US: Consistently anti-women legislature this year.

Post Reply New Topic

Except that's not what you said in the quote. You said that we hate women and children, not that our beliefs affect em.

So because I believe a fetus is the baby's body rather than the woman's property, I believe women should be the property of men? This is exactly why I don't stand for radical feminism. You are perpetuating war of the sexes with this type of loaded crap, not truly working towards putting all this BS behind us. Reminds me a lot of so called pacifists who hate war and violence, yet are often self-righteous, quick to smear, petty and conflict seeking, all of which set the precedents for war and violence in the first place. They think "Violence solves nothing", yet their idea of conflict resolution is condescension, proving that they're right, and proving that they're morally superior. Napoleon said something like "We must avoid the pin pricks that precede the cannon shot". What you are doing is expecting the cannon not to fire while having no interest in avoiding the pin pricks that precede it.

How much of a consequence is abortion if others pay for your mistake? Health care is about preventing or treating illness, whereas abortion is about terminating a pregnancy. What entitles anyone to a free or subsidized abortion, especially when pregnancy is preventable unlike sickle cell anemia?

And my personal ethics is about paying for your own mistakes rather than expecting everyone else to do so. If abortion is legal, the people involved should be the only ones paying for it. Calling me a male policer of the female sex shows that you aren't really for equality between the sexes, you just simply wanna fuel your self righteousness and feel superior to those you disagree with. This is really infantile.

The costs of the War on Terror has made oil unprofitable and the US government hasn't made a penny from it. Besides the states mostly gets its oil imported from Canada, so it would've made more sense to invade us if the war was about oil. You can say the war is motivated by imperialism, but oil makes no sense at all.

Good point about collisions, but it's hard to determine whether the majority of people on welfare were motivated by the environment they grew up in since there are in fact more white people on welfare than blacks. We can't predict to what extent people are products of their environment.

In my experience, many if not most of the people people who've had abortions aren't educated enough to know anything about ethical argumentation.

Not that the fetus's humanity or non-humanity is relevant at all to the issue of autonomy. It is genetically human, and biologically alive. Neither is relevant.

Nor is taking a pill and bleeding for a few days what most people would consider a "horrible procedure".

Who's the monster? People who'd condemn women to reproductive slavery and their offspring to a near-statistical certainty of a life spent in poverty.













Oh, were you trying to imply being anti-slavery means one has had an abortion?
Remember, it's only you and your similarly-fallacious anti-choice advocates who think abortion is something shameful.
Plus, you got a lot of 'splainin to do to pro-choice men.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 27 May 2011, 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm still kinda LOLing over this.

Well if someone is advocating infliction of horrendous poverty, uneducation, and abuse on a group,
it's perfectly rational to say that they either hate them or do not empathize with them as human beings at all.

It is hysterical to screech "ad hominem" when someone calls advocacy of human suffering hatred, or at the very least misanthropy.

Do you know what "personal attack" means at all? Hint: the quote you highlighted is not one.

If Vex is reliant on your kidneys for survival, it could be said that his body is his own.
Does that in any way negate that your body is your own?
And that if I illegalize you from separating yourself from him, I am in fact legislating you into a position of indentured servitude?
There is no "right" to parasitism, nor is there a "right" to exist in a parasitic relationship, beyond which the host grants.


You have no idea what radical feminism is, do you?
Hint: it's not just any philosophy advocating women's basic human rights with which you disagree.



That's truly hilarious. I am not advocating an overwhelmingly female-legislature codify the male sex into indentured servitude and forced reproduction. That would be you. What's more, I've asked you for a positive assertion about what makes abortion unethical, and you can't come up with one except for hating the thought of women having sex and not being forced to stay pregnant should conception occur.

When you come up with a substantive argument that doesn't revolve around your being uncomfortable with consensual female sex, let us know.

Yeah, this is irrelevant.

Oh, I'm sorry.
As you might have noticed, I don't use the word "consequence" in this context as meaning "punishment" for having had sex.
Perhaps it's because my ethics regarding abortion aren't wholly constituted by finger-waggling at women who have consensual sex, as are yours and 91's.


Prescription of a pill to expel a tape worm is health care. Prescription of a pill to expel a fetus is health care. That's why the people who do both are MEDICAL DOCTORS. The only difference is one gets certain people's panties in a twist. If terminating a pregnancy is not health care, neither is healthfully sustaining one instead. Obstetricians would be interested to learn of that.
To someone who believes health care is not health care and health care is not a right, nothing.
I believe health care is a basic human right, and pregnancy being preventable doesn't change that abortion is is health care.
The former is my personal belief- one need not even subscribe to the notion of rights to have an ethical school of thought.
Speaking of which, have you come up with one yet? An ethical school of thought? Or are you still struggling to think of ethics as separate from law?

Ah, so regardless of your objection to abortion, you feel that if it is legal, it should be accessible only to rich women. Misogynist AND elitist. I love it.

And I call you a male policer of female sex because you and 91 just babble about women's choice to have sex when asked for an ethical argumentation against the act of abortion.

Oh! What you just said. THAT'S what an ad hominem is! Good job! (I feel so proud!)


I said nothing whatsoever about the war...did I?

Of course we can. The vast majority of people born into poverty stay in poverty. The vast majority of child abuse victims will at some point abuse someone else. Don't assert sociological ignorance where there is none.

Says Inuyasha, the genocide-by-fapping genius.

Asking what right a man has to have an opinion on a woman’s abortion is a bit like asking what right does a wife have to her husband’s paycheck.



Yes and the Confederate flag is just a symbol of state's rights.......

There is really no benefit in discussing this with you further. Your view is outrageous... further discussion is pointless.

