Abortion

Eugenius said:
Seriously stop hiding behind the word bizarre when I'm just trying to engage you with actual logic and it's quite evident you have no intention of actually being self-critical.

Your argument that because it says so in the law is completely circular. There are term limits on abortion (at least in the UK) which limit when you can get an abortion for non medical reasons. In many countries abortion is illegal outright, or heavily restricted.
Click to expand...
That’s all well & good, but your puerile statement of ‘because I said so’ was laughable on its face.

It is absolutely bizarre that someone would think that a developing mass of cells would & should be afforded the same legal rights as an adult human. It literally smacks of the fairytalist, of religion.

You seem to be someone who thinks ‘babies’ are ‘murdered’ during abortions. And you call my logic flawed.

Every locale on this planet has different laws & punishment lengths for the same crimes, etc. Just because one country is more restrictive than an other doesn’t mean that country is more correct than the other.

Your logic seems to be anointed with a bit of aggrandizement. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that person isn’t employing logic. I have no desire of being self-critical; my views on abortion have been consistent for decades & aren’t those which have come to pass recently at all.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Not if you think it isn't and that's what you want to express. It's pretty fecking extreme though and saying "does something inspire more or less loathing" is not exactly an unloaded question.
Is chicken parmesan more or less repugnant when...
Click to expand...

Oh right. Well I guess it shows my opinion to an extent that I think both having an abortion with no thought for the father and running away with no thought for the mother are unsavoury acts. The more or less lets you decide where each act falls on the scale.

Fair enough if someone thinks either of those things are positive, I guess.
 
calodo2003 said:
That’s all well & good, but your puerile statement of ‘because I said so’ was laughable on its face.

It is absolutely bizarre that someone would think that a developing mass of cells would & should be afforded the same legal rights as an adult human. It literally smacks of the fairytalist, of religion.

You seem to be someone who thinks ‘babies’ are ‘murdered’ during abortions. And you call my logic flawed.

Every locale on this planet has different laws & punishment lengths for the same crimes, etc. Just because one country is more restrictive than an other doesn’t mean that country is more correct than the other.

Your logic seems to be anointed with a bit of aggrandizement. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that person isn’t employing logic. I have no desire of being self-critical; my views on abortion have been consistent for decades & aren’t those which have come to pass recently at all.
Click to expand...

It's bizarre that you can't actually make a coherent argument. You are not actually using logic if you are making a strawman of literally saying 'you seem to think x' and inventing something or the other misplaced appeal to authority around what's in the law.

I was calling out your lazy reductionist argument & have given you several examples where extrapolating your argument in a consistent way lands you in an extremist position relative to society on things like wanted pregnancies and last stage abortions. But as you admit you have no intention of being self critical.
 
LungiDevil said:
What's the real world problem we're trying to solve with this?
Click to expand...

The main problem is people coming into a debate on a controversial and nuanced topic with a lazy and absolutist statement. And trying to challenge that by highlighting the inconsistencies that presents.

Although it is a question that is actually quite valid in actually how we should think about the ethics of abortion conceptually.
 
Eugenius said:
The main problem is people coming into a debate on a controversial and nuanced topic with a lazy and absolutist statement. And trying to challenge that by highlighting the inconsistencies that presents.

Although it is a question that is actually quite valid in actually how we should think about the ethics of abortion conceptually.
Click to expand...
Astounding that someone thinks because a different view is held that it is ‘lazy & absolutist’ & not determined over many years & through intimate & personal interaction with the topic at hand, that the use of certain words would trigger someone into such a reductive response & the belief of a supremacy on the issue over that person, for this to actually occur is, apologies of running t risk of being too redundant, utterly bizarre.

The ethics of abortion should always be reviewed & always up for renewal (so to speak) & thankfully the right to have them will exist in some more progressive parts of this planet.
 
calodo2003 said:
Astounding that someone thinks because a different view is held that it is ‘lazy & absolutist’ & not determined over many years & through intimate & personal interaction with the topic at hand, that the use of certain words would trigger someone into such a reductive response & the belief of a supremacy on the issue over that person, for this to actually occur is, apologies of running t risk of being too redundant, utterly bizarre.

The ethics of abortion should always be reviewed & always up for renewal (so to speak) & thankfully the right to have them will exist in some more progressive parts of this planet.
Click to expand...

I genuinely (not being obtuse here) do not really understand what you're saying in your first paragraph. I don't think there's anything to really add from what I've posted previously here.
 
Eugenius said:
In your view at what stage of development does a child earn 'full' rights and why? Your argument is literally 'because I said so'.

In that case how do you rank the rights of 1) a baby one day prior to birth, 2) a baby one day after birth and 3) a fully developed child who is no longer a physical burden on their parent?
Click to expand...

Surely exactly in that order if you need to do such ranking. Although there is a big gap between #2 and #3 - about 40 years in many cases.

