Right to Contraception Under Attack

[Elok]

Grr. It's not a comparison, it's an ANALOGY. I'm using an act we can all agree is Not Okay, plugging it in for the debatable, and seeing how the consequences follow; that is, if the factors in question actually affect the propriety of the action if it is unacceptable for other reasons.

But sorry for jumping the gun. This thread started as a Evil Men Scheming to Take Over Our Ovaries troll, and I pre-empted an attack you weren't going to make, as it turns out.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok
You're killing the same thing at an earlier stage, regardless. Again, caterpillar and butterfly, still unanswered.....

Gotcha .

The cessation of existence before the existence of existence is not possible . I cannot be killed before I am born , because before I am born , I am not I , or I do not exist as I . You cant kill the same thing at an earlier stage because at an earlier stage the thing isnt the same thing .

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Gotcha .

The cessation of existence before the existence of existence is not possible . I cannot be killed before I am born , because before I am born , I am not I , or I do not exist as I . You cant kill the same thing at an earlier stage because at an earlier stage the thing isnt the same thing .

So, stomping on the larval stage of an endangered species of butterfly does not, or should not, violate any laws? That's basically the analog of the fetus, is it not? It's not the same thing, except it pretty much is.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok


So, stomping on the larval stage of an endangered species of butterfly does not, or should not, violate any laws? That's basically the analog of the fetus, is it not? It's not the same thing, except it pretty much is.

But humans aren't an endangered species. Infact, we could use a culling.

[bipolarbear]

But humans aren't an endangered species. Infact, we could use a culling.

Technically we are. Overpopulation, pollution, all sorts of crap, that we are wiping ourselves out with. WAR nukes! I'd say that we produce our own endangerment.

[General Ludd]

Which is why a culling is neccisary.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by General Ludd


But humans aren't an endangered species. Infact, we could use a culling.

You first.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You first.

I don't trust you enough to make a suicide pact, sorry.

[DinoDoc]

Have the courage of your convictions!

[chequita guevara]

I believe in not breeding.

[Ben Kenobi]

There seems to be more anti-choice advocates resorting to physical violence and/or property violence than there are those who are pro-choice.

Property damage?

I've suffered property damage from the anti-life people.

(Hey, if we're anti-choice, then they have to be anti-life.)

I wonder what you base your assessment on.

SOME anti-choice advocates use the rhetoric of human life as sacred as a facade to their real agenda in dehumanizing women by denying them the right to autonomy over their own body.

Assumes that we are only dealing with one body here, the woman. If we have 2, then it is not about 'denying autonomy', but rather, that recognising that the rights of one end where another's begin.

[Ben Kenobi]

A simple solution could be that the women's and pro-choice groups threaten to simply disown any children produced by lack of contraception or unavailibility of abortion , and leave them at the doorsteps of the leaders of the anti-choice movement . Let them handle the mess they might make . Even if we know that such stupid laws for banning contraception shall not be passed , this is one of the effective deterrents not only for the fanatics but also for the state .

Considering that prolifers consider abortion to be murder, they would definitely prefer that you give the child up for adoption rather than aborting.

So not a bad solution.

Reinforce the adoption agencies, and streamline them to make them easier to use in exchange for banning abortions.

Sounds like a win/win situation.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some of us have tried to argue with prolifers on this very point, but they have a tendency to abandon the field when it becomes apparent that their position on the matter makes no sense.

Then bump the thread in question.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's just that the notion of 'zygotes's rights' as was mentioned above is so patently ridiculous that we suspect there must be some ulterior motive.

Again, fails to answer my question about the prolife women. If there are prolife women, then what's in it for them?

Secondly, just because you believe zygotes having rights are ridiculous, does not make it so.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, most pro-lifers disagree (as to why they disagree, well, you'll have to ask them -- I've never gotten a straight answer), and so it's just as schmucky to equate a pro-life stance to a "pro-misogyny" stance as it is to equate a pro-choice stance to a "pro-murder" stance.

C'mon Loin.

Begging the question here.

If you believe personhood to begin at conception, then abortion results in the death of a person. Since this is premediated, it would seem murder is the best category for abortion.

Not that hard.