8 ms·

> The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the

> The idea that you can draw the line arbitrarily along a child's development other than the very moment of inception and call one a self-centered right and the other murder is preposterous. Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. As a woman, I deem legal and safe abortion an exercise of my second amendment rights. If I determine that a separate individual has taken residence inside me contrary to my wishes I have the right to defend my person against that intrusion. Of course I first ask for the person to leave and find suitable accommodation elsewhere. Oh you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No? Well I will stand my ground. I really don't see why (mostly) men have no philosophical qualm with defending their home against a fully alive intruder, yet can not understand why a woman might wish to exercise a similar right over her own body.

socceroos 8y ago
The below may sound a bit harsh, but I'm trying to be clear - apologies in advance. I've got nothing against you or any circumstances you've been in. > Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. That's not an argument that makes any sense at all, nor does it stack up when put under scrutiny. What about the viability of an infant that you arbitrarily decide you wish to eject from the home? You ask them to leave; well they can't walk. You ask them to find suitable accommodation elsewhere; well they can't talk. You tell them to feed themselves. Oh, you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No?... What about the viability of a minority group that the government decides they don't want in their country? Lets say it's a bunch of Jews, eh? Follow through with your principle and see where it leads you. So I'd argue that this is an argument of selfishness, lack of responsibility and willful foolishness - traits which are considered highly unhealthy to self and society. Putting that aside, the other issue is that this argument completely skips the point at hand - human life. As a society, we deal with human life carefully for a reason - it's beautiful and important - it's something to be cherished and nurtured. Arguments like these try do deny this fact by looking the other way.
- rabboRubble 8y ago
  If I do not control what happens to my body, what freedom do I have? I am not advocating that I individually control the expulsion of an entire group of people at a national level. I demand only control over my own reproductive function. Women in these United States of America have no paid maternal leave unlike all other countries except 2 others, we have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world on par with Sri Lanka, and until Obamacare rolled around did not have automatic pre-natal care in our health insurance plans. Why should I relinquish my right to self determination for a nation that cares so little for my successful motherhood? The US at a policy level has no skin in the game, yet a large group of its citizens want to tell me what do? Screw that... We tolerate all sorts of nonsense in the US that ends people's lives in the name of freedom. Just look to the pro-2A crowd. They take no societal accountability for the lives of people in their policy preferences. Why should I accept any less for myself?
  - socceroos 8y ago
    > If I do not control what happens to my body, what freedom do I have? This argument is again one that rejects the moral responsibility to the human child growing in the body. The notion that discontent with the situation justifies killing a human doesn't stack up. The point about the broken USA healthcare system will never justify the killing of unborn children. It also serves as a first-world excuse that is essentially based around inconvenience. Finally, the argument that "others do horrible things so therefore why can't we do this horrible thing too" doesn't make any kind of sense either.
    - StellarTabi 8y ago
      It's not really horrible at all, terminating unwanted fetuses. What is horrible is being complelled against your will to bring an unwanted child into this world without the desire or ability to care for it, then knowing how backwards and broken the first world is, let alone even considering the third world, then there are some fucked up religious people who expect you to be a slave to their ideologies, even in a place that's suppose to be so nice they call it the first world.
tomp 8y ago
Unless you were raped, tou did invite that individual into your body, so it’s technically not an intruder.
- rabboRubble 8y ago
  Birth control is not 100%.
- StellarTabi 8y ago
  They didn't invite you, so it's also none of your business.
kingofhdds 8y ago
>Not preposterous at all. >The line is clear: >viability outside the womb. It doesn't work this easy way. Many people are unviable outside the womb due to illness, trauma or age-related troubles, and yet they are considered humans, anyway. More to that, many (probably, majority) countries have laws punishing for refusing aid to such humans.
apta 8y ago
> contrary to my wishes I have the right to defend my person against that intrusion. It's quite sickening how you phrase that. Intrusion? Defend? Unless you were raped, you did invite that person to "take residence inside you". People want to have their cake and eat it too. Absolutely no sense of responsibility.
- rabboRubble 8y ago
  Birth control is not 100%. Partners that seem stable prior to a pregnancy suddenly turn violent. Jobs are lost. Your mom who would have helped if you are a single mom, dies. Life threatening illnesses happens. The condition of being pregnancy itself may be trying to kill you. The wanted fetus suffers a condition that will require a lifetime of care you know you will never be able to afford in these rough United States of America. You already have 4 kids and the husband will not take no for an answer and if you have a 5th you will go jump off a bridge. You willfully ignore the complexities of life.
  - apta 8y ago
    > Birth control is not 100%. I know that, and people should realize what they're getting themselves into when having sex that it potentially would lead to pregnancy. Call me old fashioned, but perhaps people shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage if they're not willing to risk getting pregnant. It becomes a different discussion if the life of the mother is at stake due to pregnancy. In which case, her life takes priority.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      That’s not so much old fashioned as willfully ignorant of how humans have been comporting themselves for all of recorded history. It isn’t really an opinion as much as a moral and intellectual dodge, sort of like prohibitionists preaching abstinence. I’ve also noticed that so many people lose interest in the life of child the instant it leaves the birth canal. People who thinks it’s a moral imperative to protect s fetus, don’t see, to take similar hard lines on protecting the welfare of children in general. The position seems to hold only so long as someone else is bearing the consequences. These same people are often against paying a cent in taxes for healthcare, education, food, housing. Those same people don’t even seem to bemoan genocides in places like Rwanda or Sudan, or the Congo until long after they end. To me, it reeks of screwy priorities, and control.

