Why Do You Post In The Abortion Threads?

[choiceone]

Yeah, or not.

At the risk of waxing Booth to your Bones .. you just carved out a whole class of conveniently disposable humans in your peer review. Did you really not get it or were you being cleverly opportunistic?

But hey, ya got me to read it again, all right?

And you know that part where you wrote "The problem for the pro-life side seems to be ..." where you're carving up a storm? What's completely missing in a middle ground response is also "The problem for the pro-choice side seems to be ...".

I mean, Hitler wrote the former about the Jewish people but omitted the latter about the Germanic people.

I stand by what I wrote.

I looked for an equal critique, I assure you, and I was not unaware of the imbalance. But in a couple of other parts of the book where he addresses the pro-life/pro-choice opposition, he repeatedly sees the two sides as making the opposition absolute so that it literally cannot be mediated because they do not address the underlying humanity issue - that is, that the dilemma is how do you respect equal capacity for soulful life and actual soulful life at the same time? He does not give an answer, by the way, but in a note, he seems to imply some middle position on his part.

 

[Bodi]

I post in the Abortion forum because I support the right to life of unborn babies that, many times, selfishly killed because the law has granted a women the "choice" to do so.

 

[choiceone]

And there you go again, creating a false dichotomy.



Either that or pro-choice wanted abortion on demand and didn't get it.

Your sheep's clothing does not at all disguise the wolf that continues to howl.



Anti-choice pro-lifers to the right of me, pro-abortion pro-choicers to the left, here I am, stuck in the middle without you.



And so?

That's the way the American system works.

And, one person's "outrageous" is another's "courageous".

Values are values, and when differing values are pitted against each other as opposed to mutually supported in a way both can get what they want .. I mean, what do you expect?

All evolutionary directions considered, Roe, Webster, et al were simply not a win -- they were merely a temporary stay of execution.

All honest pro-choicers will admit to it .. that is if they don't want to further self-inflict a discrediting oxymoron.



War is war. Are you looking for some kind of Geneva Convention intervention?

The number of times the left has engaged in illegal acts to create a win .. I mean, gravy, goose, gander, that whole thing.

But am I still hearing sour grapes for Florida in 2000? If so, can I jump on that bandwagon too?! My ox was .. gored .. then as well.



And making it really difficult for your side .. to do the same.

Aren't we off on a bit of a tangent here?

Or are you simply making my case for the value of a truly middleground approach to solving the topical matter.



"And the damn colonists, they hide behind trees and under bushes and in trenches, and here we are marching in straight lines like we're supposed to ...".

It's .. war.

And it comes complete with violations, Geneva, .. by both sides.



Wow .. .. I mean .. wow ...

A wing party falsely representing themselves.

Part underlying conspiracy, part urban myth, part backroom reality.

Who ya gonna believe?!

I, personally, recall 2004, where a number of Dems thought they really had a chance. But in the weeks nearer the election, Bush and the gang trotted out traditional marriage and pro-life congressional measures, and although expectedly defeated, their defeat at the hand of "the evil liberals" did its planned job of compelling his party animals to get off their lazy shoe-in asses and make darn sure the right remains in office.

Preaching to the choir's social issues merely to gain control of the offering plate is par for the course in both side's religiously zealous golf game.



Yep, to these devils, winning is everything ..


.. Which I can understand offends you halo-crowned less adept at the game.



Yeah, no matter whether they're citizens or not and/or can comprehend other than the "cheat sheet" you also hand them.

Look, I'm not condoning unethical behavior, I'm just saying, not only that you're not as innocent as you'd like to portray yourselves, just more subtle, but that when you insist on making the topically relevant matter a win-lose war scenario, these things are just "human naturally" bound to happen.

I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but in this post, you clearly reveal that you are not a moderate in the big independent center. I am an honest liberal - I say what I am. You disguise yourself, but now your right wing is showing right through your clothes.

And FYI, in the 2000 election, our oxen were not gored - they were bushed.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

When you said a few pages back that the man getting her pregnant on accident is a violation of her rights. Should I quote it?

The unwanted pregnancy is the violation. The sex is not.

And you said the cause of the harm is from the ZEF. Is that saying that cause doesn't matter? I don't think so. Care to be honest?

What I said is that the ZEF is the manifest threat to rights. Are you just going to keep skewing what I say?

