Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 03:39 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:36 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Nothing about this makes her his "brood mare". They both are culpable for the baby. His desires were cast off as though they are worthless, which according to Chas they were. I happen to disagree.

Both parties should be able to reach a deal, as was said earlier. A deal didn't happen, it wasn't fair.

Didn't mean for this to take over the thread, I was merely trying to insert a point. I'm not mourning for the lost potential life, I actually happen to think it was probably a good thing she did have the abortion. My point is in the fact that his desire for the baby was dismissed so easily.

Yep, but that is a relationship issue. In my experience it takes two to make a mess out of a relationship. Had they been rational, they would have arrived at a communal decision.

Would you please stop making sense? It's bad for my arguments. Dodgy

No, I agree. Just trying to make one teeny, weeny point. That it's not so cut and dried as it's made out to be all of the time. It is a complex issue. I guess if anything, the point would be that education and rational and fair communication should always be of the utmost importance in these situations. And also that the male opinion does need to have a shred of credibility if this is to happen.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 03:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:39 PM)Dom Wrote:  Yep, but that is a relationship issue. In my experience it takes two to make a mess out of a relationship. Had they been rational, they would have arrived at a communal decision.

Would you please stop making sense? It's bad for my arguments. Dodgy

No, I agree. Just trying to make one teeny, weeny point. That it's not so cut and dried as it's made out to be all of the time. It is a complex issue. I guess if anything, the point would be that education and rational and fair communication should always be of the utmost importance in these situations. And also that the male opinion does need to have a shred of credibility if this is to happen.

What you are pointing out is that it is an EMOTIONAL issue.

Most humans have very strong emotions about babies, it's survival of the species stuff, it's programmed into us.

That's why this topic never fails to rile people up.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
09-10-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 03:36 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:27 PM)Dom Wrote:  They didn't manage to reach consensus. If they had sought counseling, maybe they would have. We just don't know enough about this to have any kind of opinion on that.

Just because he may have wanted another child, it doesn't make her his brood mare.

Nothing about this makes her his "brood mare". They both are culpable for the baby. His desires were cast off as though they are worthless, which according to Chas they were. I happen to disagree.

Both parties should be able to reach a deal, as was said earlier. A deal didn't happen, it wasn't fair.

Didn't mean for this to take over the thread, I was merely trying to insert a point. I'm not mourning for the lost potential life, I actually happen to think it was probably a good thing she did have the abortion. My point is in the fact that his desire for the baby was dismissed so easily.

If they were in a continuing relationship, his views matter.

They were not, so hers trump his.

My other point was that people put way too much on an early foetus - it is not a human being.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Completely agree with OP. There's just a flipside. Limiting the availability to victims of rape/incest/life of mother might cause women to falsely accuse men of rape in order to get an abortion.

It's happened. There's stories of false accusations in the news regularly.
It's a very thin line.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Clumps of cells have no rights.
Who is the definer of rights?
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Do cells in Petri dishes, (for cuture), have rights ?
Yeah, why wouldn't they?
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Do frozen embryos have rights?
I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't have rights.
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Rights are (as agreed upon by society) granted to human PERSONS.
Are you saying that other animals have no rights?
Does this mean it is fine for me to set a live cat on fire?

When you say that society grants rights? What does this mean exactly?
I know that a governing body creates laws and enforces those via coercion and force over society members. But the laws restrict, they don't grant.
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The question is "who is granted *personhood* status ?"
The law has not, to date, granted "person" status to embryos.
This is just a play on words. This discussion is a philosophical one. It is beyond the confines of the current law. The question is whether the law should restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion. If you state that the law is the definer of "rights" then this is circular and we stay with the status quo.
But instead, lets say we are forming a new government, a new set of laws, thus everything is a right, even the right for bacteria to live in a Petri dish. Even the right for a human to kill the bacteria as well as the right for the bacteria to kill the human.
But our task is to set some laws, to restrict the actions of those capable of observing our laws, this excludes bacteria and cats because they don't care about our laws. But our laws are not defining rights, they are restricting them.
So without going circular and worrying about whether a fetus has a right to live. How else can you reason whether law ought to be in place or not with regards to restricting humans from killing other humans, and how does that law cater for the situation where one of those humans isn't born yet?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 04:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Clumps of cells have no rights.
Who is the definer of rights?
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Do cells in Petri dishes, (for cuture), have rights ?
Yeah, why wouldn't they?
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Do frozen embryos have rights?
I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't have rights.
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Rights are (as agreed upon by society) granted to human PERSONS.
Are you saying that other animals have no rights?
Does this mean it is fine for me to set a live cat on fire?

