'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

[lightgigantic]

Actually, this is a rather correct description of many authorities nowadays.
In fact, many people, when they think of "authority", they think of "someone or some institution who has power over us, whom we are obligated to, on whom we depend, but who doesn't really care about us and who is sure to let us down as soon as they can".
This is simply a reflection of the practical experience that many people have with academic, medical, political, social, financial, municipal, religious authorities.

I think progressive society is constantly in a state of analyzing the obligations offered by their respective authorities.

They may not necessarily care about us personally, but they certainly care about leaving themselves open for legal charges or about being voted out of office or attracting a bad media image which will affect other clients or lend support to the opposition - all these things combine to offer a modicum of obligation by authorities in today's society

 

[wynn]

I think progressive society is constantly in a state of analyzing the obligations offered by their respective authorities.

They may not necessarily care about us personally, but they certainly care about leaving themselves open for legal charges or about being voted out of office or attracting a bad media image which will affect other clients or lend support to the opposition - all these things combine to offer a modicum of obligation by authorities in today's society

Sure, but reminding them of those obligations tends to cost one a lot, even one's life.

For example, if an employee joins a protest against their employer because they haven't been payed for their work, chances are the employee will lose their job.

If one complains against someone in a position of religious authority, one can forget about membership in that religion, and forget about all the benefits this can bring, even if the complaint is justified and legally sanctioned and was made in accordance with the prescribed terms.

 

[lightgigantic]

@Lightgigantic

LG: If you didn't have some vague hint that there is some sort of ethical controversy surrounding abortion, you wouldn't be here promoting the pro-abortion stance with cannons blazing ...

I'm passionate about reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose. Why shouldn't I be I'm a a woman and not a religious nuttier like Sam and yourself. Anyway where did you see me write that there was no controversy around abortion? The guns come out blazing because you would have your beliefs forced on all women something I heartily oppose. f you think this is an example of guns blazing wait to see how many women you'd have on your ass if legal abortions were at risk. If you cared about abortion or ending abortion from an ethical point of view you would have responded to questions like this:

so once again, we welcome you back to the discussion of abortion as an ethical issue, as opposed to it being so far beyond a mere perspective that your personal opinion is synonymous with objective truth

1. On what ethical grounds can you justify allowing the deaths of women when those who would criminalize abortion claim they are advocating life ? when abortions are illegal you risk losing two lives.

The anti-choice folk don't care about children, that's not the focus of their argument its simply an attempt to control women.

LRILSSC

LG: You are well aware of the ethics surrounding the issues

I am very well aware of the virtuous ethics mourned a womans right not to have others force themselves on her body.

pity you can't extend the same sense of justice on unborn child

I am aware of the ethics behind a society of free choice and not social domination.

pity you can't extend the same sense of justice on unborn child

Your attempts to compare institutions with a woman's womb fail miserably as a straw man argument.

not at all

Both institutions rely on the language of unconsciousness in the name of defending the indefensible

LG: In fact the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the entire historical social dialogue of thesis to antithesis to thesis (or one minority view winning over a majority view, which in turn is won over by another minority view)

I totally agree LG and I'm glad you are now beginning to agree with me. For hundreds of years the majority view was that a woman's body belonged to men or the church and she was treated as nothing more than a breeding pig. Now the minority view has won over not only does a woman have freedom from controlling men and the church she can make choices as a free citizen. I'm so glad that you see the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the historical social dialogue of thesis to antitheses and that the only real ethical decisions that can be made are by the individual and not society which is a part of the historical social dialogue of thesis and antithesis. I'm so happy you've finally come to understand that only an individual determine the ethical barometer.

so I guess you are now ready to drop all those "majority rules" pro-abortion arguments you use in the attempt to secure for yourself the moral high-ground, yes?

LG: . much like blacks didn't have rights several hundred years ago due to the jargon that framed "human"

Zygotes are not human beings they only have the potential to become a human being.

Blacks are not human - although there is the potential for successive generations to be trained in civilized culture and thus elevate their species somewhat

I hope you are not comparing blacks to zygotes?

Only in the sense that one can frame their position with jargon to designate them a lesser role

What an outrageous proposition! Blacks are like you and I,

... said the outraged protagonist to a scoffing audience of cotton plantation owners and professors of eugenics in the 19th century

a zygote is only a seed with potential and hardly equal to a living breathing man or a woman.

guffaw, next thing you will be trying to say that the black man should be given the vote

Do you know that the fetus doesn't breath? Of course you did.

Do you know that a black man bears a closer lineage to the ape than the human?

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful" - George Orwell

LG: human trafficking still gets the green light in some parts even today kiddo ... doesn't necessarily place the exploits against blacks in any more positive light, does it?

And its a terrible thing isn't it? I heard that there was an evil plan to traffic fetuses around the country for some kind of black magic celebration. Awful isn't it? They tie up the little blob and force it to work itself to death and they even sexually abuse it. It may not have a name but god damn it zygotes are people too!

Well if there is an illegal trade in slavery you might as well have a legal one.
that's your argument, isn't it?

LG: In the 1800's and early 1900's they didn't have science?

They didn't have these scientific discoveries you were referring to .

hogwash

eugenics was a very dynamic discipline in the sciences during the 1800's

LG: So you agree that there is no real way to give a good estimate of the number of abortions occurring during a period when it was illegal?

No there are very good estimates, you can only know the number of abortions that took place based on the number of illegal clinics they were able to bust at the time, they knew how many women were going in per day because they used to watch them, stake them out like drug dens, before busting a clinic for illegal activity. There were a large number of clinics and women like Vera Drake who always gave their numbers after they were apprehended (no reason to lie, one isn't being punished for the number of abortions). What they know is that the numbers were much higher than estimated because there were many abortion practitioners that went unnoticed. Some of them were your family doctor (shhh!)

That's funny.
Generally every other organized illegal practice is shrouded in mystery, but here we have a reliable figure provided by your's truly to inform us that the numbers during era of operation for illegal and legal abortion clinic operations are more or less equivalent (BTW still waiting for an actual source, and not some vague reference in a paper)

LG: I wouldn't call a woman a mother merely because she had an appendix either ...

I generally use the term woman. You can go back and compare the terms if you like but call it a mother if you like it doesn't change the argument.

So a pregnant woman and a woman with an inflamed appendix are experiencing the same general condition?
Have you thought about this deeply or is it news to you that they not only have separate procedures for dealing with both, but separate training, specialists, wards and even legal frameworks for both?

LG: And if they break state or national regulations (fraud, murder, drug manufacture, weapons procurement, ... or even late term abortions for that matter ) the said authorities that they are dependent on come down on them like a ton of bricks ... This becomes moreso when you are making demands for state sanctioned abortion ... IOW your whole premise requires that it be understood that there are certain persons who are dependent on the state, and that the said state is obligated to protect them

Woman are not breaking the law and the state has already sanctioned a woman's right to choose so we are not asking them to do anything.

Exactly.
Which is why they enjoy a position of dependence, and hence protection, from the state ...

What are you asking the state to do?

its more what i am asking you to understand

No one is dependent on the state to have an abortion.

If they use the services of a state funded and legislated operating theater, they certainly are

They were having abortions before the state recognized a woman's right to choose.

yes
In unauthorized back street abortion clinics ... which you have expressed your distaste for several times already

LG: So you are not necessarily arguing that the said doctors comply to state legislation on safe medical practices or even that the program be subsidized in any way by the state?

They would anyway. What legalization did was allow for doctors to replace unlicensed practitioners. Of course there were legitimate doctors that also performed abortions even when it was illegal, much of the time it was reserved for the women who had money but they were always around. Since women also pay taxes and since the majority of people who pay taxes are pro-choice don't you find it unethical that their choices and concerns not be reflected in society through laws and taxes?

talk about being obtuse!!

Please explain how a person can utilize the services of the state, while being independent from the state?

LG: Why kick up a big fuss about back street abortion clinics then?

Because its what the anti-choice people would condemn women to if they had their way.



