12 year old girl speaks against abortion, and she does it well.

[Jinali]

So it happens, but there is no proof that is is happening, but that means we should be writing anti-abortion laws and restricting women's rights because of an anecdote from some person on a random internet forum.

Got it.

I've never said we should be writing anti-abortion laws. As a matter of fact, abortion is allowed up until week 22 if you are granted permission by the national health board, they will look at your circumstances when deciding about allowing you to have an abortion at that point and mental illness is one of the circumstances where they will almost always grant permission. After that it is no longer permissible for any other reason than medical reasons.

If you think I want to ban abortion then you are mistaken.

The right to have unrestricted access to abortion up until the established limit is paramount in securing womens health and womens ability to act as autonomous individuals with absolute right over her own body. The resistance to abortion must be looked at from a global perspective where many women are denied this right.

We must never restrict womens right to safe abortions, that would be to preach murder on women. Let women retain the right to their bodies, even if there are those who want to restrict it.

Women will get abortions regardless of the legality of it, the only difference is that they risk their lives where it's illegal or heavily restricted. Approximately 70,000 women die per year as a result of unsafe abortions and hunderds of thousands suffer injuries. That's on average 8 women per hour that die as a direct consequence of unsafe abortions and abortion being illegal or heavily restricted.

[Espe]

You'll have to excuse me then if I find your attitude hardly more appealing than theirs.

I will, of course. I don't consider you to be a bad person, just perhaps a bit misguided in your approach to anti-humanist morons who pine for the days when it was a given that women were property.

I tend to treat conservatism with all the respect it merits. I won't apologize for that.

[Deleted]

No, you haven't. Let's see a citation for these quoted statements from Roe v. Wade, and something that disproves my statement that they explicitly rejected Texas' right to life argument.

planed parenthood did not overturn Roe.
Also, read the second quote.

"compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week."

That's from Roe.
So they didn't completely reject the Texas argument, as if they had the states would have had no possibility to regulate abortion at all.

[Belisarius565]

Tell me, conservative, what is the legislative agenda of the politicians you vote for?


Life should always be fair, and perfect, and no one should ever get sick, and no one should ever be abused, and everyone should always do the right thing.

It's a shame that's not how life works. Most people understand this simple concept when they mature out of childhood and give up their stunted fantasies.

Once again, conservative, what is the legislative agenda of the politicians you vote for? What do the politicians you support and elect into office actually attempt to put into law?

So first you categorize my "views" into a little narrow ball, and label that completely as a person. "Tell me, conservative" If I was speaking to you I would say "Espe" not say "Ok, Liberal." Then after you stated that all of conservatism is just hate hate hate, I say, I don't hate anyone and you demand to know who I vote for? As if I vote for someone, or against someone I am supporting or not supporting such "hate" or any other subjective road you would "show me how I actually do hate someone/something." No I refuse, and I refuse to hate any person while still being "conservative" which this conservatism you apparently have no idea even exists.

Then you call me immature because I am in my stunted fantasy that I expect others to treat others well. Should not we expect that of people? The other alternatives is just to legislate when people do "bad things" so people will decide to do good things because they don't want to be punished, I don't want to live in that world either, which many people still act this way unfortunately. Who is the one calling names here, and using fallacies just to lash out at people they don't agree with.

If your mom wanted to abort you, I would still want a law to protect you while you developed in her womb, so you can grow up to live your life, even if I disagree with some of your views too. Because as you said, people don't always do the right thing, and laws need to be put in place so that they discourage bad behavior because it doesn't always happen this way.

[Deleted]

So, your claim then, just to make sure I understand this clearly, is that all the big tough jobs that pay the most in each bracket (I guess there are more of them as an over all % in the lower brackets ) are done almost entirely by men because.. I guess they're tough enough to which is why they make more. Okie dokie.

No i reject the brackets.
There is a pay gap if female teachers earn less than male teachers, if a welder makes more money than a nurse, that's no pay gap, that's a function of welders having a greater value than nurses, as far as the markets are concerned.
If you want brackets to work, just because, then you need to invalidate the markets, that has a tendency to not work.
Besides if X job give X pay where X is a bracket, then what's your solution for the disparity in job death?
there is a reason most of those though jobs pay more, the risk of injury and death added to the sheer physicality makes few people willing and able to them, if they dont get more pay, why would anyone do them?

All the while you are making this claim to value life while arguing that once its born fuck it, its got no right to have at least one caring parent and as secure a financial upbringing as possible, not at the fathers expense anyways.