I basically mean what you just said. Who came up with that and how is it constant with what you said earlier? Do you realize its not?

... I guess so. Why isn't it? I have said repeatedly the manifest threat to rights, or the actor (depending on what the threat is), can be innocent.

In the moment of threat, they can be acted against regardless of innocence to preserve the rights of the threatened in that moment. In the aftermath, when the threat has passed, their innocence ought to be taken into account when they are in the justice system. And it is - thus the insanity plea.

No, it means its a guarantee to services from others. Rights are not guarantees and they can not be in the form of other peoples service. Mandating a services does not make the violation of rights that is present disappear. Even by your own admission this would hold true. You do realize you just fell into my little trap right? Its obvious what is really going on, you want something, and the consent rule is just a tool you think you can use to get it. You don't obviously believe in it or you would show more consistently in using it. Thanks for falling into that trap. A bit of an easy target though.

WHY is it a guarantee of service? Because we have deemed it to be a right.

Rights are independent from guarantees, but when we as a society determine something to be a right, we often pass legislation attempting to guarantee that this right will be met. If the service fails to be provided, the person can pursue legal action. Because it is guaranteed. Because we collectively believe it is a right.

What are you even talking about?

Laws and consensus are attempts to honor rights on a mass scale. Rights are concepts based on desires - consent - which usually have something to do with protecting health and happiness. "I want to live" is a desire, isn't it? It's the desire upon which you can kill someone who poses significant threat to you, and be dismissed of charges. Based on a desire.

Of course I believe in it. I am just not irrational enough to pretend rights exist objectively in reality. Rights are basically our understanding of how best to maintain a healthy populace.

You really don't understand what you have been saying this entire time do you? Everything you said eluted to the origin of rights NOT being society, but you keep trying to connect it to the government, as if that makes much sense when you look at what you arguments actually mean. Do you understand you were asking for consistently at the start and now you are asking for a subjective state of rights where you can just pick and choose what is and isn't a right? Do you understand that in this case the only thing that is important is what the majority can push on you? Do you understand that makes you entire abortion argument here invalid? Like usual with "government created rights" people you don't.

Rights are social in nature. Consent is individual. Rights are the social acknowledgment of the importance of consent (and also general well-being and continuity) on a particular issue.

That is not exactly true. Like I said, the objective basis of rights is in our collective interest as social mammals. These are imperatives to our survival as a species.

But here's the thing about abortion, and all other issues of bodily sovereignty. Consent - the individual level of rights - is nearly absolute. Because it is that person's body, nothing short of physically restraining them can stop them from exercising it. It is the simplest, most fundamental building block of all other rights. And even those who don't believe other people should have it (which is most people, in some way or another) exercise it daily. It is a truth about what we are.

We agree by action in personal sovereignty. We also mostly agree philosophically. We don't always agree in particulars, but that has never stopped anyone. Humans agree by mass action in personal sovereignty, even though they don't want anyone else to have it.

Government is not the only level of society. It is one. Mass action - ubiquitous human behaviors - is another. Abortion is one. It has been practiced by humans (and a couple other animals as well) since the beginning of time. And even some of those who would deny other people's right to do it, will sometimes do it themselves.

Being against abortion has never been able to garner anything more than lip service. We still agree socially, by mass action without interruption for millenia, that abortion is a right.

No we haven't. Do you actually think the a majority can make work a right? Is that really constant with what you said earlier? Its not...

Well, by definition work exists within the framework of society. Whether or not it is GOVERNMENT doing it is irrelevant.

Police, courts, etc are not rights but things we use to uphold justice.

And justice is...?

So all the people that supply it agreed? Really? Or do you think that you want for care actually makes that care happen or do you think that 51% actually equals 100%? Just wondering. Oh right, you can violate the consent rule because its all of sudden subjective when it clearly wasn't five minutes ago.

No. But I also think it should be easier to revoke and change citizenship to move someplace where you are better suited. So, I actually don't think it should be violated.

Right are objective. I have went over why. Should I quote it?

How, exactly? You disagree with some of the things most people think are rights. What makes you right and them wrong?

You said consent was what rights are based on then acted like consistently was important. Funny how its not now.

So the idea that destruction is harmful and should be avoided at all costs which you have connected to nature itself, which is nonsense but you were and are unaware of why, is not what you were saying? Interesting.. You really should catch on why your argument is just a match of mine besides the nature can violate your rights argument at some point, right? I'll wait..