Like I said the real impetuous behind the anti-choice movement is hatred towards women and sex not life or children which they show no concern for whatsoever, especially after those children are born, which is why they go so far as to say that even contraceptions should be banned. They are really a warped lot when you take a close look at them.

WTF?

You've just spent the best part of a forum page going on about how the fetus is dependent on the mother (oops - thats right, time to inject a euphemism and maintain the language of unconsciousness - insert : tissue bearing woman) and hence has no rights outside of that which it is dependent on.

I interjected that civilized culture places those persons/institutions that one is dependent on within definitions of obligation (generally we call it "justice").

This caused you to go on a tirade about how women are actually independent from the state and society (not clear if this is exclusively reserved for tissue bearing women - and to the further exclusion of not the wart bearing, or swollen appendix bearing varieties).

My question to you was how can you talk of lobbying society and the state for services while simultaneously advocating that those who utilize the services are not entering into a contract of obligation by the provider?

You responded by saying, the alternatives are advocated by woman haters ...
:shrug:

Still waiting for an intelligent response ....

LG: So this post of yours is yet another red herring?

Here are the stats: Only 14% of all abortions are paid for by the state.
And I am so impressed that you show concern for the truth of the issue. You'll find this also relevant:

Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion

Isn't it amazing that the anti-choice people would pass on so many lies about the issue of abortion that there are people who think that the state pays for most abortions? Shameful and yet so desperate they have to concoct lies to pass off their issues!

so the other 86% were performed isolated and independent from national or state legislation, funds and training that governs quality control, professionalism, infrastructure and administration?

LG: why talk of women?

I'm talking about abortion, only women have abortions.

what its not clear that you are talking about is how they exist outside the standard relationships of dependence of everyone else in society ...

LG: the law only makes civil liberties for blacks legal too... i mean generally that's what making something legal is all about - namely giving protection - yes?

No blacks were being lynched and abused in public places, they were being denied services such as employment and housing.

and such incidents never had any legal repercussions - golly - I wonder how Obama feels about this, knowing that he could be lynched, abused in public places or denied services such as employment and housing and he doesn't have a legal foot to stand on.

Abortion rights only mean you don't interfere with access or criminalize the activity.

So lynching a black man doesn't interfere with his access to human rights that are legally afforded to him?

So for example if pot smokers demand the that herb be decriminalized it simply means people can sell and smoke without interference from others.

even if they get interfered with in non-smoking areas or places that prohibit hawking?

Or is there a whole language of protection, prosecution and standards of practice for anything granted a legal status (which, again, ties them back to a state of dependence on society, et al) ?

The rest of your post was such an example of a wacky social ideals at play I couldn't possibly address them

basically it was addressing your claim that you can exist independent from society, despite beginning life in a state funded maternity ward (certainly a more rosy start than a abortion clinic, donchathink?) and ending life in a state funded morgue

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure, but reminding them of those obligations tends to cost one a lot, even one's life.

For example, if an employee joins a protest against their employer because they haven't been payed for their work, chances are the employee will lose their job.

If one complains against someone in a position of religious authority, one can forget about membership in that religion, and forget about all the benefits this can bring, even if the complaint is justified and legally sanctioned and was made in accordance with the prescribed terms.

actually its my experience that there is nothing like a legally sanctioned complaint to bring authorities to heel quick smart, since it usually warrants a wallop in the wallet

... and in comparison, one can discuss ethics till the cows come home and things will still move at a snail's pace

 

[lightgigantic]

What needs to be in place, what circumstances need to come together for conception to occur?

I suppose answering this question is not within the framework of this forum, but it would certainly shed light on the discussion.

According to some teachings, the person seeking birth has some measure of control on the parents-to-be, so the conceived child cannot really be counted as defenseless/powerless/innocent in the matter.
(A common argument is that the child in the wound is defenseless/powerless/innocent.)

I'm pretty sure that warrants a separate thread - it will just open forth another chapter of trademark sci-forums god-hate here (and probably there too
)

 

[lightgigantic]

Does anyone here think that the ability of the female body to conceive against her will is a kind of flaw?

The flaw of the conditioned living entity is to have out of control senses ... which provides a whole host of acts that disturb the fabric of progressive society

 

[visceral_instinct]

Should there be a referendum, a voter has the right to vote according to his or her conscience.

