but, it doesn't transmogrify her motte into your bailey.
I would agree with that assessment, and find the defenses of abortion that either explicitly state or seem to run right up adjacent to that argument particularly abhorrent.
Not answer what? That was your seperate argument for abortion, which was not the particular argument regarding the value-less nature of children who are potentially going to be more violent that choice one was advancing.Did the 2nd part of my post, which you removed, not answer it?
Not answer what? That was your seperate argument for abortion, which was not the particular argument regarding the value-less nature of children who are potentially going to be more violent that choice one was advancing.
Off topic, but: I may have to print and frame your post......
.....
.... Okay. Okay. Um, if ever someone in these forums could succeed - if ever we could have a conversation that is, potentially, life changing, please, if you enjoy humor or fantasy writing at all, please, for the love of God, or Mithra, or Ice Cream, or whatever your highest value is, please, go pick up Terry Pratchett.
You don't have to take it from some random dude on a forum - go check out the fan pages, the reviews, but, for reals.
The good opinion of those with whom one disagrees is the hardest to get, and hence the most valued. Thank you.
The point I was trying to make was that we have to distinguish between someone opposing our means, and someone opposing our motives.
In this debate, generally, (you get the population-control eugenicist folks, and, the others side tries to make them representative, but, they aren't) Pro Choice advocates are driven by a motivation that could be roughly summed up as "liberty and autonomy for women". Because, like you, they generally hold the position that:
... they see "protect access to abortion" as a means of achieving their motive "liberty and autonomy for women".
Pro Life advocates, generally (you get your would-be cranks out there, and, the other side tries to make them representative, but they aren't) are motivated by a sentiment that could be roughly summed up as "protect innocent life".
Because they generally hold the position that unborn children are children, they see "limit abortion to only that which is necessary to protect innocent life" as a means of achieving their motive.
It is a very human failing, however, to assume that those who oppose our means must oppose our ends. So, some in the Pro Life side will occasionally accuse Pro Choicers of opposing their motive of "protect innocent life" by accusing them of wanting to kill babies, or being "actually" "pro abortion".
This is bad reasoning, because it projects Pro Life beliefs ("an unborn baby is a human child", "limiting abortion to only that which is necessary protects innocent life") onto Pro Choicers, and it's a bad argument, because it's an ad hominem: "My opponent's arguments about the nature of the embryo/fetus are irrelevant because their motives are bad."
Pro Choicers will often do the same thing: projecting their underlying beliefs ("an embryo is not a child", "protecting access to abortion is how we can protect the liberty and autonomy of women") onto Pro Lifers, and accusing them of the opposite of the Pro Choice motive ("They want to control women") for pursuing the opposite of the Pro Choice means ("protect access to abortion").
But, that is just as bad an argument as the "pro killing babies" accusation, and for the same reason. :-/
No, being anti-abortion is not like being an anti-slavery person. An embryo/fetus is not at all like a slave, because it doesn't function for anyone's benefit.The example you gave was indeed a horrific one, but the specific horror of a mentally damaged child that grows into someone who threatens others is one that can occur equally from pregnancies that are wanted. The value of a child is not determined by a hypothetical about what they might do, any more than the value of a woman is. No child, and no woman, is worthless.
It's about like being an anti slavery person pre 1861.You believe there is an entire class of people being horrifically abused in our country, and are almost powerless to stop it.
I was raised as a Protestant Christian, went to Sunday school, sang in the choir, and was confirmed. At about 14? when I read about Sherri Finkbine's having to go to Sweden to get an abortion of a pregnancy with a thalidomide deformed fetus, I was horrified that there were any anti-abortion laws.Off topic, but: I may have to print and frame your post.
I think there was a bit more goodwill on this site between people who disagree 10 years ago- but perhaps my memory fails me! For that matter, the category of discussion that seems to be missing here (and what interests me most) is political philosophy. A person's view of the 'good life' informs every other point of view. My philosophy of life springs from Stoic and Buddhist philosophies. There is no likelihood that I will find much common ground with (for example) a fundamentalist Christian, but if some people find peace and fulfillment through faith, I am happy to hear more about it. That seems the best starting point for people to respectfully disagree. I would like to know WHY people believe what they do.
The fetal cells don't begin to be transferred into her blood until some weeks after implantation, but that is one of the best reasons for getting an abortion at the earliest possible moment if you don't want them in your blood - because it won't live on. And that is also a reason why cremation is better than burial when you pop off.More than that. No surprise that men have always tried to control women's reproduction.
A woman carries within her body the entire family tree including the cells of every fetus she has ever carried.
In that respect, even an aborted fetus lives on.
In the particular example - which you do not note - it is that:As I understand it, @choiceone's argument isn't "cull the mentally defective", it's "cull those who may have a greater chance of being mentally defective".
You keep assuming the embryo or fetus is a child, so you think you are saying something persuasive, but for me, a fetus with Down syndrome is not a child: it's a fetus, an incomplete body being made for a future child. If you choose to continue making it, you will stick a future child with it, so that the child will have to have that particular body all its life. Whereas, if you abort that pregnancy and later make a better body for a future child, that future child will get a better body for its life.It's the difference between "this child has downs syndrome, so, abort it, specifically" and "black people are more likely to produce violent children, so, abort black babies"
You keep assuming the embryo or fetus is a child, so you think you are saying something persuasive, but for me, a fetus with Down syndrome is not a child: it's a fetus, an incomplete body being made for a future child. If you choose to continue making it, you will stick a future child with it, so that the child will have to have that particular body all its life. Whereas, if you abort that pregnancy and later make a better body for a future child, that future child will get a better body for its life.
The "black" example is different, because being black has nothing to do with being more likely to produce violent children, whereas being a violent rapist does have to do with being more likely to produce violent children - but so are specifics act of rape itself more likely to produce them.
Yes, this is the basic point on which anti-choicers are stuck. They think that the sperm fertilizing the ovum makes a baby, a child, and the woman does nothing but caretake it. The fact that gestation alone can grow the embryo into a child seems beyond their comprehension. It reminds me of the old-fashioned expression "He gave her a baby" for "He made her pregnant."Well said. Please see my post 991 which concurs.
He does not make a distinction between unborn and 'child,' but then I wonder if he makes a distinction between child and adult? What would the distinction be? Height?
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?