socceroos 8y ago

The below may sound a bit harsh, but I'm trying to be clear - apologies in advance. I've got nothing against you or any circumstances you've been in. > Not preposterous at all. The line is clear: viability outside the womb. That's not an argument that makes any sense at all, nor does it stack up when put under scrutiny. What about the viability of an infant that you arbitrarily decide you wish to eject from the home? You ask them to leave; well they can't walk. You ask them to find suitable accommodation elsewhere; well they can't talk. You tell them to feed themselves. Oh, you can't leave on your own? I still don't want you here -- leave, leave now. No?... What about the viability of a minority group that the government decides they don't want in their country? Lets say it's a bunch of Jews, eh? Follow through with your principle and see where it leads you. So I'd argue that this is an argument of selfishness, lack of responsibility and willful foolishness - traits which are considered highly unhealthy to self and society. Putting that aside, the other issue is that this argument completely skips the point at hand - human life. As a society, we deal with human life carefully for a reason - it's beautiful and important - it's something to be cherished and nurtured. Arguments like these try do deny this fact by looking the other way.

rabboRubble 8y ago
If I do not control what happens to my body, what freedom do I have? I am not advocating that I individually control the expulsion of an entire group of people at a national level. I demand only control over my own reproductive function. Women in these United States of America have no paid maternal leave unlike all other countries except 2 others, we have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world on par with Sri Lanka, and until Obamacare rolled around did not have automatic pre-natal care in our health insurance plans. Why should I relinquish my right to self determination for a nation that cares so little for my successful motherhood? The US at a policy level has no skin in the game, yet a large group of its citizens want to tell me what do? Screw that... We tolerate all sorts of nonsense in the US that ends people's lives in the name of freedom. Just look to the pro-2A crowd. They take no societal accountability for the lives of people in their policy preferences. Why should I accept any less for myself?
- socceroos 8y ago
  > If I do not control what happens to my body, what freedom do I have? This argument is again one that rejects the moral responsibility to the human child growing in the body. The notion that discontent with the situation justifies killing a human doesn't stack up. The point about the broken USA healthcare system will never justify the killing of unborn children. It also serves as a first-world excuse that is essentially based around inconvenience. Finally, the argument that "others do horrible things so therefore why can't we do this horrible thing too" doesn't make any kind of sense either.
  - StellarTabi 8y ago
    It's not really horrible at all, terminating unwanted fetuses. What is horrible is being complelled against your will to bring an unwanted child into this world without the desire or ability to care for it, then knowing how backwards and broken the first world is, let alone even considering the third world, then there are some fucked up religious people who expect you to be a slave to their ideologies, even in a place that's suppose to be so nice they call it the first world.

tomp 8y ago

Unless you were raped, tou did invite that individual into your body, so it’s technically not an intruder.

rabboRubble 8y ago
Birth control is not 100%.
StellarTabi 8y ago
They didn't invite you, so it's also none of your business.

kingofhdds 8y ago

>Not preposterous at all. >The line is clear: >viability outside the womb. It doesn't work this easy way. Many people are unviable outside the womb due to illness, trauma or age-related troubles, and yet they are considered humans, anyway. More to that, many (probably, majority) countries have laws punishing for refusing aid to such humans.

apta 8y ago

> contrary to my wishes I have the right to defend my person against that intrusion. It's quite sickening how you phrase that. Intrusion? Defend? Unless you were raped, you did invite that person to "take residence inside you". People want to have their cake and eat it too. Absolutely no sense of responsibility.

rabboRubble 8y ago
Birth control is not 100%. Partners that seem stable prior to a pregnancy suddenly turn violent. Jobs are lost. Your mom who would have helped if you are a single mom, dies. Life threatening illnesses happens. The condition of being pregnancy itself may be trying to kill you. The wanted fetus suffers a condition that will require a lifetime of care you know you will never be able to afford in these rough United States of America. You already have 4 kids and the husband will not take no for an answer and if you have a 5th you will go jump off a bridge. You willfully ignore the complexities of life.
- apta 8y ago
  > Birth control is not 100%. I know that, and people should realize what they're getting themselves into when having sex that it potentially would lead to pregnancy. Call me old fashioned, but perhaps people shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage if they're not willing to risk getting pregnant. It becomes a different discussion if the life of the mother is at stake due to pregnancy. In which case, her life takes priority.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    That’s not so much old fashioned as willfully ignorant of how humans have been comporting themselves for all of recorded history. It isn’t really an opinion as much as a moral and intellectual dodge, sort of like prohibitionists preaching abstinence. I’ve also noticed that so many people lose interest in the life of child the instant it leaves the birth canal. People who thinks it’s a moral imperative to protect s fetus, don’t see, to take similar hard lines on protecting the welfare of children in general. The position seems to hold only so long as someone else is bearing the consequences. These same people are often against paying a cent in taxes for healthcare, education, food, housing. Those same people don’t even seem to bemoan genocides in places like Rwanda or Sudan, or the Congo until long after they end. To me, it reeks of screwy priorities, and control.