Obama and Abortion

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but that doesn't save the bad comparison.

It is a biological reality that men and women do NOT have equal roles in procreation. Any legislation related to procreation is bound to affect women far more than men. And yes, individual of either sex can understand and ennunciate the moral or medical issues involved, but in the end, it is still an issue about what is going on inside a woman's body, and women can't run away from their kids in the same way men can.

So men shouldn't be able to vote on it? Because that is the underlying subtext. Or they should defer to women on the issue.. something I find disturbingly sexist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So men shouldn't be able to vote on it? Because that is the underlying subtext. Or they should defer to women on the issue.. something I find disturbingly sexist.

I guess the universe is sexist, given that it only gave women the ability to get pregnant. Though that is a lot of pain, danger, and inconvinience to have to go through just to get 100% assurance of genetic inheritance.

Men as part of society as a whole do and would have a role in making a policy decision on the legality of abortion, but women should and must have the leading and primary say given that this is an issue that affects them in a completely disproportionate way.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


They don't have rights either.

that's just plain wrong.

[Patroklos]

So what? Fetuses don't have rights. Only creatures that can ask for and defend rights have rights.

So why can't I "abort" a one year old? Again, your lack of consistency lays your true motives glaringly bare.

If you don't want to murder human beings, why are you in the military?

You're so cute when you think you have a point my wittle wannabe wevolutionary!

By what convention has conventional war ever been classified as murder?

Except that many people who are anti-choice are also anti-contraception. This is not an issue of defending babies. This is an issue of male supremacy.

Except of course, by and large they are not. This is absolutely an issue of defending human life, and your sad little redirect above lost its flare long ago, revealing your intellectually bankrupt position.

The simple fact is Che that you don't care whether you are killing humans or not, it is all about your self absorption and convenience.

What does this mean? I'm assuming you meant pro-choice, not pro-life, but I'm still having a little trouble. What motive are you implying?

Yes, I meant pro-choice. I am of the exact same position as Jon is, that we have conventions for establishing what is and is not human life that we apply consistently EXCEPT for abortion. There is no medical of logical reason for this, except for rationalizing away humanity for the sake of convenience.

I totally understand the position that the fetus is not automatically human life, just like I understand the position that a brain dead person is not human life, even if (hypothetically) I don't believe in it. If I honestly think you are not trying to justify murder but rather simply don't think its murder then at least you are consistent and intellectually honest.

However, most are not consistent. There are large number of pro-choice people I run into who believe in abortion up to birth even today. It is that inconsistency (in many, not all) that clearly reveals the true motive behind their position, which is the rationalization of human death for convenience.

They don't have rights either.

And this my friends, is the real Che. Long live the revolution!

So I guess you spend your time sneaking into orphanage nursuries killing children, right? THE UTOPIA DEMANDS IT!?! Or are you all big talk and no action here as well?

[Patroklos]

I guess the universe is sexist, given that it only gave women the ability to get pregnant.

And they also didn't give them the means to physically resist subjugation. OH WELL THEMS THE BREAKS BIATCHES!!!

Gepap

[DirtyMartini]

Thanks. That's clear and a fair argument. From the original post I was a little worried you were implying a profit motive on the side of the medical establishment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos

However, most are not consistent. There are large number of pro-choice people I run into who believe in abortion up to birth even today. It is that inconsistency (in many, not all) that clearly reveals the true motive behind their position, which is the rationalization of human death for convenience.

You know, like creating terms like colateral damage when talking about innocent people getting blown up in warfare, because it is so much simpler to aim to exterminate our opponents (who last time I checked are human beings) with high explosives dropped from far away as opposed to taking the far more costly and dangerous road of going in after them personally.

The only "pro-lifer" I can think of is someone like the Pope, who is against abortion, execution, and generally against warfare (thought not always). His moral position I can admire, your, not so much.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And they also didn't give them the means to physically resist subjugation. OH WELL THEMS THE BREAKS BIATCHES!!!