No that's not what i think, i think that if there is abortion, meaning that sex is not consent to parenthood, holding men to a differing standard than women, is wrong.

You want the dad to be able to walk out up to x moths afterwards.

prior to birth actually.

Mom can't afford the kid?

Her problem, if she cant afford it maybe abortion should have been considered, or safe haven laws, that already allow women to do what they want no questions.

Do you suppose there might be some resident sexism in your overall thought process? Not intentional, but something there sub-consciously? It sure is sounding like it.

i think autonomous actors making autonomous decisions should be responsible for said actions.
As a summation, if the playing field was fair, the outcome is fair, you seem to be more interested in making the outcome fair, which invalidates the choices made by people.

... you don't know anything about kidney transplants do you? You're just making shit up now.

Most people can live normal lives with minimal impact, but there are some problems.
Still my point is that a kidney transplant is a lost kidney, what organ does a woman lose during a pregnancy?

No it doesn't. You have no idea what you are talking about and are full of shit.

i was being hyperbolic, for some people, most live as i said normal lives, still permanently missing a kidney.

There is no difference is your highest value is life. I could also point out that there is a distinct difference in killing a person and not allowing them to use you as a host. Dead is dead, if life is so valuable that the mother should not be allowed an abortion then how can you justify a statement like that (aside from not actually answering to it)?

whatever valuation you put on a life, there is always a distinction in killing and not helping.

Will you answer the question in such a way that I do not have to make assumptions. YES or NO or some middle ground. Not "it would be nice if people wanted to". Is it unclear as to what I am asking? I'll say it again:

Do You Value Bodily Rights Over The Right To Life Or Is It Just In The Case Of Abortions?

They are not analogous, one ends a life, the other lets someone die, putting it this way, if a woman could abort herself by refusing sustenance to the foetus that would be a different situation to abortion, you not getting that outcome is not the only interesting factor is not my problem.

f I were to make an assumption from your unclear answers I would guess that it is only in cases of pregnancy and where you caused the harm (unclear as to how far, for example if you damage someone's heart and they're going to die without a transplant do you have to give up yours). However, this would mean you're a hypocrite, so I'd rather hear your explanation, which, I suspect I never will.

But if i cause your heart condition and you die, i can be jailed for that happening.

[Randec]

I trust a women who is capable of reproduction to make the right decision for her own body, without anyone telling her what she should or shouldn't do, or can or can't do. That is because I believe women are intelligent enough to make decisions about their own body.

Well, right there is the problem. Not everyone is intelligent or responsible.

Plus, we're not talking about decisions about her body, we're talking about the decisions she makes regarding another little body growing inside of her.

In my mind a fetus becomes a person the instant the mother makes the (reversible) decision that she is going to carry it to birth. It wouldn't be covered legally until it meets whatever laws the region has covering it (obviously), but for the sake of what to call it I'm more than happy to call it a human being the instant it is fertilized. It doesn't make one difference in the abortion debate to me.

So it becomes a person when a woman decides she wants to keep it? And if she decides not to keep it, it's no longer human again? That's like, the definition of arbitrary.

It's human and it's alive. If it weren't alive, we wouldn't have to argue about killing it.

Asking is fine, but that isn't what happens, it is demanded and legislated. This takes away the mothers right to her own body and requires her (at some point depending on where she lives) to act as an incubator for another human. We don't force this kind of requirement on anyone else anywhere in society where their bodies become are subject to the whim of another (we do have other laws that I do various degrees disagree with but generally speaking its your body and yours to do with as you see fit up until the point you start encroaching no another's right to theirs). When it is demanded that the mother host the child and forced upon her as best as it can be that is giving the control of her body over to another human.

Bolded emphasis mine.

Unfortunately we have to legislate responsible behavior. We can't count on everyone acting responsibly and intelligently, there are very messed up people out there.

For example, I don't think I will change Randec's mind about anything, he is clearly going to stick with whatever ignorant beliefs he has been conditioned to accept as truth.

You're so close. I find your excessive use of the words bigot and conservative very compelling. Just keep substituting well reasoned arguments with the rollseye smiley and I'll go down and have four abortions tomorrow.

What you don't seem to understand is that conservatives like Randec have already labelled themselves with their bigoted, anti-humanist agenda.

Yeah, I guess being opposed to killing unborn humans make me anti-humanist.

[Deleted]

Well, right there is the problem. Not everyone is intelligent or responsible.

Plus, we're not talking about decisions about her body, we're talking about the decisions she makes regarding another little body growing inside of her.