When you say that society grants rights? What does this mean exactly?
I know that a governing body creates laws and enforces those via coercion and force over society members. But the laws restrict, they don't grant.
(09-10-2013 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The question is "who is granted *personhood* status ?"
The law has not, to date, granted "person" status to embryos.
This is just a play on words. This discussion is a philosophical one. It is beyond the confines of the current law. The question is whether the law should restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion. If you state that the law is the definer of "rights" then this is circular and we stay with the status quo.
But instead, lets say we are forming a new government, a new set of laws, thus everything is a right, even the right for bacteria to live in a Petri dish. Even the right for a human to kill the bacteria as well as the right for the bacteria to kill the human.
But our task is to set some laws, to restrict the actions of those capable of observing our laws, this excludes bacteria and cats because they don't care about our laws. But our laws are not defining rights, they are restricting them.
So without going circular and worrying about whether a fetus has a right to live. How else can you reason whether law ought to be in place or not with regards to restricting humans from killing other humans, and how does that law cater for the situation where one of those humans isn't born yet?

We're taking about "human rights", not feline rights. Take a Civics class. It's not my job to educate you, on "where rights come from". It's not a "play on words". It a legal definition. The whole question is irrelevant. Any woman who has unprotected sex, can go get Plan B, over the counter, with no Rx. Rights are "granted" (not restricted) to those who have "personhood".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2013, 04:47 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 04:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We're taking about "human rights", not feline rights. Take a Civics class. It's not my job to educate you, on "where rights come from". It's not a "play on words". It a legal definition. The whole question is irrelevant. Any woman who has unprotected sex, can go get Plan B, over the counter, with no Rx. Rights are "granted" (not restricted) to those who have "personhood".
We have different views on rights.
For you, rights are defined by government thus no government can ever be guilty of human rights infringements. And you can never disagree with your government based on a position of rights because it is your government who define them thus government is always correct.
For me, everything is a right, the government only defines legal rights (which is actually a restriction via laws and law enforcement). I have the freedom to complain about my government when they set too many restrictive laws, because I don't base my complaints on legal rights. For example if the government deems that homosexuality and same sex marriage isn't a human right, thus they create laws against them ensuring that they aren't a legal right, I can oppose them because as a member of society I don't want my government going overboard and restricting people's choices when those choices don't impact me or society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 04:10 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Would you please stop making sense? It's bad for my arguments. Dodgy

No, I agree. Just trying to make one teeny, weeny point. That it's not so cut and dried as it's made out to be all of the time. It is a complex issue. I guess if anything, the point would be that education and rational and fair communication should always be of the utmost importance in these situations. And also that the male opinion does need to have a shred of credibility if this is to happen.

What you are pointing out is that it is an EMOTIONAL issue.

Most humans have very strong emotions about babies, it's survival of the species stuff, it's programmed into us.

That's why this topic never fails to rile people up.

Yes. But I believe it's still a point.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 05:12 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 04:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We have different views on rights.
For you, rights are defined by government thus no government can ever be guilty of human rights infringements. And you can never disagree with your government based on a position of rights because it is your government who define them thus government is always correct.
For me, everything is a right, the government only defines legal rights (which is actually a restriction via laws and law enforcement). I have the freedom to complain about my government when they set too many restrictive laws, because I don't base my complaints on legal rights. For example if the government deems that homosexuality and same sex marriage isn't a human right, thus they create laws against them ensuring that they aren't a legal right, I can oppose them because as a member of society I don't want my government going overboard and restricting people's choices when those choices don't impact me or society.

Nope. You don't get to tell me what I think. Rights are defined by PEOPLE, who VOTE to define what "legal" rights are granted to people. Some rights (the other category of rights), are inalienable, and are innate to the fact that one is a human person. I never said I never disagree with the government, or the VOTED choices the people make. You make up shit, and make spurious definitions, and accusations.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2013, 05:18 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 04:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:36 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Nothing about this makes her his "brood mare". They both are culpable for the baby. His desires were cast off as though they are worthless, which according to Chas they were. I happen to disagree.

Both parties should be able to reach a deal, as was said earlier. A deal didn't happen, it wasn't fair.

Didn't mean for this to take over the thread, I was merely trying to insert a point. I'm not mourning for the lost potential life, I actually happen to think it was probably a good thing she did have the abortion. My point is in the fact that his desire for the baby was dismissed so easily.

If they were in a continuing relationship, his views matter.

They were not, so hers trump his.

My other point was that people put way too much on an early foetus - it is not a human being.

Nothing was put on the fetus. It was all about the potential child. And at that stage it's arguably more than just potential.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: