On your last point about abortion, I disagree. I run in a circle with a bunch of libertarian types (some left, mostly center-right) and of those that are opposed to abortion, it has nothing to do with women's right to manage her own body. That's how the left has painted that picture, but it isn't accurate IMO. Most of them don't really care if a woman wants to get plastic surgery done, get tattoos, cut off her own arm, or sew her elbows together.
The only thing they care about is the life inside. Now, I don't want to get into a debate of what is life, the point is, they don't care what a woman does with her body, they only care about what a man or a woman does with another person's body (that other person being the person inside).
Except you can't separate the life growing inside a woman's body from the woman's body. That's not how it goes. If you control one aspect of it, you can control it all.
Maybe you can’t or won’t separate it. Or maybe you mean physically. But they can/do from a philosophical perspective. Anyway, I don’t want to get into an abortion discussion. I am merely saying that it has nothing to do with the woman’s own body, but rather, the harm done to the body of another, in a context where one considers a baby in a womb a life.
There’s no other “growth” or body modification these folks would care about because they dont care what a woman does to her own body.
On your last point about abortion, I disagree. I run in a circle with a bunch of libertarian types (some left, mostly center-right) and of those that are opposed to abortion, it has nothing to do with women's right to manage her own body. That's how the left has painted that picture, but it isn't accurate IMO. Most of them don't really care if a woman wants to get plastic surgery done, get tattoos, cut off her own arm, or sew her elbows together.
The only thing they care about is the life inside. Now, I don't want to get into a debate of what is life, the point is, they don't care what a woman does with her body, they only care about what a man or a woman does with another person's body (that other person being the person inside).
Except you can't separate the life growing inside a woman's body from the woman's body. That's not how it goes. If you control one aspect of it, you can control it all.
Maybe you can’t or won’t separate it. Or maybe you mean physically. But they can/do from a philosophical perspective. Anyway, I don’t want to get into an abortion discussion. I am merely saying that it has nothing to do with the woman’s own body, but rather, the harm done to the body of another, in a context where one considers a baby in a womb a life.
There’s no other “growth” or body modification these folks would care about because they dont care what a woman does to her own body.
Again, you cannot separate the body growing inside a woman, from the woman. It's part of her body. So "these folks" philosophy is that they think the government should control her body when it comes to reproduction.
On your last point about abortion, I disagree. I run in a circle with a bunch of libertarian types (some left, mostly center-right) and of those that are opposed to abortion, it has nothing to do with women's right to manage her own body. That's how the left has painted that picture, but it isn't accurate IMO. Most of them don't really care if a woman wants to get plastic surgery done, get tattoos, cut off her own arm, or sew her elbows together.
The only thing they care about is the life inside. Now, I don't want to get into a debate of what is life, the point is, they don't care what a woman does with her body, they only care about what a man or a woman does with another person's body (that other person being the person inside).
Except you can't separate the life growing inside a woman's body from the woman's body. That's not how it goes. If you control one aspect of it, you can control it all.
Maybe you can’t or won’t separate it. Or maybe you mean physically. But they can/do from a philosophical perspective. Anyway, I don’t want to get into an abortion discussion. I am merely saying that it has nothing to do with the woman’s own body, but rather, the harm done to the body of another, in a context where one considers a baby in a womb a life.
There’s no other “growth” or body modification these folks would care about because they dont care what a woman does to her own body.
Again, you cannot separate the body growing inside a woman, from the woman. It's part of her body. So "these folks" philosophy is that they think the government should control her body when it comes to reproduction.
Do you think there is room for discussion or 100% a woman's right what to do as long as it's in her body?
^ You can’t separate it physically, but you can view them as separate for purposes of a philosophical or policy debate.
I mean, isn’t this why we frown upon pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing drugs? Or should there be a general indifference to that since there is no other life involved?
On your last point about abortion, I disagree. I run in a circle with a bunch of libertarian types (some left, mostly center-right) and of those that are opposed to abortion, it has nothing to do with women's right to manage her own body. That's how the left has painted that picture, but it isn't accurate IMO. Most of them don't really care if a woman wants to get plastic surgery done, get tattoos, cut off her own arm, or sew her elbows together.
The only thing they care about is the life inside. Now, I don't want to get into a debate of what is life, the point is, they don't care what a woman does with her body, they only care about what a man or a woman does with another person's body (that other person being the person inside).
Except you can't separate the life growing inside a woman's body from the woman's body. That's not how it goes. If you control one aspect of it, you can control it all.
Maybe you can’t or won’t separate it. Or maybe you mean physically. But they can/do from a philosophical perspective. Anyway, I don’t want to get into an abortion discussion. I am merely saying that it has nothing to do with the woman’s own body, but rather, the harm done to the body of another, in a context where one considers a baby in a womb a life.
There’s no other “growth” or body modification these folks would care about because they dont care what a woman does to her own body.