What you're saying above is an attempt to deny other people the right to vote according to their conscience.

My internal parts > your 'conscience'.

My body autonomy is more important that some rightwing nut's opinions.

 

[lightgigantic]

My internal parts > your 'conscience'.

or alternatively ....

your (lack of) conscience < the life of another

... hence the ethical argument continues
:shrug:

 

[Bells]

Can someone please tell me, why do people bring in the 'black man' argument when arguing against abortion?

For example:

Blacks are not human - although there is the potential for successive generations to be trained in civilized culture and thus elevate their species somewhat

-------------------------------------------

guffaw, next thing you will be trying to say that the black man should be given the vote

-------------------------------------------

Someone says zygotes have the potential to become a human being (because you know, the greater majority of zygotes are actually naturally aborted) and you come out with "blacks are not human blah blah"?

Is this you supposedly taking a higher moral ground here?

The fail is strong in you.

You fail to acknowledge that the zygote/fetus/etc is a separate entity and its rights are dependent solely on the mother wanting it there. The reason for that is simple. You cannot have two separate entities occupying the same body and be given equal rights. Which is what pro-lifers cannot seem to quite grasp. You all cry about equal rights, but you forget that one human body cannot grant equal rights to both unless the mother chooses to and if she chooses not to, then really, that is her choice as it is her rights being infringed upon by a completely separate entity that does not have any rights over her body.


Now do you understand why your use of the "black man" in your argument is dishonest and, well, stupid? Do you understand the concept of equal rights and the rights of individuals? Do you understand that the zygote's life is separate from the mother's life and that it is also a separate entity inside another entity and thus, as the outsider, so to speak, it cannot have equal rights over its host's body? Do you understand how that is different to a black person's human and equal rights over their own body? Do you understand that a black man is a separate entity living inside of their own body and thus, have equal rights? While a zygote is a separate entity living inside another person's body and only has the potential to be a human if the mother does not decide to exercise her rights over her own body or if she does not expell it natually?

Is this a hard concept for you to grasp?

 

[Gustav]

You fail to acknowledge that the zygote/fetus/etc is a separate entity and its rights are dependent solely on the mother wanting it there. The reason for that is simple. You cannot have two separate entities occupying the same body and be given equal rights. Which is what pro-lifers cannot seem to quite grasp. You all cry about equal rights, but you forget that one human body cannot grant equal rights to both unless the mother chooses to and if she chooses not to, then really, that is her choice as it is her rights being infringed upon by a completely separate entity that does not have any rights over her body.

muddled says what?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Lightgigantic

LG: pity you can't extend the same sense of justice on unborn child

Sorry you're too stupid to know the difference between those who have a life and that which is only a potential life.

LG: so I guess you are now ready to drop all those "majority rules" pro-abortion arguments you use in the attempt to secure for yourself the moral high-ground, yes?

You obviously didn't understand the use of irony in the post. Oh well.

LG: So a pregnant woman and a woman with an inflamed appendix are experiencing the same general condition?

Obviously not.

LG: so the other 86% were performed isolated and independent from national or state legislation, funds and training that governs quality control, professionalism, infrastructure and administration?

Ever hear of a private abortion clinic?

 

[lightgigantic]

@Lightgigantic

LG: pity you can't extend the same sense of justice on unborn child

Sorry you're too stupid to know the difference between those who have a life and that which is only a potential life.

Sorry you are too stupid to acknowledge the key role political language plays in defending your indefensible position

LG: so I guess you are now ready to drop all those "majority rules" pro-abortion arguments you use in the attempt to secure for yourself the moral high-ground, yes?

You obviously didn't understand the use of irony in the post. Oh well.

the only irony I see is your desperate use of political language and red herrings to avoid answering pertinent questions on the topic ...

LG: So a pregnant woman and a woman with an inflamed appendix are experiencing the same general condition?

Obviously not.

Then its not clear why you bring such an example to a discussion on abortion

LG: so the other 86% were performed isolated and independent from national or state legislation, funds and training that governs quality control, professionalism, infrastructure and administration?