Without consent, there isn't any basis for rights. If no one desires anything - up to and including their lives - what is the purpose of rights? If no one cares what is done to them, then why is it bad to do anything to them?

 

[choiceone]

I also can't feel the 'sensation' of breast cancer, but that doesn't stop me from having a political opinion there.

I wouldn't expect women to be able to feel the 'sensation' of a vasectomy in order to use their power to vote on the issue, either.

Actually, though you may not be able to feel the 'sensation' of breast cancer, you should be able to be very sympathetic to those who have it because men can get it, too (yes, men have breasts, just not very large ones).

 

[JayDubya]

It is not an offspring until it has sprung off and out of her body. You cannot recognize a right to life for the ZEF without recognizing also a right for it to be inside her, eat her food, suck the oxygen out of her, disable her immune system and leave her open to viruses and infections, and break parts of her body. That is more rights than the right to life. Those would have to be rights to liberty that no one else has. You are completely crazy.

Pregnancy is not a disease. A child is not a punishment. A child (or - before you get hung up on a technicality - the Homo sapiens in utero at some age classification between zygote and fetus) is not a parasite.

Also, learn what words mean before you correct anyone, thanks. "Offspring" is a biologically valid, age-neutral term.


So no, the same rights as anyone else... to be free from the infliction of wanton and lethal violence.

 

[nota bene]

Uh...ever heard of "LAW"...because it says you are totally wrong.

But hey...why pay attention to reality, it kinda sux.

I guess I'm pretty uninformed then. Please direct me to the law that defines someone in a persistent vegetative state as no longer human. TIA.

 

[choiceone]

Roe stipulates that subsequent Webster's viability nevertheless still includes by artificial means.

Thus once such artificial means -- yeah okay, artificial wombs, whatever's coming down the pike, doesn't matter -- are in existence, their very presence will function as a viability-based deterrent to abortion on demand for all ZEFS at that age or older.

Sure, the assumption is that such technology really works, meaning, yes, gotta be able to extract the ZEF alive and all -- it's all part of the medical advancements package.

Roe, Webster, none of them, however, qualify with "viability is contingent upon being able to remove the ZEF without taking a part of the mother's tissue", as not taking part of the mother's tissue is virtually impossible, blood and guts being what they are. Not an issue.

And, thus, no, this "sort" of viability would be viability .. and thus would most certainly win in court under Roe and Webster.

Remember, viability is based on the proven ability to survive outside the womb with or without artificial means. That's what guides the general assignment of number of weeks along in development to assign the viability age.

Once it is proven said age is now at E level, let's say, that's not going to cause or force a ton of use of E-relevant artificial means extractions ..

.. That's simply going to function as a legal deterrent to abortion on demand of Es.



Yes, obviously .. so you might want to ask a mod to remove your selection of poll-option #1.



And such is hardly a core value of your adversary.

And, your phrase "'some' of them" is more accurately "'a teeny tiny percentage' of them".

When you focus on extremes like that, there's often some kind of "if you spot it, you got it" thing going on .



Though in a post in the other thread you posited otherwise, that you were hopeful science would soon relieve women from ever having to be pregnant (you know, option #27 of the poll-response list that you did indeed select!), thus indeed dispensing with female bodies for pregnancy.

Breakthroughs are often right around the corner. I mean, after all, we can indeed conceive in the lab. The rest is sure to follow.

Regardless, Roe, Webster, et all will allow it as a determiner of viability age.

Thus, maybe in the not too distant future abortion on demand presently allowed only under viability age .. will legally cease to exist, without any future "attacks" on Roe+.

Talk about pro-"choice"! It really is your choice to choose that medical advancements in womb technology first (not recommended) or to choose new conception-prevent birth control "pills" (highly recommended).

Either way, these changes are, all things considered, inevitable.

Languishing in the back-patting here and now is foolish.



When an F is born, whether thru C-sec or vaginal, regardless of plus or minus nine months, it must then "eat".

How it is fed by its mother, is still, under law, a requirement of non-neglect parenting.

Again, medical science advancements will cover all this.

What's important is that, when such technology exists to push the viability age back, abortion on demand now restricted will become even more restricted and less frequent.

That's the truth that needs to come out here.

