I'm just going by the predominant reason you and others provide for giving the process the green light, wholesale. If that reasoning appears shit-like, you are looking in the wrong direction for the culprit.
Should men have a say in abortion ?
- Thread starter RainbowSingularity
- Start date
So humans are a "thing", according to science, but in other cases, not so. Seems like you are gulping down a bunch of ideological treatises to push that cart of dung uphill.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
technically, you could probably install a non human fetus into a human.
although it would likely die.
the assumption of the nature of the concept of "human" is just another word game designed to whip up pre ordained faith fascism to demand everyone agree with whom ever is waiving the sign that takes all the money and pays no tax and wants to control the government.
any anti abortionist who is not also clearly and equally loudly anti-death penalty & anti war and vegan, i think, is morally corrupted and their opinion holds no more intellectual value than a small child talking astrophysics while playing with toy rockets.
even so i still think it should not be illegal and it should be the body owner who chooses what happens to their own body.
where are all the christian anti death penalty, anti war vegans ?
they are all probably pro-choice
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
the complicit fascism of the anti-abortionist claims if you have not had an abortion, your opinion doesn't count while they demand men have all the power and authority.
they are soo morally bankrupt
anti abortionists exploit the womens self determination and free will to serve their own cause and apply it or take it away as they play god to serve their own ego and religious fascism.
and they seek to install that religious fascist thinking and morality into law and the state and then call it secular common sense human rights.
they are such liars and manipulating con artists
then they say "hey dont discriminate against religion you cant make laws about religion because the church and state is not connected...
dishonest !
untrustworthy !
deliberately misleading !
attempting to install church into state !
this is what anti-abortionists are.
In your eagerness to offer input, you seem to have neglected to read what you were responding to.
It was pretty clear that he had. As onerous a task as that is.
Whereas you consistently extrapolate a whole lotta nonsense from what was actually written, in order to make a point wholly unrelated to anything actually being discussed. Like, here, for instance:
in response to this:
Or here:
somehow, in response to this:
Or here:
apparently, responding to this:
Examples abound within this thread, but I'm too lazy to delve further. But my point is clear: unless you're a very poor reader (doubtful), you're simply being dishonest.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
paraphrasing concepts of thought process normalised inside common social laws and cultures tends to be fairly non specific.
from my speed reading it appears you asked parmalee if they had, had an abortion for a specific reasoning,
parmalee then asked you the question in reply.
non action is equal to no action or a positive function of action ?
i do get the idea of where you are debating from.
to choose to make an act rather than to choose to allow a process to continue.
keeping in mind allowing the process to continue can include death & disability not withstanding massive loss of earnings and social stigma and social persecution.
hence previously my comment about a 15 year old girl getting pregnant and then being forced into the public spotlight to be judged and persecuted for her situation and any decisions she makes, assuming she is allowed to make any decisions at all.
she becomes "slave class" to the masters of men.
i may have wondered off a precise meaning somewhere.
please point out where i have missed the critical point you were making if i have.
You are even too lazy to explain why they are unrelated, so make of that what you will ...
That was Bill running with that ball of "undergoing abortion as ownership of the debate" thing or, alternatively, "dependence as the be-all and end-all of ending ethical conundrums".
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
the apple kart is already lilted in the usa because women do not have universal health care.
minor women also do not have the right to medical privacy
a large proportion of people want to have gender police on bathrooms.
the reality is the wome(a)n is/are pregnant.
placing the philosophy of the decision without making that the primary imperative is a debate of ethics for sociology, not human rights.
you cant un-make the women pregnant then give her the decision.
A "rolling in the tanks" abrupt social policy change is rarely effective (unless actual tanks are not required, I suppose). But that doesn't spell the limits of discussion or projections for the future. Utilizing "crisis management" functions as a stop-gap measure, and not much more.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
while i may not abjectly disagree with your philosophical postulation.
i draw question here with the idea that there is a possible 3rd option to a pregnant teenager.
how do you give the teenager(15 year old pregnant girl) a 3rd option and keep your hands clean ?(lost readers, keeping-hands-clean" meaning not reinforcing slavery of women or endorsing anti-abortion or forcing the girl to have an abortion she doesnt want while not leveraging the emotional psychosis of the parents to victimize her further)
show me a 3rd way
And there you have it in a nutshell ... Why is it deemed as extremely unfortunate for a teenage girl to be pregnant? In short, the culture we live in would be lucky to be categorized as 75 years old, and, as such, it is immature and hasn't resolved many inconsistencies. First, there is the biological reality, which sees people default to being sexually active in their mid teens. Then there is the legal reality, that deems the beginning of being lawfully sexually active a few years later. Then there is the social reality which sees the entrance into the field of making a livlihood and independant adulthood (ie, the actual stage of being able to perform the duties of parenthood) a few years later again.
A central tenet of belonging to any society is the performance of certain duties to assert one's identity. If that tenet is shrouded in biological, legal and social conflict, you see there is a bunch of rules that no one is really interested in obeying and a type of (temporary) stability on an unsatisfactory (or unsustainable) level of performance.
Tl : Dr .... Anything done artificially will (eventually) fail.
Indeed. If pregnant women were given all the support they needed, and their children were given all the support they needed, there would be a lot less abortions.
So you are just making shit up. Thanks for confirming that.
So you figure the wheel will fail? Roads? The concept of clothing or medicine? I guess we will see.
Once again the overt Abrahamic theist posts dishonestly and in bad faith on a science forum, in the form of a personal attack based on a misrepresentation.
By whom?
Fundies? That's an ugly can of worms. The central reason - if we go by their posting and behavior - is that she had sex without getting permission from an adult man who claims to speak for God, thereby shaming herself and her family. The baby is the rightful punishment, and the punished are by definition unfortunate.
Other people have different views.
Says the main source of the social and legal "conflict", untenable "rules", and so forth.
This supplies an obvious motive for creating that conflict, of course - an opportunity for gaining power.
Glad you agree.