>>47
"Then they shouldn't be having sex to begin with. Birth control is not prohibitively expensive, anyway."
"People are going to have sex regardless. Sex comes as something that is just as natural as eating."
Yes, but you shouldn't have sex if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences. Sex is not something as necessary as eating, and it is something you can control and refrain from doing. If they didn't have access to birth control, and had sex anyways, abortion shouldn't be there to make up for their irresonsibility.
"Last time I checked, sex is a two-way street. It is also the man's fault."
Go read the unwanted pregnancy thread.
"The national sex education is sub-par, I saw a boy asking where his cervix is. People need fucking comprehensive sex-ed."
People can always go out and find this stuff out. Saying "I didn't know if I shoved my dick in her vagina a baby would come out!!!! I DIDN'T KNOW!! DON'T BLAME ME! Don'T HoLD ME ACCOUNTABLE!!" - just shows an incredible lack of responsibility for your actions, imo.
"This instance has never surfaced in our society. Women take abortion seriously and put a lot of thought into it, they are far from selfish with this."
You might be (generally) right. Since they never exercise the right to murder, surely they wouldn't mind us restricting it to those 'necessary' circumstances?
"The woman's right-to-life should superceed that of the potential fetus."
I never said it shouldn't. In fact, I said it should. If you recall, I said abortions should be allowed when medically necessary for the mother's health.
"A woman is above that of the fetus, to subject her to a status lower than a fetus is to strip her of being a human being."
Possibly true, but it isn't like the fetus deserves no respect, has no right to continue developing, and should just be treated like garbage. I want some oversight, and I want regulation on this. People shouldn't be allowed to run around killing human fetuses whenever they please.
""Murder, and the 'right' to kill or destroy fetuses is not something best left to the woman, her family, or her physician."
'Sorry, but it truely is.' "
And I'm saying this should change.
"Again, sex is a two-way street."
No it isn't. It's the woman's body, and thus it is her responsibility to prevent pregnancy if she doesn't want it. If she doesn't take the actions necessary to prevent pregnancy, she is inviting the consequences, and shouldn't be allowed to abort to avoid these consequences for her actions.
"Also, accidents do happen, such as when contraceptives fail."
By using multiple methods of contraception at the same time, you can reduce the possibility of conception to nothing worth considering. If people are responsible, and just really try, and show some responsibility, abortion could seriously be phased out, largely. Regulating it so people can't just get one whenever they want, or discouraging the practice would be a great way to encourage people to act differently, show some responsibility, and would likely reduce the number of unnecessary pregnancies and abortions.
"By the way, statistics show that 98% of American women use some sort of contraceptive sometime in their lifetime. So women are far from being fucking irresponsible."
They should be using several at once to reduce the possibility of an 'accident' down to roughly nothing.
"Women have been treated as second class citizens for far too long in history, after the woman's sufferage have they started getting a foot hold in society. We don't want to return to the Dark Ages, unless of course, you're a misogynist and hate women."
How women are treated in society has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be legal. In the question of abortion, and whether or not it is allowed, it is the fetus, and what IT deserves that should be in question, not whether women are mistreated throughout the rest of their lives in society. The fetus is entirely innocent, and it is wrong to suspend its rights due to percieved problems in the rest of society.
Furthermore, I don't think women's rights are suffering right now, nor do I think they would if we got tougher in regulating abortion.
"Abortion is not murder."
Maybe not, but I think the human fetus has a right to continue to develop into a full human being. No, I would say murder is kindof overkill, but killing fetuses is not something that should be taken lightly, something that we should pay attention to, or allow to occur willy-nilly.
"Women, as the lead point into the next generation should ultimately make such a sensitive decision by herself and others whom she trusts."
She should not have the right to destroy a developing human fetus she is responsible for creating, whenever she wants.
"To deny a woman abortion is to subject her to being nothing more but a uterus with legs."
It most certainly is not.
"If you can't trust a woman with her decision then you are ultimately being sexist."
How am I 'sexist' for thinking that humanity needs some laws or guidelines to prevent them from taking part in bad behaviors? Are you saying I must hate humanity because I think laws against murder are necessary? Since I must not trust people not to kill other people, I must hold them in low regard, right?
Give me a break. The majority of people in society are good, have good intentions, are honest, and would not take part in these activities. The reason those laws are there are because there is a minority of people who may not, for whatever reason. The reason those laws are there are to protect humanity, and to protect life, liberty, and property. This is the proper function of a good government.
>>48
"The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments?"
Generally, yes. Notice that I said generally though. I DO think that there is a minority of women who could care less either way. By and large, however, I think most women are fully capable of handling things themselves. This is just like laws against murder/theft/etc, generally, and it certainly doesn't mean I don't like people, or that I am anti-people. All it means, is that I think that while, largely, people can take care of themselves, it is sometimes necessary for the government to step in, due to a small segment of the population that is irresponsible, and is a threat to everyone else who CAN take care of themselves, and who DOES act in a 'good' manner.
"If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not."
Wrong. The reason I am for abortion control is simply because I think that - while the majority of women are good, and can be trusted to handle the situation responsibly, there are a minority of women who can't, and for these, we make laws.