We don't want to be caught socialy unaware and unprepared when that happens.



Well, you may indeed come to interpret it that way.

But Roe and Webster and the like, they don't "Mein Kampf" it that way.

The very fact that you keep referring to Mein Kampf suggests that you really want people to know how familiar to you the Nazi ideology is.

FYI, on different posts, I may well be thinking in shorter or longer terms, just like anyone. I do think that the artificial womb thing will be presented as a court challenge in time. If I'm not deeply worried, and I'm not, it's because I have so much faith in the pro-choice view as more impartial than the pro-life view that I do not believe more and more understanding of impartial truth will take away a woman's right to choose. I honestly believe, and at my age, that only untruth and partial truth could ever challenge that right. Every time a serious challenge of that right has occurred in my adult lifetime, some new scientific breakthrough or some other legal aid has been revealed, as if to show that the right to choose will always triumph in one form or another - that the specific form can be replaced with a better one, that even if it appears dead it will rise from the grave.

 

[Peter King]

I also can't feel the 'sensation' of breast cancer, but that doesn't stop me from having a political opinion there.

I wouldn't expect women to be able to feel the 'sensation' of a vasectomy in order to use their power to vote on the issue, either.

How exactly would one have a political opinion on breast cancer?

Women get breast cancer, men get testicular cancer.

Women get their tubes tied, men get their spermlines clipped.

Women get ovarian cancer, men get prostate cancer.

Women get cancer of the vulva and the vagina, men get cancer in the penis.

And because women have more reproductive specific organs they Choriocarcinoma and cancer of the cervix and the uterus.

So we both get gender specific cancers but according to me, cancer remains cancer.

But men are not able to become pregnant. Men can walk away from their children and make do with child-support, he might be called a bad father or a player but that is about it from what I have read/seen/experienced. But it is not that common for a woman to walk away from her children.

People here talk about biology all the time, but IMHO, there is something real about maternal instict that does not exist in paternal instict. I think it is a difference between natural instict (maternal) and learned instict (paternal). Men can love their children just as much as woman but he has not given birth to them, breastfed them, carried them in her body for 9 months, suffered discomfort and the hormonal rollercoaster that pregnancies cause. Fathers may have the same emotional connection as women have with their children but they do not have the natural bond with their children that is named pregnancy.

The sensation of pregnancy is something men do not know. Now, that does not disqualify them from having an opinion on it but when push comes to shove, it is not their bodies that they are deciding about but someone elses.

 

[choiceone]

I was clearly presenting a valid refutation to your attempted denial of the true nature and real existence of your polarized adversary: pro-life.

I know you want to imagine pro-life's not what it is and is entirely something else altogether different .. so that's probably why you "have no idea".



"Well, Bones, you know, it's like "sophism" "sophismistic -- see, I made up a new word! Pretty cool, huh!"

"Oh .. well, it still doesn't make any sense as its not an acceptable reference according to ..."

"Uh, Bones, you, uh, left off the apostrophe in "it's".

"I know .. I was just testing you to see if you possessed acceptable knowledge of accurate punctuation."

"And did I pass?"

"Yes, Booth, you passed, with full colors."

"That's flying colors, Bones -- I passed with 'flying colors'."

The subjective truth is, I don't like "sophismistic," on an aesthetic basis (trust me, I am so much more like Angela). However, I do like "denialistic" very much. You deserve appreciation for it. I do not like to correct people's grammar and punctuation here, because we all do it, and I only correct misspellings when it's important (e.g., law students or lawyers misspelling words commonly used in law).


Yeah, but how do you really feel?!

Okay, if you haven't already done so, you really need to have a mod remove poll-response option #1 from your list.

Yep.

I especially like your portrayal of pro-lifers as "cheap, cheating, vulgar, ignorant materialists with a pathological fear of death" -- that should help with the #1 removal.

Actually, your encasing of pro-lifers in quotes implies you're talking about something else altogether, but it's fun sometimes here to just play along.

Oh, like Jesus didn't know where He was headed post-mortem!?

Wow ...

Okay, everyone, no peace table banquets for the Xena the Warrior Princesses -- you all will have to eat in the mess hall just above the dungeon.

But, just to be clear, pro-lifer's values are not what you erroneously imply, any more than pro-choicers are all about killing.