But all that seems to be avoiding the actual discussion. The only reason not to allow abortion at all is religious and a fine demonstration of why religion should be kept entirely away from government. The only real argument is when a developing foetuses right (which can be assumed to increase as it develops in some way) match those of the adult human they are contained in. Take a margin of error off and that is the limit of abortion. Sounds easy but of course as it is quite subjective we always end up with a safe compromise as even a newborn isn't a fully functioning and conscious human (no I'm not suggesting extending abortion limits to beyond birth except in the case of some right wing politicians).
 
Supreme Court has backed Texas in deleting Roe from the state.
 
The Supreme Court voted not to grant an injunction but stated that a legal challenge is to be expected. Also, three of the five Judges that vetoed were appointed by Trump.

Bidan is going to use 'the whole of government' to fight the new law
 
I'm sure people will still flock to Texas so they don't have to give away any of their hard earned money.
 
We do have to credit the GOP for inventing a societal time machine. You can just see the wheels turning in reverse.

Fecking loony bin.
 
mariachi-19 said:
Can’t wait for that shit show of a state to turn blue and watch the fecking maga cnuts lose their shit.

This law is a fecking joke. The GOP is a fecking joke.
Click to expand...

you are going to be waiting for a while. Between gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and now armed intimidation (open carry no license needed), not to mention a GOP state court that will decide any challenges, the GOPwill burn the state down and bath it in blood before letting it turn blue.
 
WI_Red said:
you are going to be waiting for a while. Between gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and now armed intimidation (open carry no license needed), not to mention a GOP state court that will decide any challenges, the GOPwill burn the state down and bath it in blood before letting it turn blue.
Click to expand...
So really Texas is just a Taliban Afghanistan but with the cross of Jesus Christ instead of the Quran?
 
mariachi-19 said:
So really Texas is just a Taliban Afghanistan but with the cross of Jesus Christ instead of the Quran?
Click to expand...

They may be christians, but those aren’t Christians. Hell, the best Christians I know these days are atheists.
 
Moby said:
Click to expand...

She’s not wrong. I saw a similar tweet suggesting that men could have a mandatory vasectomy which could then be reversed when a couple make the decision to try for a baby.

It’s hard to argue with that logically. The only obvious major downside I can think of is the fact that population growth would see a massive hit from the lack of accidental conceptions. Lots of people who thought they didn’t want children (and lots who definitely didn’t) will no longer do so.
 
Hound Dog said:
It is not. Vasectomies are not without risk and are not always reversible. If you had everyone get them at 16, a lot of people would suffer negative consequences.
Click to expand...

There’s definitely negative consequences for women using regular contraception too. That’s before you even look at consequences of using things like the morning after pill.
 
Dan_F said:
There’s definitely negative consequences for women using regular contraception too. That’s before you even look at consequences of using things like the morning after pill.
Click to expand...

I was replying to a post suggesting mandatory vasectomies.

Do you know how many men are there who have no sex ever / out ot wedlock due to a lack of opportunities and/or religious or cultural beliefs? Well screw them, mandatory vasectomies for them as well.
 
adexkola said:
1. The risk is small (smaller than an abortion)
2. Sperm bank as a back up

I like this idea
Click to expand...

The risk is small but that is why I mentioned the number of people that would have to go for it. Some of them would be damaged, given the sample size.

It is smaller than the risk of abortion, but the populations are not the same. You are talking overall population vs women with unwanted pregnancies.

Sperm bank... Dont know where to start given how outlandish the idea is, but do you know how much they cost, for starters?

Also, it is not like the sperm there is taken and injected into a woman. That costs too.
 
Hound Dog said:
The risk is small but that is why I mentioned the number of people that would have to go for it. Some of them would be damaged, given the sample size.

Sperm bank... Dont know where to start given how outlandish the idea is, but do you know how much they cost, for starters?

Also, it is not like the sperm there is taken and injected into a woman. That costs too.
Click to expand...
I know about the risks and I knew it would be controversial when I posted it. It’s a good way of highlighting how quick people are to react when the discussion moves on to policing a male body rather than a female body.

At the moment it’s women have have to shoulder all the mental burden, physical risk and legislation.
 
Pexbo said:
I know about the risks and I knew it would be controversial when I posted it. It’s a good way of highlighting how quick people are to react when the discussion moves on to policing a male body rather than a female body.

At the moment it’s women have have to shoulder all the mental burden, physical risk and legislation.
Click to expand...

Several key differences. What you suggested affects all men, no exceptions.

There has never been such an extreme measure applied in the history of humanity. Nothing close comes to mind.

Policing a male vs female body... Well I am sorry but there are some clear biological differences between us. In this case, this is changing the male body itself vs removing or not removing a life or set of cells residing inside a women's body. Apples and oranges.
 
Hound Dog said:
Several key differences. What you suggested affects all men, no exceptions.