"You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question,"
This is simply not true. I trust the majority of women to make the decision, just like I trust the majority of people to not murder, to not steal, etc. However, there is a minority that acts in a way that the rest of society would percieve as 'wrong' or 'bad'. Again, for these folks we have laws.
"But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute."
I haven't thought about that. Anyhow, we are talking about this, and the exceptions I specified that were just involved medical necessity.
"And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty,"
I don't have a position on the death penalty, right now. I really don't know. This is a different question altogether, anyways, as in the case of the death penalty, you are executing CRIMINALS, whereas in killing a fetus, you are killing an INNOCENT.
"(arguably, all life period,"
No, just all human life. I would say that we should treat animals with a reasonable degree of respect, however.
The reason that I think laws regulating abortion are just, is because it is the proper function of government to protect life, liberty, and property.
I would say we can pretty much assume that the founders had meant _HUMAN_ "life" when they had said this originally.
"and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort,"
If a criminal comes to my house attempting to murder me, and trips on the step, falling on a knife he was carrying and dies, it wouldn't bother me. Likewise, situations in which women kill themselves in an attempt to kill or wrong someone else, don't bother me.
"and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions"
In the United States, it is a 'just world.' What more do you mean by this? I think women should have the same individual rights as men..
"then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this."
Not true. I generally trust women. There are a few bad apples though. Likewise, I generally trust people. There are a few bad apples though. It is for these few that we must make laws.
"Think about the hubris of that. Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman's judgment about her own, very real, life situation?"
Not only are abortions generally wrong, I don't see why they are necessary. Assuming birth control is used, what is the point in having the 'right' to kill a fetus? Sure, you can say that sometimes it is medically necessary for the mother's health, but this is a moot point since I've already said exceptions should be made in this instance.
"And you think that's not sexist?"
I don't think laws regulating abortion are sexist at all. If it makes you happier, let me say I'd support the same kinds of legislation if it were men who produced the babies instead of women.
"That that doesn't demonstrate, at bottom, a distrust of women?"
It represents a distrust of a small, segment of women, not a 'distrust of women,' if you see what I mean. Women are by and large trustworthy just like everyone else. Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples, just like there are in men. I'm not saying they are any different, in this regard. Again, if it were men who produced the children, I would support the same kinds of laws.
"A blindness to their equality? A reluctance to give up control over someone else's decision?"
When this decision effects the rights of others, I think it is fine to regulate it.
"The fact that abortion is even a debate in this country demonstrates that we do not trust women."
That is just like saying that, "because laws are even a debate in this country demonstrates that we do not trust humanity."
The point is is that human beings are basically good, and so are women. They are generally able to handle things themselves, but there are a few bad apples.
Thus, the conclusion is that, since people are basically good, they are able to self-govern, generally. Unfortunately, as I said, there are a few bad apples, and this self-governance requires some degree of restriction in certain areas in order to safeguard the same rights to everyone else in the society.
"In some ways, this anger/bitch thing is, like abortion, a bottom-line issue. How do you react to women's political anger?"
I have no clue what you are talking about.
"Is it okay for a woman to have strong opinions as long as she doesn't make anyone uncomfortable?"
To be frank, it is ok for a woman to have strong opinions, and in general, to think however the fuck she wants, as long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others, which it doesn't.
The problem is that in cases such as abortion and murder, it is clear that her (or his?) decision could influence the rights of another human, be it a fetus or an adult.
"If she sounds angry, does that automatically invalidate what she's saying?"
Of course not.
"Do you think that feminists would be more effective if they were nicer?"
I'm not sure. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
"If there's a disagreement between a woman and a man, do you instinctiively see "his side"?"
Firstly, there are plenty of pro-life women. Mextly, I trust my own judgement.
"Do you mistake strong convinctions for personal attacks?"
Again, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.
"Do you value civility over fairness?"
Again, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.
"Because if so, then that, too, is a kind of distrust, hubris, a reluctance to cede control."
What do you advocate, anarchy? I think people are -generally- able to take care of themselves. However, as said before, there are a few bad apples. For these folks, we need laws and government.
"There is an important difference between private anger and public anger, and it is the latter I am talking about."
So?
"It is important to recognize that the ability to remain "civil" about injustice is a demonstration of power, and, arguably, is itself a kind of violence--more subtle than yelling, and for that reason, far more damaging."
I still don't see where you are going with this.
"Because it is easy to isolate the angry woman, to shun her because of her anger."
I'm not trying to isolate angry women. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to kill human fetuses whenever they please, is all.
"Many people will not see past the anger, and therefore many people will find it justified; she is, after all, being "unreasonable."
I think the 'right' to kill a human fetus whenever you please is pretty 'unreasonable' a thing to request.
"After all, just as with abortion, women are not supposed to make people "uncomfortable."
In the case of abortion, she is destroying a completely innocent human fetus.
"But when that happens, that amounts to denying women the right to public speech: the angry woman's anger is taken personally, as an indictment of her character, rather than as a legitimate political expression."
I don't view the 'right' to destroy human fetuses as a personal issue. I don't think killing human fetuses is 'legitimate political expression.' This infringes upon the rights of others, and is not acceptable.
"(And then, of course, men say things like "women don't feel comfortable arguing.")"
Sorry, I fail to see what the hell you are talking about.
Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, and it is not a 'right' to destroy human fetuses whenever you want. They have the right to life.