Pro-lifers value the right to life and rightful respect of it, and they see prenatals accurately as being living human organisms in that human's earliest age and development, and they value telling the truth about what it is and in preventing the needless unjustified taking of that life. They thereby reflect the values of society in general as being opposed to criminal-like acts against the life of another.

Their values lead to their abortion-issue tenet goal of making abortion rare.

I'm not arguing with all this. I'm just a person from a time when the right to personal liberty was genuinely valued and women stood up for their own rights. If younger US women don't want to defend their rights, they may lose legal recognition of them, just not by me. And the truth is, I'm not worried about where I will go post-mortem. I just want to finish my research project before leaving. The world will belong to others then. If they are so poorly educated in liberty that they lose it, maybe the intelligent will just emigrate instead.

 

[Peter King]

I'm more interested in living in a world where children don't starve to death, infants aren't abused by their caregivers and the young females aren't sold off as sex slaves so the family can make ends meet. . . I'd prefer all these things take the focus.

If we had a forum for 'child abuse' instead of 'abortion' - it would be rarely posted in.

maybe the world would be a better place if the whole of mankind started doing things for the good of the children who are already living in our world rather than worrying so much about non-viable life inside of women.

And I am not saying that pro-lifers do not care about actual children but it is as a dutch comedic once said:

Well, just the other day I got smacked around the head! My god, it was like a slap in the face! And what does the government do? Nothing, there is only the society for the protection of the unborn child. Sometimes I wish I would have never been born, I would at least still be protected. But once your born there is nothing for children.

 

[Peter King]

When science reaches the point that a ZEF can be safely transferred to an "artificial"or host womb a woman could volunteer that the ZEF be removed and place in the artificial or host womb.
I think Roe vs. Wade would not need to be challenged or changed.

Her body, her choice.

Maybe women scientist can invent a male substitute uterus so that men can carry the child for 9 months and also have all the hormonal issues that women normally do. I might be cynical but I doubt any company would be interested in such an invention because a lot of men would not voluntarily sign up for such a device/investion.

 

[choiceone]

How exactly would one have a political opinion on breast cancer?

Women get breast cancer, men get testicular cancer.

Women get their tubes tied, men get their spermlines clipped.

Women get ovarian cancer, men get prostate cancer.

Women get cancer of the vulva and the vagina, men get cancer in the penis.

And because women have more reproductive specific organs they Choriocarcinoma and cancer of the cervix and the uterus.

So we both get gender specific cancers but according to me, cancer remains cancer.

But men are not able to become pregnant. Men can walk away from their children and make do with child-support, he might be called a bad father or a player but that is about it from what I have read/seen/experienced. But it is not that common for a woman to walk away from her children.

People here talk about biology all the time, but IMHO, there is something real about maternal instict that does not exist in paternal instict. I think it is a difference between natural instict (maternal) and learned instict (paternal). Men can love their children just as much as woman but he has not given birth to them, breastfed them, carried them in her body for 9 months, suffered discomfort and the hormonal rollercoaster that pregnancies cause. Fathers may have the same emotional connection as women have with their children but they do not have the natural bond with their children that is named pregnancy.

The sensation of pregnancy is something men do not know. Now, that does not disqualify them from having an opinion on it but when push comes to shove, it is not their bodies that they are deciding about but someone elses.

I repeat. Men can get breast cancer. Men, too, have breasts.

I repeat. Though I have never been pregnant, I strangely find that I am able to empathize with women who are, whether they wanted to be pregnant or want to get unpregnant.

 

[Henrin]

The unwanted pregnancy is the violation. The sex is not.

And what triggered that? The sex. What were the actions of the ZEF triggered by? Chemicals by the woman. So what is actually going on? Nature. Or if you don't accept this is all nature, it would be the womans reactions that made it all occur when the proper conditions came into play. What do you we call that? Oh right, nature. So did the woman violate her own rights by nature taking its actions or did no right violations occur? I can't really believe I had to go all the way through it and I bet you still are going to deny it. The fact is, nature can't violate the rights of people. Its impossible.

What I said is that the ZEF is the manifest threat to rights. Are you just going to keep skewing what I say?

Oh so its just a manifest of the threat? I don't remember you saying it was the manifest threat to rights. I remember you saying nature violated your rights that the zef was the active player involved in such violation. Are your changing the story now?

