Should men have a say in abortion ?

It has to be separate from her to be considered a separate being. As long as it isn't separate, it can't have separate "rights".

We don't have a choice about where any of our taxes are spent. You can't opt out of the traffic light on the corner just because you disapprove of it. Your only "choice" is through participation in the political process.

It tends to be the same people, doesn't it?

It isn't authorization, though. It's just minding your own damn business. If bars go against your grain, don't go to bars. You don't have to dictate what everybody else should do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why?

Isn't that what they are doing?

Who? Pro-Lifers in tanks, planes, and battleships?

If you didn't protest extermination camps, wouldn't your absence be the silent approval of genocide?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a tautilogy. Separate is separate and not separate is not separate.

They are misusing the political process to impose their own views on everybody else. That's the antithesis if democracy.

People who claim to be "pro-life" but who, in fact, are pro-death when it comes to killing the "enemies of America".

No. Silence is not approval. You're allowed to shoot your mouth off but you're not required to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, If someone murdered a pregnant woman, would it be considered a double homicide?

It is a big question, life and death. As a community, do they have a right to determine the answer to that question?

Well, as a country, we are an effective killing machine when we set our minds in that direction. Right?

True.

***
last post for the morning, bob. time for bed, catch you later

 

In a jurisdiction that bans abortion, it might be. But must people don't really consider abortion murder, do they? They don't want to execute a woman who has an abortion, do they?

I don't think the community has a moral right to kill its members or to force them to have abortions or to force them to stay pregnant.

 

In some countries. But only if the foetus could survive on its own.
Not a separate person means the tissue is a dependent part of the mother - kind of like a benign tumour.*
separate means having the ability to live without the mother.
The mother can always live without the foetus, and sometimes only without the foetus. Many times, the foetus can't live on its own, even if it's carried to term. In those cases, there is no point in forcing the woman to carry it for an extra six months, when she knows that, even if it lives, it will be a sick, damaged baby, one she probably can't take care of.
That's a damn cruel thing to do.
But the extreme pro-life men don't care. They're not interested in the babies' welfare - that's amply proven by their funding practices. They just hate women. They don't trust women to make sound judgments over their own sexuality and fertility: they think women need to be controlled. Kept in check, kept in line, guided, corrected... And punished.

(*present for yous to play silly putty with)

 

So then I guess it becomes a question of who offers the less broken alternative.

 

Too late for that I'm afraid. You established a standard for credibility for your opponents. It is silly and an obvious small minded ploy of political caricature. That is your argument and your problem. Its more accurate to say that you completely fail to establish anything credible.

Pardon me?
I haven't even offered any suggestions on social or legal policy.
But I guess for someone accustomed to think in echo chambers, thought bubbles and hackneyed rhetoric, such details are not important.

 

So if that freedom comes at the expense of disposing of the body of another, how does that metric of yours play out? No one is doubting that there can be a certain convenience in eliminating others. Humans have been at it for millenium.

 

synonyms:inception, genesis, origination, creation, formation, formulation, invention;

Usually we understand something to exist after it begins. It's not a difficult concept.

 

So you have no stand on reproductive freedom?
If that is so, why are you so vigorously representing the "pro-life" faction that I find less than credible?

 

Aside from a bunch of lawyers deciding they want to make some money or a bunch of politicians (or their lackeys) wracking their brain about how they can maintain the status quo of their power (or disrupt the status quo of their opponents), what do you suppose drives social and legal policy?

Or, alternatively, when you look at the OP, how much of it is about thrashing out specific details of social and legal policy surrounding the topic of abortion?

 

It is an emotional issue. Whip people's emotions enough and you can get them to riot, assault and even murder for you.

If they need abortions - yes. Indeed, it would probably be the more merciful thing to do.

 

Because for as long as one needs the other to survive, they are not separate.

Sure. I have no problem with people protesting tax money being used for wars and abortions. They still have to pay taxes like anyone else.

I have never seen you protest the deaths at Saydnaya prison death camp in Syria from a few years ago. Does that mean you approve of genocide?

 

Relationships of dependence are not abhorrent. They are the very defining substance of civilization.

 

i think the popes comment about (if it is true, it might not be true) "likening abortion to hiring a hitman" is not very helpful.
i thought, gee thats kinda funny considering how many hitman the vatican must have hired over the centurys.
probably tens of thousands.

while i dont agree with his opinion, considering he has pushed the stogy old cardboard cut-out-pretend-humans to accept contraception as ok and pushed the non violence sign a bit, i feel i can let it play.
but only as an oar that is helping to paddle the pro-contraception & anti-torture & anti-war boat.

how we teach small children to not pull the wings off flys and butcher their pets for entertainment is an art more so than a simple mathematics equation.
after all humans are killers by nature.
murderers at heart that kill beautiful living animals with personalities to cook and eat them for survival.

this murdering of cute beautiful animals to cook and eat them has been a way of life and survival for hundreds of thousands of years.

anti-abortionista's are not even a blink among the greater picture of life and the human species.
they are like an odd paragraph in a series of books that is still being written.
it is only them that declare their ideology to be needed at the point of a sword while threatening war at any cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
soo... catholics have learned and evolved to not be genocidal serial killers.
thats awesome !
the catholic churches efforts offering sanctuary during wars is also awesome(many priests were tortured to death by people trying to find where they hid the jews, socialists, intellectuals/school teachers... local peasants etc...)

the current 6 year old man-baby tantrum that wants to claim ownership over womens bodys, though standing in a mans body screaming and waiving signs(& collecting philosophically idle groupies), does not make it right that men should have dominion over womens bodys.

 

Yep.
And in command of the air force, bombing the pregnant women and their children in the cities of Iraq.

No.

Not at four months gestation - it never has been, anyway, by prolifers.
Neither has causing miscarriage - say by an industry exposing pregnant women to environmental pollutants of one kind and another, or bad working conditions - ever been prosecuted as manslaughter. No pro-life picketers harassed the corporate headquarters of the perps, or the agency headquarters of the EPA, FDA, etc.
The prolifers never even noticed any of these matters until poor women could abort their pregnancies without great risk and suffering. That's one easy way anyone can tell they are full of shit now.

Same way it did for hundreds of years in every Catholic hospital in the Western world - first and second trimester miscarriages were treated as medical waste. So were ectopic pregnancies.
Or you could go with the straight ethics: No one has the right to inhabit someone else's body without their consent. Anyone has the right to kill in self defense when their life is threatened by someone invading their body.

 

how many anti-abortionista's eat lamb, pattée' & veal & sow crate suckling pigs ?

asian Catholics probably eat babys pigs as part of their culture.
i dont consider them evil for doing so.
middle eastern eat baby sheep as part of their culture
i dont consider them evil for doing so

 

The question was: If you have no position on the issue, why did you so vigorously defend the dishonest pro-life faction?

 

Your small minded political rhetoric aside (... yet again), is there any aspect to the discussion aside from thrashing out social and legal policy? Looking at the OP, it would appear so.