Obama and Abortion

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap
And what makes you think that if this view is so self evidently the best that women would be unwilling to hear it and adopt it? Are they incapable of reason or something?

Yes. I'm sexist. Didn't you know?

Okay. So, it doesn't matter where the idea originates from, but who expresses it. In that case, let's say that this self-evidently best idea arises and is put forth before Congress. All the women in Congress vote for it but all the men vote against it. Since there are for more men in Congress than women, the measure fails.

Now, because women should have more of a say, should we work it into the Constitution so that this issue and this issue only can be decided by less than a majority vote so long as that minority is comprised of women? And what would the proportion have to be, anyways? How much more valuable is a woman's opinion on the subject than a man's? 1 and 2/3 more valuable, perhaps?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem in the US is viewing abortion as a moral issue as opposed to a health and social issue.

Because it is a moral issue. When does life begin... hard to get into a more moral issue than that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
There are a lot of very selfish people, GePap. Look at how long slavery lasted, and it is obviously immoral.

JM

Slavery was finaly abolished when the prevailing view became that slavery was imoral. Obviously that thought wasn't that "obvious", specially given that slavery was part of human society for most of its existance, and many of the holy books that people still claim to believe are infalible roundly supported that institution.

morality is not static nor absolute, never was, never will be.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Because it is a moral issue. When does life begin... hard to get into a more moral issue than that.

Nope. We humans have plenty of justifications for ending human life, and we use them all the time. Even if you classify a fertilized egg as being a human life, you can still argue that its termination is completely moral.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's actually my point. Just because everyone CAN be convicted of a capital crime doesn't mean that Congresspeople take that into account when passing laws on it. They merely take into account how likely it is that THEY will be held to that punishment. Therefore the fact that they can be held to a capital crime does not factor into their decision at all.

Wouldn't you call that a failure, or at least an imperfection, of justice then? Forgive me. I don't want to read the whole thread, because arguments about abortion are repeated so often.

But wouldn't that be a bit of a contradiction that you are making. If Congresspersons can't make moral judgements about crimes they don't precieve themselves as commiting then how can men make judgements about abortion?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Okay. So, it doesn't matter where the idea originates from, but who expresses it. In that case, let's say that this self-evidently best idea arises and is put forth before Congress. All the women in Congress vote for it but all the men vote against it. Since there are for more men in Congress than women, the measure fails.

Now, because women should have more of a say, should we work it into the Constitution so that this issue and this issue only can be decided by less than a majority vote so long as that minority is comprised of women? And what would the proportion have to be, anyways? How much more valuable is a woman's opinion on the subject than a man's? 1 and 2/3 more valuable, perhaps?

I already made my point on this clear. Men should defer to women. Men don't have to, if they want to claim they would know better. They don't, but they are free to act as they want to.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap
I already made my point on this clear. Men should defer to women. Men don't have to, if they want to claim they would know better. They don't, but they are free to act as they want to.

Ah, so male votes shouldn't count at all in Congress when dealing with the issue of abortion. Glad we got that cleared up.

...

But what if a majority of women decide that men shouldn't defer to women on the issue of abortion?

[-Jrabbit]

The insulting thing about this entire issue is the constant implication that pro-choice people are necessarily pro-murder. That is the pro-life smear tactic that has obscured the true fundamental issue of determining how much control of our personal lives and morality the government should be granted.

For me, the correct answer is: a little as is practical.

The GOP tends to fully agree when it comes to deregulating industry, but seems to have a very convenient blind spot when it comes to actual people. As if people can't be trusted to make reasonable choices, but S&Ls, airlines and financial services companies can.

How's that working out, BTW?

My political views have definitely swung further to the right over the years, but they keep moving the damned goalposts on me. Back in the 60s, I used to think that Barry Goldwater was a hardcore nutcase right-winger and couldn't understand how anyone could support him. Today, many of his core beliefs sound pretty reasonable to me. But today he would be reviled by the Republican base as soft, maybe even left-of-center.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Lancer


Ok, regarding a 'woman's right to choose' she asked something like "what about my rights?" You see, she got cerebral palsy from being aborted. Perhaps she considered that being aborted contravened her rights.

She should take that up with the doctor who couldn't even manage to scrape out a parasite fully.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Ah, so male votes shouldn't count at all in Congress when dealing with the issue of abortion. Glad we got that cleared up.

Do you know what defer means?

But what if a majority of women decide that men shouldn't defer to women on the issue of abortion?

Then that is their decision. Seems pretty simple.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap
Do you know what defer means?

There are two definitions. What, did you mean that men should postpone their opinion until the time woman? When is woman?

Then that is their decision. Seems pretty simple.

Then... you've polled a representative sample of women and determined that the majority believe the issue of abortion is for them to decide upon and them alone?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Nope. We humans have plenty of justifications for ending human life, and we use them all the time. Even if you classify a fertilized egg as being a human life, you can still argue that its termination is completely moral.

Emphasis added... it still ends up being a moral argument in the end.

[Elok]

Only men can rape (in the classical, penetrative sense, as opposed to general sexual harassment/assault); why should women have any say in society's treatment of an act they will never commit? Sure, women are often the targets of rape, but then a fetus can be either gender too--or no gender at all in rare cases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Wouldn't you call that a failure, or at least an imperfection, of justice then? Forgive me. I don't want to read the whole thread, because arguments about abortion are repeated so often.

But wouldn't that be a bit of a contradiction that you are making. If Congresspersons can't make moral judgements about crimes they don't precieve themselves as commiting then how can men make judgements about abortion?

My point is that we have decided as a society to give the power of decision making over to elected Representatives. If we allow them (and don't mind) power over making decisions about punishments they will never be subject to, then why are we making a fuss over giving the male members of that body power over abortion? It appears to be a double standard. Either give them power over neither or both.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
The insulting thing about this entire issue is the constant implication that pro-choice people are necessarily pro-murder. That is the pro-life smear tactic that has obscured the true fundamental issue of determining how much control of our personal lives and morality the government should be granted.

If it is ending a human life, than the government should be involved. This is the most fundamental way the government is involved.

No, it isn't a pro-life smear. Those who ignore the issue and say it is a government control issue are either monsters or are assuming that their definition of when life begins which has so scientific backing is correct.

They are legislating their morality on the babies lives, by saying that they don't have a right to life unlike all other humans.

It is because they don't have a strong position on the human life beginning after birth position. The 'it is none of the government's business' position is obviously false as all other involuntary (or voluntary) ending of human lives is the governments business.

JM