Ever hear of a private abortion clinic?

The only ones I hear of that exist independent of the above criteria are ones that are operating illegally
:shrug:

BTW still waiting on this

WTF?

You've just spent the best part of a forum page going on about how the fetus is dependent on the mother (oops - thats right, time to inject a euphemism and maintain the language of unconsciousness - insert : tissue bearing woman) and hence has no rights outside of that which it is dependent on.

I interjected that civilized culture places those persons/institutions that one is dependent on within definitions of obligation (generally we call it "justice").

This caused you to go on a tirade about how women are actually independent from the state and society (not clear if this is exclusively reserved for tissue bearing women - and to the further exclusion of not the wart bearing, or swollen appendix bearing varieties).

My question to you was how can you talk of lobbying society and the state for services while simultaneously advocating that those who utilize the services are not entering into a contract of obligation by the provider?

You responded by saying, the alternatives are advocated by woman haters ...


Still waiting for an intelligent response ....

Thanks in advance

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

My internal parts > your 'conscience'.

My body autonomy is more important that some rightwing nut's opinions.

It has nothing to do with their conscience VI. It has everything to do with trying to force others to adhere to what they themselves consider moral behaviour. Think of it like this, Signal believes you should only engage in sex for procreation and that sexual pleasure should be ignored or repressed (not to mention the sense of closeness that comes with physical intimacy). Ok. So according to him if you want one child then you should have sex until you have that one child and never engage in sex again. See?

When people have a disturbed relationship with their own sexuality its not unusual for them to try and repress this aspect in others. Its not enough for them to simply live by their ideals they strive to repress others with their ideals. Same thing with the abortion argument, look at how quick they are to label the woman as being a slut or whore for not keeping her legs closed, never do you see them malign the men who engage in the act, no its the woman's sexual drive that is at fault. This reveals the misogyny in their arguments. You can see the same thing with Sam, she calls women who abort people who are without conscience, selfish, murderers etc. This allows her to remove the real life situations and humanity of the women involved, because as we know women opt for abortion for a variety of reasons and even married women with children abort. When you show them the high percentage of women who abort which suggests that its not just a small minority of women who need abortions services she ignores the information. Why? Because then she would have to consider that there are a high number of women, probably some she even knows, whom she personally would judge as 'selfish', unconscionable, murderers. You see as long as you can dehumanize women in general then you can ignore that you are referring to your friend, mother, grandmother, the nice woman down the street, that smart young woman at university, the one who cares for the children in kindergarten etc., all those women who have experienced an abortion but who don't talk about it at the dinner table. To mask the misogyny they have to make themselves seem ultimately caring and pretend that they are addressing only terrible women, not real women but bad evil women. They use the fetus as an excuse to hide their attack on women in general. Notice in her arguments how its the woman who has to sacrifice herself no matter her personal life circumstance? Or notice how they never ever want to address who many women died from abortions because they were denied procedures from proper practitioners? They don't want to address it because they it will expose the inherent misogyny. Its not an issue for them that women died as well as the fetus. You would think that if they really really cared about 'life' as they say they would be more concerned about there being two lives lost but they aren't. That should tell you everything about the real motivations and concerns of the anti-choice movement.

The anti-choice movement is a movement that aims as keeping women in check to the point where they will have fewer and fewer choices. Asking a poor woman with three children to keep every other child that comes along no matter how stressed out she is is keeping her poor and so keeping her in check. Then telling that woman that the only way for her to take responsibility is to live without sex entirely is another attempt to control her sexuality through control of her body.

Look at this article here, its from one of the anti-choice camps. In this he suggests that the real culprit that has lead to abortion is contraception and shows that their fears of women's control over their bodies is not going to end with abortion, this is why they fought so hard against the morning after pill: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110128

Never think that the attack on women's lives is really about babies or the lack of babies because it isn't. If people actually cared about babies they would fight poverty by helping women with children and you would see the adoption clinics empty as each of these concerned souls go about giving one child a home. They don't care about babies, they bring up babies as a way to bring emotion into the issue to subvert the rational arguments that support abortion.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Lightgigantic

I answered all of your questions and ignored your irrelevant rantings. If you don't like my responses then you can just fuck off and deal with someone else's post. I don't agree with you, I will never agree with you. You can believe what you want about abortion, it doesn't much concern me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can someone please tell me, why do people bring in the 'black man' argument when arguing against abortion?