... I guess so. Why isn't it? I have said repeatedly the manifest threat to rights, or the actor (depending on what the threat is), can be innocent.

In the moment of threat, they can be acted against regardless of innocence to preserve the rights of the threatened in that moment. In the aftermath, when the threat has passed, their innocence ought to be taken into account when they are in the justice system. And it is - thus the insanity plea.

If they are innocent how can they violate your rights? There is a difference between being unaware of your actions and being innocent. In the example you gave she was NOT innocent. She was still guilty of violating the rights of the other party, but was simply let off. Letting someone off for lack of understanding does not imply the action is changed.

WHY is it a guarantee of service? Because we have deemed it to be a right.

Can they deny you their service? Can they deny their work? The answer is no.

Rights are independent from guarantees,

And yet you just made a guarantee and called it a right.

but when we as a society determine something to be a right, we often pass legislation attempting to guarantee that this right will be met.

Do we? Tell me, when I say murder is illegal because it is human life do I guarantee life?

If the service fails to be provided, the person can pursue legal action. Because it is guaranteed. Because we collectively believe it is a right.

Rights are independent from guarantees,

You failed to stay constant in the SAME post. Really?

What are you even talking about?

Your consent rule which you freely violate right and left.

Laws and consensus are attempts to honor rights on a mass scale.

Laws can be and consensus can very well be for the violation of rights of people. Ever hear of slavery or how about white only restrooms? Any of that ring a bell? So how did they do there?

Rights are concepts based on desires - consent - which usually have something to do with protecting health and happiness.

Rights are concept at least in part based on consent, like I said earlier. Someone here isn't following what they preach and it sure isn't me.

"I want to live" is a desire, isn't it? It's the desire upon which you can kill someone who poses significant threat to you, and be dismissed of charges. Based on a desire.

Self defense is yes. Does that matter to the larger point of your inconstantly? No.

Of course I believe in it. I am just not irrational enough to pretend rights exist objectively in reality. Rights are basically our understanding of how best to maintain a healthy populace.

Are they? Or are they built on the foundation of acceptance, lack of destruction and liberty, and only merely supported by the idea of consent as it extends the liberty outlet? Health is actually secondary because it needs to still obey but the list I put out. Does healthCARE provided by individuals with the use of taxpayer dollars actually do so, OR does it actually violate all of them? Tell me, when you force someone to provide you with healthcare, does it?

Rights are social in nature.

Depended on what you mean by social, but that can be true and it can't be true depending on what you mean by that word.

Consent is individual. Rights are the social acknowledgment of the importance of consent (and also general well-being and continuity) on a particular issue.

Why do you keep using the word consent? You clearly don't have a clue what it means.

That is not exactly true. Like I said, the objective basis of rights is in our collective interest as social mammals.
These are imperatives to our survival as a species.

As a species? Are rights collective or our they individual? Are rights given to the individual or our they given to the group? The individual. The group has nothing to do with anything. Here is another question: Was society created to further the interest of the individual or was it created to further the interest of the individual? The individual. So tell me, where exactly does what you said come into play?

But here's the thing about abortion, and all other issues of bodily sovereignty. Consent - the individual level of rights - is nearly absolute. Because it is that person's body, nothing short of physically restraining them can stop them from exercising it. It is the simplest, most fundamental building block of all other rights. And even those who don't believe other people should have it (which is most people, in some way or another) exercise it daily. It is a truth about what we are.

You know my view on body sovereignty as we have agreed on it in many threads outside of this issue. There is a vast difference between having control over your body alone and having control over two or more bodies with the use of your body. I will agree that the government stopping it in this case is not realistic, but then I have already admitted it not long ago.

We agree by action in personal sovereignty. We also mostly agree philosophically. We don't always agree in particulars, but that has never stopped anyone. Humans agree by mass action in personal sovereignty, even though they don't want anyone else to have it.

This issue isn't about body sovereignty.

Government is not the only level of society. It is one. Mass action - ubiquitous human behaviors - is another. Abortion is one. It has been practiced by humans (and a couple other animals as well) since the beginning of time. And even some of those who would deny other people's right to do it, will sometimes do it themselves.

I know, thanks.

Being against abortion has never been able to garner anything more than lip service. We still agree socially, by mass action without interruption for millenia, that abortion is a right.