There has never been such an extreme measure applied in the history of humanity. Nothing close comes to mind.

Policing a male vs female body... Well I am sorry but there are some clear biological differences between us. In this case, this is changing the male body itself vs removing or not removing a life or set of cells residing inside a women's body. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

It’s an extreme suggestion designed to raise issues.

Do you think birth control medication has no effect on the female body? It completely messes with a woman’s hormones and can have a profound effect on them.

Abortions are not like whipping a mole off, they can also have an effect on fertility.
 
I think the main argument for allowing abortion is the womans right to choose her own future as the person best placed to make a decision in difficult circumstances.

It has to follow then that forcing vasectomies on the entire male population is a truly horrendous and fascistic alternative.

Balance is everything in finding common ground to live in societies with competing rights.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I think the main argument for allowing abortion is the womans right to choose her own future as the person best placed to make a decision in difficult circumstances.

It has to follow then that forcing vasectomies on the entire male population is a truly horrendous and fascistic alternative.

Balance is everything in finding common ground to live in societies with competing rights.
Click to expand...

If the bolded is true, then the main argument is absolute (at least until viability outside the womb is possible). If the main argument can be debated, so can the bolded. If the main argument is false, so is the bolded.

If not A then not B is equivalent to if B then A (apologies for math jargon!)
 
Pexbo said:
It’s an extreme suggestion designed to raise issues.

Do you think birth control medication has no effect on the female body? It completely messes with a woman’s hormones and can have a profound effect on them.

Abortions are not like whipping a mole off, they can also have an effect on fertility.
Click to expand...

I do not underatand how that is correlated to a mandatory vasectomy.

The fact is that the act of sex carries far more risk for a woman than a man. This is a biological thing, not a societal thing. Until we achieve transhumanism, that fact will remain as will the "double standard" that is being suggested hete.
 
Hound Dog said:
I do not underatand how that is correlated to a mandatory vasectomy.

The fact is that the act of sex carries far more risk for a woman than a man. This is a biological thing, not a societal thing. Until we achieve transhumanism, that fact will remain as will the "double standard" that is being suggested hete.
Click to expand...
It's a rhetorical device to demonstrate how legislating over the bodies of all men is shocking and draconian.

Yes, but it is a societal thing that society legislates to prevent all woman making the choice they deem correct about their own biology.
 
Hound Dog said:
I do not underatand how that is correlated to a mandatory vasectomy.

The fact is that the act of sex carries far more risk for a woman than a man. This is a biological thing, not a societal thing. Until we achieve transhumanism, that fact will remain as will the "double standard" that is being suggested hete.
Click to expand...

Yet an act of sex that has the potential to conceive life involves both a male and a female body. So yes, the risk is all on the woman but the responsibility falls on both and in the case of rape falls entirely on the man. We’re discussing this in the context of a modern, socially conscious society, so the Neanderthal position of “it’s the women who have the ovaries so it’s the women who have the problem” is entirely redundant when trying to figure out a balanced solution where both sexes take equal responsibility.
 
Pexbo said:
I know about the risks and I knew it would be controversial when I posted it. It’s a good way of highlighting how quick people are to react when the discussion moves on to policing a male body rather than a female body.

At the moment it’s women have have to shoulder all the mental burden, physical risk and legislation.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to see why people are missing that this is what you were doing.
 
Pexbo said:
She’s not wrong. I saw a similar tweet suggesting that men could have a mandatory vasectomy which could then be reversed when a couple make the decision to try for a baby.

It’s hard to argue with that logically. The only obvious major downside I can think of is the fact that population growth would see a massive hit from the lack of accidental conceptions. Lots of people who thought they didn’t want children (and lots who definitely didn’t) will no longer do so.
Click to expand...

I remember arguing a similar hypothetical in a different thread years ago, if my memory serves me correctly.

When the burden is put on men to have accountability for pregnancy, suddenly the argument becomes very different.
But women are expected to use contraception or abortions as though the risks & side effects are nominal.
 
nimic said:
You don't think people are wrong if they disagree with you? Isn't that pretty much the defining feature of disagreeing with someone, thinking they are wrong about something?
Click to expand...
I may think they are wrong but I am open to other peoples views and always looking to learn. Rather than just “nope nope you’re wrong”
 
Hound Dog said:
I was replying to a post suggesting mandatory vasectomies.

Do you know how many men are there who have no sex ever / out ot wedlock due to a lack of opportunities and/or religious or cultural beliefs? Well screw them, mandatory vasectomies for them as well.
Click to expand...

I knew what you were replying to. But you used negative consequences as a reason not to use vasectomies straight away, however women are almost expected by society to use contraception methods that can have negative consequences, which wouldn’t be needed if vasectomies were done. Surely you can see how they are linked.

I’m not sure why it would effect those who have no sex due to beliefs. Does a vasectomy have any effect on them, other than the obvious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.