Because it wasn't too long ago that jargon was used to deny black people of common rights that we now extend to them

For example:



Someone says zygotes have the potential to become a human being (because you know, the greater majority of zygotes are actually naturally aborted) and you come out with "blacks are not human blah blah"?


Is this you supposedly taking a higher moral ground here?

The fail is strong in you.

I don't follow how establishing a precedent for things happening naturally paves the way for pursuing the same ends unnaturally ... much less how this provides one with the moral high ground

You fail to acknowledge that the zygote/fetus/etc is a separate entity and its rights are dependent solely on the mother wanting it there. The reason for that is simple. You cannot have two separate entities occupying the same body and be given equal rights. Which is what pro-lifers cannot seem to quite grasp. You all cry about equal rights, but you forget that one human body cannot grant equal rights to both unless the mother chooses to and if she chooses not to, then really, that is her choice as it is her rights being infringed upon by a completely separate entity that does not have any rights over her body.

then I take it you also see no problem with late term abortions or women who induce the pregnancy artificially to achieve the same end

Now do you understand why your use of the "black man" in your argument is dishonest and, well, stupid? Do you understand the concept of equal rights and the rights of individuals? Do you understand that the zygote's life is separate from the mother's life and that it is also a separate entity inside another entity and thus, as the outsider, so to speak, it cannot have equal rights over its host's body? Do you understand how that is different to a black person's human and equal rights over their own body? Do you understand that a black man is a separate entity living inside of their own body and thus, have equal rights? While a zygote is a separate entity living inside another person's body and only has the potential to be a human if the mother does not decide to exercise her rights over her own body or if she does not expell it natually?

Is this a hard concept for you to grasp?

As mentioned to Lucy, when we encounter an issue of dependence (like say an employee's dependence on an employer to provide a safe workspace), civilized society tends to establish the relationship in terms of obligation. In barbaric civilization however, a relationship of dependence tends to translate into the maxim "... therefore the dependent has no rights". Its kind of the fine point of justice and the contributions it makes to a more advanced civilization.

If you want to suggest that separate existence (or an absence of dependence) is the prerequisite for bestowing finer points of justice, you are simply biasing the justice system towards those already in power. It places you in the same tier as the topmost conservative political systems of our age (eg - hard core communism), since its the nature if society to always place its members in a relationship of dependence.

 

[lightgigantic]

@Lightgigantic

I answered all of your questions and ignored your irrelevant rantings. If you don't like my responses then you can just fuck off and deal with someone else's post. I don't agree with you, I will never agree with you. You can believe what you want about abortion, it doesn't much concern me.

Its not so much that I didn't like your responses - its more that you didn't make any - particularly to this one ....

WTF?

You've just spent the best part of a forum page going on about how the fetus is dependent on the mother (oops - thats right, time to inject a euphemism and maintain the language of unconsciousness - insert : tissue bearing woman) and hence has no rights outside of that which it is dependent on.

I interjected that civilized culture places those persons/institutions that one is dependent on within definitions of obligation (generally we call it "justice").

This caused you to go on a tirade about how women are actually independent from the state and society (not clear if this is exclusively reserved for tissue bearing women - and to the further exclusion of not the wart bearing, or swollen appendix bearing varieties).

My question to you was how can you talk of lobbying society and the state for services while simultaneously advocating that those who utilize the services are not entering into a contract of obligation by the provider?

You responded by saying, the alternatives are advocated by woman haters ...


Still waiting for an intelligent response ....

Anyway we have reached the same impasse several times before.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@LG

No I not only say that its dependent of the mother I say it is a part of the mother's body. Unlike Bells I do not consider a fetus a separate entity but a part of.

I never said women were independent from the state or society and you know that which is why you don't show a quote where I've said women are separate from society or the state. I said that there are people who can live outside of society without dropping dead, that came up as you moved the discussion further and further from the topic at hand to the point you were ready to bring up chattel slavery. THAT is what's called a 'red herring'.

Women don't need to lobby society for state services AS THEY ARE ALREADY RECEIVING SERVICES. Abortion is legal remember? There are clinics both private and public. If you want to bring in the argument that society is paying for it then I will remind you that half of that society are women who believe in abortion, or is it that the wench you have handcuffed to the side of your bed doesn't pay taxes. Also since some 62% of the american population believes in abortion on demand then its safe to say that that portion of the population is more than happy to pay for reproductive services. Only 14% of the abortions in the US is paid for by the government, that means there are more women PAYING for abortions than relying on state aid.

Now run along and find someone else to jack you off because like I said I don't know why you are bothering since I don't agree with you and I will never agree with you and it doesn't matter how long your posts become it is not going to lead to a better understanding on the subject.

And yes you are a misogynist otherwise you would know that you cannot tell someone what which solution best fits their life and circumstances. The alternatives you mentioned are already known to women and yet many choose an abortion anyway. So if you keep haranguing a woman's choices based on her life and needs because they don't comply with what you want then yes it amounts to misogyny. Remember you were the one who referred to women as sluts and whores at one time.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG

No I not only say that its dependent of the mother I say it is a part of the mother's body. Unlike Bells I do not consider a fetus a separate entity but a part of.

which again brings us back to how its the nature of existing in a society (and the practical impossibility of existing outside one in today's world) that one is always in a state of dependence .. and furthermore how making as a prerequisite "independence" for any application of justice simply empowers those already with power

I never said women were independent from the state or society and you know that which is why you don't show a quote where I've said women are separate from society or the state.

For the past several posts now you've said that a woman shares no relationship with the state if she utilizes the resources of an abortion clinic (Do you need a quote? How about this one from a few posts down "No one is dependent on the state to have an abortion. ")

The only way your statement could be true is if you are referring exclusively to abortion clinics operating illegally. Was that your intention?

I said that there are people who can live outside of society without dropping dead,

Then I guess that gives hermits the green light for an abortion (although not being the social types, their chances of getting pregnant are pretty slim)

that came up as you moved the discussion further and further from the topic at hand to the point you were ready to bring up chattel slavery. THAT is what's called a 'red herring'.

Actually the slavery piece came at the onset (with your call on a fetus not being an entity) .

Women don't need to lobby society for state services AS THEY ARE ALREADY RECEIVING SERVICES. Abortion is legal remember? There are clinics both private and public. If you want to bring in the argument that society is paying for it then I will remind you that half of that society are women who believe in abortion, or is it that the wench you have handcuffed to the side of your bed doesn't pay taxes. Also since some 62% of the american population believes in abortion on demand then its safe to say that that portion of the population is more than happy to pay for reproductive services. Only 14% of the abortions in the US is paid for by the government, that means there are more women PAYING for abortions than relying on state aid.

then its not clear on what basis you are saying women having a legal abortion are separate from the state ... which in turn has implications for your argument that existing in a state of dependence relinquishes one of rights and justice

Now run along and find someone else to jack you off because like I said I don't know why you are bothering since I don't agree with you and I will never agree with you and it doesn't matter how long your posts become it is not going to lead to a better understanding on the subject.

Seriously, if you think a certain set of ethics are so sacred that they cannot even be discussed, you are setting yourself up for a slap in the face when you contribute in a place like this

And yes you are a misogynist otherwise you would know that you cannot tell someone what which solution best fits their life and circumstances.

Needless to say, a discussion on ethics that didn't revolve around a suitable solution to fit a certain circumstance would be quite brief ....

The alternatives you mentioned are already known to women and yet many choose an abortion anyway. So if you keep haranguing a woman's choices based on her life and needs because they don't comply with what you want then yes it amounts to misogyny.

Actually the only alternatives I have mentioned are critiques of existing ethical viewpoints that establish certain choices in today's societies ... I mean that's generally how it works isn't it? Vitalizing an ethical viewpoint in order to evoke social change?

Remember you were the one who referred to women as sluts and whores at one time.