Agreement and being actually correct are not the same thing. Do you know why science is key here? Could it be that this right is actually based on what science is describing and all you are doing is deciding what to protect? Could that actually be it? No, that is silly, right? I wonder why science would be a factor if there is nothing there? Hmm...can you tell me?

Well, by definition work exists within the framework of society. Whether or not it is GOVERNMENT doing it is irrelevant.

I wasn't simply talking about government work, but all work. Do you have a right to others work? Yes or no? Is it NOT a violation of your consent rule? Yes or no?

And justice is...?

The action taken by government to uphold law. Does that make it a right? Nope.

No. But I also think it should be easier to revoke and change citizenship to move someplace where you are better suited. So, I actually don't think it should be violated.

So you can violate the rights of people and when you do they can just move? Wonderful solution you have there.

How, exactly? You disagree with some of the things most people think are rights. What makes you right and them wrong?

I have already went through it.

Without consent, there isn't any basis for rights. If no one desires anything - up to and including their lives - what is the purpose of rights? If no one cares what is done to them, then why is it bad to do anything to them?

Already done.

 

[Peter King]

Actually, though you may not be able to feel the 'sensation' of breast cancer, you should be able to be very sympathetic to those who have it because men can get it, too (yes, men have breasts, just not very large ones).

unfortunately, when someone is as obese as I am, they are not that small :3oops:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

*sigh*

Henrin - I will not continue to repeat myself as you feign incredible levels of density, or point out the dreckish stupidity of you quoting one part of a sentence, removing it from the context of the words directly surrounding it, and then going "AH-HAH!" You're being intellectually dishonest, it's getting boring, and anyone who cares to read can see it anyway.

 

[Bodi]

unfortunately, when someone is as obese as I am, they are not that small :3oops:

Hopefully you are able to lose some weight and live a healthy life...

 

[AGENT J]

Pregnancy is not a disease. A child is not a punishment. A child (or - before you get hung up on a technicality - the Homo sapiens in utero at some age classification between zygote and fetus) is not a parasite.

Also, learn what words mean before you correct anyone, thanks. "Offspring" is a biologically valid, age-neutral term.


So no, the same rights as anyone else... to be free from the infliction of wanton and lethal violence.

always funny when people claim their opinion as facts. Even more funny is when they are telling someone else to learn what words mean LMAO

 

[AGENT J]

*sigh*

Henrin - I will not continue to repeat myself as you feign incredible levels of density, or point out the dreckish stupidity of you quoting one part of a sentence, removing it from the context of the words directly surrounding it, and then going "AH-HAH!" You're being intellectually dishonest, it's getting boring, and anyone who cares to read can see it anyway.

this is common place for him, this along with simply making stuff up, lying and not backing up false claims is very much his mo. Ive tried many times to get him to simply express his opinion and acknowledge its only an opinion but he wont. I have also asked him to back up his false claims in the past and its only meant with dishonesty, dodging of questions or uncivil failed insults. Its pretty humorous.

 

[JayDubya]

always funny when people claim their opinion as facts. Even more funny is when they are telling someone else to learn what words mean LMAO

Suddenly, it smells like troll farts in here... Can't imagine why.

 

[AGENT J]

Suddenly, it smells like troll farts in here... Can't imagine why.

your failed insult doesnt change the fact that you posted an opinion, tried falsely selling it as fact while correcting someone else for doing the same thing :laughat:

 

[Jerry]

No. I said they'd taken on board the feelings and concerns of women.

Then pro-life men are justified through 'taking on the feelings and concerns of [pro-life] women'. Problem solved.

Medicine has little or nothing to do with emotional and psychological experiences. Even so, once again, understanding the specific feeling is unnecessary to respecting and acknowledging it.

Understanding the specific feeling is unnecessary to respecting and acknowledging the unborn.

Um. Glad to know your take on linguistics? However incorrect it may be. What does this have to do with anything?

And actually I am not adding to my statement. This has been my stance, and I have explained it as such, throughout the entirety of the thread.

I got you to equivocate twice in this post alone; it shows that you don't actually believe what you say.

No, I don't think other people should be able to prevent someone from maintaining their bodily sovereignty.

Then abortion *has* to become illegal, otherwise women are violating someone else's body.

Some men believe that - that since they can't understand they can't have any stance on abortion.

Quite a few men have stances on abortion, vote, send money, protest and otherwise support the issue on both sides. There's nothing you can do about it. We're all citizens and voters with the Constitutional right to be as active in any matter of public policy we choose.

If you don't like men having a say on abortion, don't be a man with an opinion on abortion.

I don't think being unable to understand it directly necessarily means you can't have a position on it. It just means your position should rely heavily upon the input of the people it's actually affecting.

Abortion effects both men and woman. I know this first hand.

Why is it any different to primarily consult the pertinent population - women - when discussing abortion?

Ok here's the thing: A lot of us have been on this site for a long time. Over the years we've already talked to hundreds of women on both sides and have examined the entire gambit of positions from women. You think we're as new to this as you are because, well, you're new and don't know how the abortion forum just recycles it's topics frequently. Additionally, you don't ever bother to find out how we relate to abortion in the real world, if we've had relatives involved, spouses, etc. You just log-in and start making blanket statements as though no one has any experience with this issue at all.

 

[Henrin]

*sigh*

Henrin - I will not continue to repeat myself as you feign incredible levels of density,

How am I being dense? Lets go through what you did in no real order...

• you stated that rights are violated by nature itself
• you stated that anything can violate someone rights
• you stated that an innocent actor does not change the right of the person being imposed upon to preserve their rights.
• you stated peoples actions like your friend are different because they are mentally ill. Claiming that she violated the rights of the individual but justice doesn't call for the same action as if the right violation was different when it was not.
• you stated that the fetus is violating the rights of the woman
• you stated that the man that gets a woman pregnant on accident is violating her rights
• you stated that intent doesn't matter. I agreed.
• you denied you ever said that the man violated her rights by accidentally getting her pregnant.
• you stated that consent is the base of rights
• you were unaware consent was breached when you made healthcare a right.
• you stated that consent is just a desire in hopes to disvalue consent when caught.
• you stated that rights are the decision of the collective
• you stated that rights are given to collective after you spent all this time talking about individual rights. You were however unaware of it.
• When caught about consent you downed play it as if it was only connected to what you wished and not where you were caught
• You made a natural rights objective argument with the consent argument and instead of realizing it you continued to try to attach it to the government and later like I listed above turned it into subjective argument. Making your entire abortion argument invalid
• AND ABOVE ALL ELSE..You were NEVER able to support why chemical reactions that happen with no input by any party involved is the action of the zef like you claimed over and over again.
• When this was caught you decided that you never said anything of the sort and in fact you didn't do anything like that at all.

Is that about right?

or point out the dreckish stupidity of you quoting one part of a sentence, removing it from the context of the words directly surrounding it, and then going "AH-HAH!"

Where did I do that?

You're being intellectually dishonest, it's getting boring, and anyone who cares to read can see it anyway.

Dishonest? Where was I dishonest? Can you show where I was dishonest?

 

[Peter King]

Hopefully you are able to lose some weight and live a healthy life...

This year I am going to have a stomach sleeve operation to help me do that.

 

[Jerry]

How exactly would one have a political opinion on breast cancer?

You form one, and then express it, same as any other position about anything.

But men are not able to become pregnant.

Doesn't matter. Elective abortion is the act of violating another's rights without justification. I'm not gay and will never marry a man, that doesn't mean I can't stand up for gays where their rights are being violated.

Men can walk away from their children and make do with child-support, he might be called a bad father or a player but that is about it from what I have read/seen/experienced. But it is not that common for a woman to walk away from her children.

Even if this were true: so?

People here talk about biology all the time, but IMHO, there is something real about maternal instict that does not exist in paternal instict. I think it is a difference between natural instict (maternal) and learned instict (paternal). Men can love their children just as much as woman but he has not given birth to them, breastfed them, carried them in her body for 9 months, suffered discomfort and the hormonal rollercoaster that pregnancies cause. Fathers may have the same emotional connection as women have with their children but they do not have the natural bond with their children that is named pregnancy.

Men aren't mothers and women aren't fathers. Again I ask: so?

The sensation of pregnancy is something men do not know.

A dick in my ass is also a 'sensation' I don't know, that doesn't stop me from supporting gays serving openly in the military.

Now, that does not disqualify them from having an opinion on it but when push comes to shove, it is not their bodies that they are deciding about but someone elses.

It's not her body. It's the child's body. It's not the woman, it's another person. I don't need to own a slave to say owning a person as property is wrong.