Again, you cannot separate the body growing inside a woman, from the woman. It's part of her body. So "these folks" philosophy is that they think the government should control her body when it comes to reproduction.
Do you think there is room for discussion or 100% a woman's right what to do as long as it's in her body?
100% her right.
If we want to lower abortion rates (which have been dropping since 1990, nearly every year), then make birth control more easily available and increase education.
^ You can’t separate it physically, but you can view them as separate for purposes of a philosophical or policy debate.
I mean, isn’t this why we frown upon pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing drugs? Or should there be a general indifference to that since there is no other life involved?
^ You can’t separate it physically, but you can view them as separate for purposes of a philosophical or policy debate.
I mean, isn’t this why we frown upon pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing drugs? Or should there be a general indifference to that since there is no other life involved?
Is it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink?
I dont believe it is. But I’m asking if you personally have any issues with a pregnant woman drinking or doing drugs.
Since you cannot separate the the baby from the mother, then, your feelings should be the same whether said woman is pregnant or not.
^ You can’t separate it physically, but you can view them as separate for purposes of a philosophical or policy debate.
I mean, isn’t this why we frown upon pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing drugs? Or should there be a general indifference to that since there is no other life involved?
Is it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink?
I dont believe it is. But I’m asking if you personally have any issues with a pregnant woman drinking or doing drugs.
Since you cannot separate the the baby from the mother, then, your feelings should be the same whether said woman is pregnant or not.
My feeling is the same, in that it's a woman's choice to drink during pregnancy and I don't think it should be made illegal.
^ You can’t separate it physically, but you can view them as separate for purposes of a philosophical or policy debate.
I mean, isn’t this why we frown upon pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing drugs? Or should there be a general indifference to that since there is no other life involved?
Is it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink?
I dont believe it is. But I’m asking if you personally have any issues with a pregnant woman drinking or doing drugs.
Since you cannot separate the the baby from the mother, then, your feelings should be the same whether said woman is pregnant or not.
My feeling is the same, in that it's a woman's choice to drink during pregnancy and I don't think it should be made illegal.
Ok, I appreciate the honesty.
Do you think it is illogical to say, I don’t care if you do crack, but it bothers me if you do crack while pregnant?
I think that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold; although, one can only hold that position if they are able to philosophically view the baby separately from its carrier.
^ You can’t separate it physically, but you can view them as separate for purposes of a philosophical or policy debate.
I mean, isn’t this why we frown upon pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing drugs? Or should there be a general indifference to that since there is no other life involved?
Is it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink?
I dont believe it is. But I’m asking if you personally have any issues with a pregnant woman drinking or doing drugs.
Since you cannot separate the the baby from the mother, then, your feelings should be the same whether said woman is pregnant or not.
My feeling is the same, in that it's a woman's choice to drink during pregnancy and I don't think it should be made illegal.
Yeah, you couldn't practically make it illegal. As callous as it may sound, an embryo is a parasite and the mother is the host. You can't mandate that the host act in benefit of the parasite against their will no matter ones moral position. You'd then have to honor culpability of the parasite if it's presence resulted in harm or death to the host. Both would be untenable positions.
If during a routine bloodtest, it was discovered that an individual produced a unique gene inside a tumor which if replicated could cure all cancer on the planet, as much as this would be good for mankind, you could not force an individual to endure a month's long procedure to retain said turmor and extract said gene against their will. It's their body, and they get to choose. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
^ Totally agree with you. Vanexelent was saying you cannot separate the mother and the baby. Which physically I agree is true, but philosophically, I don’t think that is true at all. I think you can still philosophically see them as two things, even if one is dependent on the other.
Any mother who wants to see her baby through to birth is going to do some very specific thing specifically for that “other” thing.
Do you think there is room for discussion or 100% a woman's right what to do as long as it's in her body?
100% her right.
If we want to lower abortion rates (which have been dropping since 1990, nearly every year), then make birth control more easily available and increase education.
Yeah, legally, the bolded would always be right because to separate a viable fetus from the mother would always require an invasive procedure.
I guess discussion would be restricted to ethical debate. I've laid out plenty of time what I feel about viable fetus vs elective abortion beyond 24 weeks but again, I'm not a woman
Yeah. I’m frankly not interested in debating my position on abortion which is generally more left anyway.
I am just pointing out that for those who are opposed to it, it’s not always a stance against women doing what they want with their bodies. It’s the position that the baby is a life, separate from the mother, and terminating another life is the quandry.
I think both sides of the aisle can agree that taking another life is wrong. So the only point of contention is when is it a life.
How can a human who had no effect on the creation of that life
Or desire to provide 24x7 for it
Have a say in whether it breathes oxygen or not
Careful saying that cause then it comes to when the biological father wants to care 24x7 but mother carrying fetus does not, does father have a say (legally: no)
Yeah. I’m frankly not interested in debating my position on abortion which is generally more left anyway.