If you are going to invent a straw man, you could at least invent one that fits your analogy.

She didn't say men can't have an opinion on it. She said you're consistently not addressing the ethical aspects of abortion. You're focusing on the fact that women choose to have sex, as if there was something wrong with that and pregnancy was her punishment. It's a fair criticism.

I never said there was something wrong with a woman having sex... you should have read my earlier posts on the matter where I clearly put forward that I do not have a problem with women having sex. What I said was that pregnancy being a known outcome is not something that can be separated consequentially from sex.

Right- glad you understand the issues of autonomy and agency involved.

It could be an overt symbol for kicking puppies and assaulting old women for all the right you have to dictate to someone else not to fly it.

You've not participated in an ethical discussion, nor a political one, merely obsessed about women having had sex getting abortions, as if it's novel. I would call your view far more outrageous insofar as the realities of what you advocate, but your view on the issue hasn't anything to do with the actual issue.

And you've failed to explain in the dozens of times you've repeated it what in bloody hell that has to do with the ethics of the act of abortion.

Here, I'll save everyone some time:


~insert ten pages of woman-shaming and preaching about "consequences" "paying for it" and "selfishness", devoid of any attempt at consequentialist argumentation~

Why would I make a consequentialist argument? I am not a consequentalist, you have misidentified me and not for the first time.... to speak of consequences for a decision and then object to it on the grounds that I did not make it from a consequentialist position is a ridiculous statement. One does not equal the other. I am wary of consequentialist argument because of the inability of human beings to be impartial agents... plugging away on their little meta-ethical calculator in order to maximize utility. Also, what value would it be to make a consequentialist argument to a person looking to maximize personal autonomy. Your contention has always been one of libertarian freedom for the individual. My criticism of this position is that it is so totally weighed in favor of yourself. You argument grants the person seeking the abortion a massive license at the expense of the personal autonomy of others.

You have claimed that personal autonomy in relation to medical grounds (though I do not buy that this particular issue is medical grounds) is something close to sacrosanct, without supportive argument. Then when I point out that this decision impacts on the autonomy of countless others, your response is to simply reassert, again unsupported, the sacred nature of the human right to terminate all the pregnancies an individual wants. Despite the fact that no doctor on your view would be allowed to say no and every taxpayer would be obliged to pay. You have given us no reason to think that your sacred right to do whatever it is you please somehow overcomes the right of a doctor to object on ethical grounds or a taxpayer to foot the bill for something they have no say in.

Considering you have yet to understand what 'no taxation without representation' means you continue to advocate, at the top of whatever high feminist pulpit it is you are in, that you are right and that I must be somehow be a hater of women for having the temerity to say live with the outcomes of your decisions, especially since you have many opportunities to choose another path. A path that costs no one anything and gives society reason to conclude that if you were smart enough to get into that mess on your own, you ought to be smart enough to get yourself out of it. To demand to be left 'autonomously' on your own to make all the decisions you want and then come to society with an entitlement complex the size of a cathedral and then 'demand' society pick up your mess and be thankful for having been invited into your life... sorry soul sister, life aint like that.

Most abortions are due to two individuals behaving stupidly and not wanting to deal with the consequences. The child shouldn't be put to death simply because the parents find said child inconveinent. Abortion is generally nothing more than murder out of conveinence.

"Your responsibility blah blah blah"

Again, what about freaking rape? The republicans are going against the government helping rape victims get abortions as well. Arguments like "consequences of your actions" don't apply at all there.

Just because a person wishes something to be true it does not mean it isn't true.

It is also an incredibly far-fetched generalization to say that this is the motivation behind every abortion proponent. I have not gotten the 'benefit' of an abortion at all nor I plan to.

Abortion is a horrific procedure when it is delayed. If abortion opponents would just stfu and let women stop unwanted pregnancies without intervening with their morality, abortions would be stopped so much earlier, and the procedures would be much cleaner in general. In fact, the day-after pill is a great solution without any cutting and it would stop pregnancies before the thing inside the body even has a brain. It does not help that "pro-life" nuts keep equating these pills to actual abortion.

Regardless of whatever hidden motive or 'guilt' abortions proponents could have. The burden of proof of calling something a human being relies on you guys. The pro-life guys who want to make women go through pregnancy and force whole lives into a world who does not want them just so you don't feel other people's guilt.


---

Then we have the assumption that abortion is an "easy way out". Seriously, no actual woman would actually think of that. I am sure that for anyone with a brain it is a last resort thing to do. But it is still appropriate for it to be legal nevertheless. Making it illegal actually just handles a monopoly to crooks and criminals and in no way actually stops abortions. Because girls are really that much desperate to get it.


If you want less abortions, promote contraception and actual sex education.

Agreed. I've never had an abortion and will never be in the position of needing one barring rape, but I still have no trouble seeing a fetus as a non-entity. Heck, even if it can be called "human" in some sense, I STILL don't have a problem with abortion.

There is currently no scientific line in the sand we can draw to determine the exact point when something becomes "human." Any such line is entirely subjective and arbitrary, and will be based solely on personal preference; therefore, I say let individuals decide the question for themselves, sans government. Beyond that, U.S. society kills humans out of convenience all the time, the only difference is that the justifications for these killings are more widely accepted. For example, U.S. society considers it justifiable to kill civilians in wartime if they happen to get in the way of our military objectives. They also consider it justifiable to kill people who've committed certain types of crimes to both satisfy our urge for vengeance and remove dangerous people from the population. It all amounts to "convenience killing." Society is a cold, unfeeling, b!tch, isn't she?

Folks can feel free to call me any names they want, but my point is, having an abortion is not necessary to be pro-choice.

Alright, I gotta give you props, that was good.