If you can't find the quote, do you think you would be capable of making an apology?

 

[Bells]

Because it wasn't too long ago that jargon was used to deny black people of common rights that we now extend to them

You are comparing the potential for a human being (zygote) as being the same as an actual born human being in charge of their own body?

I don't follow how establishing a precedent for things happening naturally paves the way for pursuing the same ends unnaturally ... much less how this provides one with the moral high ground

You lost any moral high ground when you decided to use the 'black man' argument.. It is not the same.

Again.. A woman has more rights over her own body than anyone else, including the potential human being she may be carrying. That potential human being will never be seen has having equal rights to her body unless she permits it.

then I take it you also see no problem with late term abortions or women who induce the pregnancy artificially to achieve the same end

Not for me to have a problem with it. It is not my body and thus, not my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with any other entity inhabiting her body.

Do you understand that part?

As mentioned to Lucy, when we encounter an issue of dependence (like say an employee's dependence on an employer to provide a safe workspace), civilized society tends to establish the relationship in terms of obligation.

Employees do not inhabit the physical bodies of their employers. And a woman's body is hardly like that of an employer. The potential child is not an employee but is an entity inhabiting the physical body of another human being. That other human being has rights over their body and what they allow in said body. An employer is an artificial entity that by law, has rights to protect itself from others and can fire employees when the need arises (ie, abort their terms of employment). An employee can be dependent on an employer for a paycheck and a place of employment so long as the employer allows them.

Unless of course you are now saying that employers should never be given the right to terminate anyone's employment? You wouldn't suggest that but you would suggest that a human being be denied any rights over their own bodies to allow a potential human being to inhabit it, sometimes to the mother's detriment and possible death? Why does the mother's rights over her own body not exist? Why does a woman not have rights over her body LG?

In barbaric civilization however, a relationship of dependence tends to translate into the maxim "... therefore the dependent has no rights". Its kind of the fine point of justice and the contributions it makes to a more advanced civilization.

An employee has rights because they are human beings and thus, have rights over their own bodies. No other human being or entity has rights over their bodies. Yet you seem to think that a potential human being should have more rights (not even equal rights) over that of the mother's and that their rights somehow trumps that of the mother's? Why? Why does a woman not have rights over her body?

If we were to employ your maxim or your beliefs, then a woman would never have any rights over her own body (which leaves the door open to many legal issues) because you seem to feel that even a potential human being should have more rights over that of a woman's body than the woman should have over her own. So if a potential human being's rights trumps that of a woman's rights over her body, what about other human beings rights over her body? Do you see the potential dangers of this?

If you want to suggest that separate existence (or an absence of dependence) is the prerequisite for bestowing finer points of justice, you are simply biasing the justice system towards those already in power.

The woman is already in power over her own body. Her rights over her body trumps that of any other, including any potential human being she may be carrying. Therefore, it would be unlawful and immoral to demand that she have no rights over her own body because to do so would mean that she has no basic human rights, which leaves the door open to things you don't even want to consider. A third party will never have more rights over your body unless you expressly give them the right to do so, and as an individual person, you can withdraw those rights when you choose to (ie you can demand to not be treated for something and you can even demand a DNR on yourself).. Understand why? Because it is your body and no other entity has rights over your body unless you expressly allow them to. This means you are protected from rape for example. Yet you seem to believe that a woman should not be given rights over her body against any other entity if that entity has the potential to be a human being if it develops..

It places you in the same tier as the topmost conservative political systems of our age (eg - hard core communism), since its the nature if society to always place its members in a relationship of dependence.

Nonsense.

My beliefs stems from basic human rights and that each individual has rights over their own bodies and I do not believe that other parties/entities should have rights over our bodies unless we consent to it. Therefore if a woman does not consent to another entity inhabiting her body, that other entity should not remain in her body against her wishes. Just as she may not consent to being raped and the law is on her side, she can not consent to having a potential human being inhabit her body for any length of time if she chooses to not have it there. Simple really.

And the law supports the woman's rights to her own body and thus, abortion is legal if she so chooses to exercise that right.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Lightgigantic

No.