US: Consistently anti-women legislature this year.

Post Reply New Topic

Of course we are.



I think it is justifiable, that if you know you can get pregnant, you ought to be prepared to accept it as an outcome. You have been continually arguing that not only do you have the right to ignore this outcome, but you think it is somehow a 'human right' that tax-payers ought to foot the bill. This is an incredibly one sided view of the right to personal autonomy.



Because the state did not force her to have sex.

Wow - that's the intellectual dishonest AG always talks about. The state IS FORCING the woman to remain pregnant - it doesn't matter who started the pregnancy in the first place, saying "you can't end the pregancy" is by definition forcing the woman to stay in the state of pregnancy.

Honestly, how did you get tenure?

I am saying, if you don't want a pregnancy, don't get pregnant. Then to declare that you have a right to unrestricted access to a taxpayer funded abortion is a bit much. The US taxpayers have more important things to spend their money on.

Only because I genuinely assumed that
legislation ending abortion access and thereby forcing women who conceive to carry and give birth against their will
is so obvious a state violation of physical autonomy as to truly not need "argument". Forgive me.


How is it not health care? There need be more substantive a reason than "I don't like it".
Please explain to me how prescription of a pill to expel a fetus is less health care than prescription of a pill to expel a tape worm.


The only "healthcare concerns" of abortion are for those which are performed illegally in dangerous circumstances by non-medical professionals as a direct result of increasing anti-choice zealotry which has effectively dismantled access to a safe procedure performed by a medical doctor which is safer than childbirth.


The one where individuals are in control of their medical decisions? If you were wailing about the personal responsibility of motorcyclists to not accept stitches in their head should they bust it open in an accident, I'd find it similarly, hilariously, stupid.


91, I've spoken with you on this topic more than once and I've yet to see you actually put forth an actual objection to abortion.

I've directly-asked several times what your ethical objection is,
other than not liking the idea of women's consensual sex NOT negating right to an abortion should pregnancy result.

"Women who choose to have sex should know the possible consequences" doesn't translate to "Women who become pregnant are ethically-obligated to continue said pregnancy".

In that particular comment VW criticized you on forcing a woman to stay preganant, you're retort was that it wasn't forcing a woman to stay pregnant because the gov't didn't impregnate the woman. If you're not for banning abortions, okay, we can have a different debate. But you're statement clearly gave very comical implications.

We're not discussing "getting" pregnant".

We're discussing abortion, which is about ENDING a pregnancy,
that is, not wanting one which has already-occurred to CONTINUE.

You don't seem to be getting this point.


Like bunker-busting bombs and subsidization of big oil?

I guess that would be more important to the American mindset that women's and children's lives.

No, 91. YOU are.
Abortion is not sex. Abortion occurs post-conception. Conception occurs post-sex.
We are two steps removed from sex in talking about abortion, so either do address the actual issue, explain why you broken record sex-means-no-abortion-rights to death, or stop babbling about women having sex. (I will be copying and pasting this into every reply where you attempt to distract from the issue at hand, that being abortion.)

Accepting that pregnancy is an outcome of sex does not constitute an ethical obligation to continue a pregnancy that might occur following sex.

Ignoring this outcome of sex = childbirth. Abortion = yet another outcome of pregnancy, and sex

Yes, I think health care is a basic human right. If that makes me "incredibly one sided", I wonder whose "side" everyone else is on.

Sex is prior to conception. What part of CONTINUE SAID PREGNANCY implied we're discussing one which hasn't yet occurred?

Yes we are... because it leads to being pregnant. You are arguing that how one gets pregnant has no relation to what should happen during pregnancy, I think this is just a silly proposition.



The person in question has already had MANY opportunities to end that pregnancy. If she did not want to be pregnant, then do not get pregnant. What you are asking for, is that it be a right, that taxpayers must pay for unconditionally, that whatever decisions the woman makes, she still has a right to terminate the pregnancy. I think this just does not work. I think that if you have chosen to become pregnant, it is not too much for the people to ask that you live with the consequences of that decision.



I was thinking more along the lines of providing basic social services to inner city communities before providing unlimited abortions to people with a titanic sized sense of entitlement who chose to become pregnant.

Why?

Even the most radical of activist nutter radicals acknowledge that consent or lack there of changes things.

All my entire position claims is that personal responsibility extends to pregnancy.

The argument from personal responsibility:

1) A person should accept the consequences of risks that she knowingly and willingly takes
2) A person who willingly has sexual intercourse knows that they take the risk of bringing a fetus/moral person into existence
3) Therefore if a woman becomes pregnant, they should accept the pregnancy as the consequence of taking the risk involved in sexual intercourse

The reason I have not be drawn on the question of abortion itself, is that my claim holds regardless of whether or not you acknowledge the personhood of the fetus. This argument also does not unfairly target women, since it applies equally to both men and women. I would also contend in defense of the argument, that criticisms from autonomy cannot work since neither choice has zero effect. In the case of the autonomy of the couple, they have forgone multiple opportunities not to become pregnant. In the case of the taxpayer, they are forced to pay the bill. The idea that this is then about the rights of the individual is just ridiculous. Also, if a man is responsible for the child when it is born (on the grounds that he consented to sex), why then is the woman not responsible in the same way. Any feminist worth their salt would dismiss the idea that the man had grounds to terminate the pregnancy and would make the exact same argument I just did against their claim.

Last edited by 91 on 26 May 2011, 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Right. We are discussing women who DO NOT consent to continuing a pregnancy.

People who've had abortions are really defensive about abortion rights.
They NEED to see all fetuses as non-human in order to shield their minds from the horror of the "procedure".
Who's the monster, Val? Hmmm?

Counter examples exist. It doesn't change the overall result when you consider all cases. Forcing people to have unwanted children will greatly increase the amount of welfare sinks, some of these unwanted children may somehow avoid the statistic, but that's just it. Just because some people have survived car collisions without using seat belts it doesn't mean people it is a good idea not to use them.

The wikipedia article you linked and the stuff you CNPed seems to agree with what I said... I am not saying that her personal attacks were right or that the similar ad logicam defenses were right. That stuff is silly, but I'd rather not call any personal attack an ad hominem.

Not surprising a radical feminist would call cold-blooded murder "health care."

Always the easy labels.

I'm going to call a spade a spade.