Which infringes on the rights of the woman.

[Deleted]

Which infringes on the rights of the woman.

society infringes on the rights of its people all the time.

[Randec]

Which infringes on the rights of the woman.

So if I have multiple children with many different women, is it a violation of my rights as a man for the justice system to ask me to pay child support? Or am I responsible for the consequences of my actions?

Who do I have to kill to get off the hook?

[Anevers]

society infringes on the rights of its people all the time.

That means society should force women to risk their lives in childbirth?

[Mayhem]

So if I have multiple children with many different women, is it a violation of my rights as a man for the justice system to ask me to pay child support? Or am I responsible for the consequences of my actions?

Who do I have to kill to get off the hook?

as far as i´m aware, if you´re in prison you don´t have enough income to support a child and therefor are not paying anything, so to answer your question, whoever you want, just be sure to get caught

on a more serious note, there is a difference between a child and a foetus, you do know this, right?

[Belisarius565]

as far as i´m aware, if you´re in prison you don´t have enough income to support a child and therefor are not paying anything, so to answer your question, whoever you want, just be sure to get caught

on a more serious note, there is a difference between a child and a foetus, you do know this, right?

Same way that a 2 year old is different from a 35 year old, age.

[Randec]

as far as i´m aware, if you´re in prison you don´t have enough income to support a child and therefor are not paying anything, so to answer your question, whoever you want, just be sure to get caught

Don't be silly, society can't take away my rights as a consequence of my actions!

on a more serious note, there is a difference between a child and a foetus, you do know this, right?

Yes, I do.

[Mayhem]

Same way that a 2 year old is different from a 35 year old, age.

sure, that´s one, can you think of others?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't be silly, society can't take away my rights as a consequence of my actions!

different actions, different consequences

[FlyingWoodchuck]

They are not analogous, one ends a life, the other lets someone die, putting it this way, if a woman could abort herself by refusing sustenance to the foetus that would be a different situation to abortion, you not getting that outcome is not the only interesting factor is not my problem.

Why won't you answer the question? It is incredibly simple. I am not entertaining anything you have to say any longer until you answer it, I've been forthcoming to you, you're not returning it. I know its because you don't like the answer and don't want to give it because it shows the flaw in your thinking.

- - - Updated - - -

If the shoe fits....

You are as bad in this regard as the people you are attaching labels to, in this precise way you are acting exactly in the manor you are claiming they are.

- - - Updated - - -

So it becomes a person when a woman decides she wants to keep it? And if she decides not to keep it, it's no longer human again? That's like, the definition of arbitrary.

Yes, it is arbitrary, I totally agree. But it is practical. The mother decides if she's going to carry the fetus to birth or not, it may as well be her call rather then having 927 different events to have to measure before calling it a person. If the mother is going to abort it there is no chance of personhood, if she is going to carry it then we should do everything we reasonably can to see it born healthy and safe. I see no point in waiting until some other arbitrary threshold is reached (can feel pain, brain activity, has a heart, whatever you want to use). For all practical purposes if the mothers intent is to birth the child it should be considered a person, if she is not there is no point in considering it a person.

It's human and it's alive. If it weren't alive, we wouldn't have to argue about killing it.

Arbitrary claim, same as above. What makes yours more valid then the mothers, the person who has the authority over the life of the fetus?

Bolded emphasis mine.

What a shock you'd fail to realize its the fetus imposing on the mothers body in this case, not he mother imposing on the fetus.

Unfortunately we have to legislate responsible behavior. We can't count on everyone acting responsibly and intelligently, there are very messed up people out there.

So essentially you have two poles here with some points in he middle of where people can stand. They can either be for allowing abortions, or against them. If, as you seem to say, we need legislation to make people act intelligently, and, we have legislation that currently clearly favours the abortion side (we are allowed abortions, albit up to a point depending on where you live), does that mean you're saying the anti-abortion crowd is all stupid? How are we to determine what measuring stick to use to come up with legislation that is done intelligently for a moral decision (moral issues on both sides)? I personally like to use the golden rule, I would not like to force other people to have to give up parts of their lives that they are not willing to do so for my benefit as I would not want to be forced to do the same. The fetus is imposing on the woman, not of its own fault but of necessity for its survival, but imo, its needs do not trump the womans right to decide what happens to her body, the same way someone who needs blood doesn't get to require that I give it up for their sake.

[Deleted]

society infringes on the rights of its people all the time.

Only if there's enough reason to. Forcing women to be pregnant is not one of those.