Gepap

Last time I checked, any adult of either sex is more than capable of picking up a tool and killing their oppressors. Heck, any adult woman can put enough pressure on an adult neck to break it.

Care to say more stupid things?

[Patroklos]

Last time I checked, any adult of either sex is more than capable of picking up a tool and killing their oppressors. Heck, any adult woman can put enough pressure on an adult neck to break it.

Care to say more stupid things?

Did you just say this? Really?

So, anyone else want to support Gepap here, that there isn't an obvious and real differnece between the phyical prowess of natural males and females?

In any case Gepap, your own caracture of your position has adequately shredded it. I expected better from you

BTW, you also just undermined child support laws, Gepap

[asleepathewheel]

Obama also believes in providing comprehensive sex education (contraception and stds) to 5 year olds.

[Ramo]

However, most are not consistent. There are large number of pro-choice people I run into who believe in abortion up to birth even today. It is that inconsistency (in many, not all) that clearly reveals the true motive behind their position, which is the rationalization of human death for convenience.

Why is that an inconsistency? I'm personally not sure that newborns should be treated legally as persons. They largely lack the capacity for abstract reasoning that differentiates us from other animals. But a cutoff date needs to be imposed for personhood somewhere. I'm inclined to place it at the second trimester (with exceptions for the mother's health), to allow for a large enough margin of error to control for our lack of understanding of brain development. But one can easily argue that my margin of error is way too large, and place the cutoff at birth.

There's no inconsistency here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Men as part of society as a whole do and would have a role in making a policy decision on the legality of abortion, but women should and must have the leading and primary say given that this is an issue that affects them in a completely disproportionate way.

So should men be given the leading and primary say in anything dealing with prostate cancer? Women with breast cancer? The rich in banking issues and regulation? The poor in welfare?

Should we have 500 different legislatures so we can make sure that each identity group can be the leading and primary say on each issue that affects them disproportionately?

What a load of crap.

If men have a moral position on the unborn... shelve it, you aren't allowed to have your opinion, women are deciding here! Hmmm... if that was oppositely done, I think there would be an outcry.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


They don't have rights either.

We (society) grant them basic rights, just like we grant them to others who aren't (always) in a position to defend them personally. Who gets granted what rights depends and can be challenged in the political arena, but usually modern societies do have a set of core principles which go for everyone.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Did you just say this? Really?

So, anyone else want to support Gepap here, that there isn't an obvious and real differnece between the phyical prowess of natural males and females?

Men have stronger muscles, and weaker immune systems and can stand less pain. Wow, so you are a muscle headed moron who thinks raw physical strenght is all that matters. Good to know.

In any case Gepap, your own caracture of your position has adequately shredded it. I expected better from you

BTW, you also just undermined child support laws, Gepap

Last time I checked, child support laws can only be enforced if paternity is settled. For paternity to be settled, a man must have acknowledged their paternity, or the woman must have been able to gain evidence of paternity. That means that a man can still impregnate and run. If you knock up some woman in a bar and never see her again, the likelyhood you will have to pay any child support is zero.

Care to have an adult discussion, or are you going to continue to say dumb things.

[Patroklos]

Why is that an inconsistency? I'm personally not sure that newborns should be treated legally as persons. They largely lack the capacity for abstract reasoning that differentiates us from other animals. But a cutoff date needs to be imposed for personhood somewhere. I'm inclined to place it at the second trimester (with exceptions for the mother's health), to allow for a large enough margin of error to control for our lack of understanding of brain development. But one can easily argue that my margin of error is way too large, and place the cutoff at birth.

You are of the same mind as Jon and I, though we gave examples parameters to determine where that cutoff should be.

However, there are significant pro-choice forces that are against restictions period, and far more against restrictions that would apply in other instances of determining human life. You know this to be true.

Based on the data I have seen on fetus brain activity I am inclined to agree with prohibiting abortion in the second and thrid trimesters, and think that allows for enough of that padding you speak of to make up for our lack of concrete determination.