I am just pointing out that for those who are opposed to it, it’s not always a stance against women doing what they want with their bodies. It’s the position that the baby is a life, separate from the mother, and terminating another life is the quandry.
I think both sides of the aisle can agree that taking another life is wrong. So the only point of contention is when is it a life.
Yes and why you can't have the conversation like this without looking at how the legal, medical and and scientific communities define life or viability. You say they are not against the woman, but if you, or these conservatives you speak of by proxy want the government to force her to have a child, which is antithetical to freedom, they are in fact against the woman, despite how you or they want to frame it.
You say you cannot separate the baby from the mother, but that is only if you have the belief that, despite law and science, the fetus is in fact a viable baby from day one. However, once there is viability, now, legally, as based on science, the fetus becomes a concern for the state, and the state may then look at the welfare of both the mother and the fetus. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
How can a human who had no effect on the creation of that life
Or desire to provide 24x7 for it
Have a say in whether it breathes oxygen or not
Careful saying that cause then it comes to when the biological father wants to care 24x7 but mother carrying fetus does not, does father have a say (legally: no)
Not to mention, there are still many cases where we need to protect a child even from their own parents.
As for your hypothetical ... I'm inclined to say the father does get a say, but the mother has veto power.
However, if the mother vetoes the father's wishes, then, she must also assume the full financial responsibility for the child and the guy is off the hook in that regard.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67317 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:18 pm Post subject:
I'm of the school a woman should have the right to have or not have a child. In many cases a woman is the primary care giver.
If she doesn't feel she is mentally, financially, physically etc. fit for the next 18 years she should have the last word.
Having said that I also feel the father of the child should have a say or opinion. If he's willing to take on the responsibility it should be taken into consideration.
If a woman is forced to have a child will the child end up on welfare, in the juvenile system? What kind of life will the child be forced to endure? _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Yeah. I’m frankly not interested in debating my position on abortion which is generally more left anyway.
I am just pointing out that for those who are opposed to it, it’s not always a stance against women doing what they want with their bodies. It’s the position that the baby is a life, separate from the mother, and terminating another life is the quandry.
I think both sides of the aisle can agree that taking another life is wrong. So the only point of contention is when is it a life.
Yes and why you can't have the conversation like this without looking at how the legal, medical and and scientific communities define life or viability. You say they are not against the woman, but if you, or these conservatives you speak of by proxy want the government to force her to have a child, which is antithetical to freedom, they are in fact against the woman, despite how you or they want to frame it.
You say you cannot separate the baby from the mother, but that is only if you have the belief that, despite law and science, the fetus is in fact a viable baby from day one. However, once there is viability, now, legally, as based on science, the fetus becomes a concern for the state, and the state may then look at the welfare of both the mother and the fetus.
Very much agree with what you said. But there's two ways to look at that. Yes, if you force (at any point) a woman to carry a child through, that is antithetical to freedom. However, if you permit the termination of a life, then that too is antithetical to freedom.
So some may say, the lesser of two evils is forcing life versus terminating life but again, as you succinctly point out, that goes back to ... what is life?
An interesting segue -- there was a story out of LA a couple years back. Guy gets drunk. Crashes into a car driven by a pregnant woman. Woman survives, but the baby dies. The man is charged with murder (among other charges) and no one seems to take issue with the murder charge.
Joined: 04 May 2017 Posts: 3077 Location: The Left Coast
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:30 pm Post subject:
Has timing of an abortion been discussed already or is that irrelevant for some? _________________ “You can't be held captive by the fear of failure or the fear of what people may say.” - Kobe Bryant
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13811 Location: Boulder ;)
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:32 pm Post subject:
governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Without the Mother their is no other life
How can a human who had no effect on the creation of that life
Or desire to provide 24x7 for it
Have a say in whether it breathes oxygen or not
Careful saying that cause then it comes to when the biological father wants to care 24x7 but mother carrying fetus does not, does father have a say (legally: no)
I am not certain
I have wished there were some way to require some certification to be a parent
Did the two have an agreement to create a child together or did they act irresponsibly and therefore it would be her right.
>>Does she create an emancipation that takes away all responsibility from the father and how will it be enforced? The child will have rights to want to know its biological father even if it didn't care to know it... or not?
I'm of the school a woman should have the right to have or not have a child. In many cases a woman is the primary care giver.
If she doesn't feel she is mentally, financially, physically etc. fit for the next 18 years she should have the last word.
Having said that I also feel the father of the child should have a say or opinion. If he's willing to take on the responsibility it should be taken into consideration.
If a woman is forced to have a child will the child end up on welfare, in the juvenile system? What kind of life will the child be forced to endure?
Jodeke, I'm generally of the mindset that the type of life a child is likely to endure is irrelevant to the question of whether a child should get to live at all.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum