Should men have a say in abortion ?

[Musika]

While i think most men wish to be able to have an ability to choose, how many men are willing to put their own life, income and career on the line ?

is the concept of risk equal to mens ability to conceive the reality that they have no personal risk or physical bodily accountability from ?

a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for abortion ? peers = women

thoughts ... ?

Let's try the same general principle in a different context.

Should civilians have a say on how military personnel are deployed?

While i think most civilians wish to be able to have an ability to choose, how many are willing to put their own life, income and career on the line ?

is the concept of risk equal to a civilian's ability to conceive the reality that they have no personal risk or physical bodily accountability from ?

a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for military deployment ? peers = the armed forces

thoughts ... ?

TL : DR : advocacy is meaningless (hopeless? A farce?) to the degree there is no independence between judicial, martial and legislative assemblies.

While any sort of critical political thought inevitably attracts opposing dialects, engineering a solution that foists to the opposition nothing more than "the only thing you need to know is that anything you think or say on the subject has no value" would be a good introduction to the college of applied Stalinism.

 

[Bowser]

When should the life of a developing fetus be considered worth protecting? Conception? Degree of cognition? Full term?

When does it become "Life"?

 

[Bowser]

a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for military deployment ? peers = the armed forces

thoughts ... ?

I think our responsibility to those serving in the military is to avoid deploying them whenever possible, and only when absolutely necessary. I'm game for a national vote as a prelude to diving ourselves to war.

 

[Musika]

I think our responsibility to those serving in the military is to avoid deploying them whenever possible, and only when absolutely necessary. I'm game for a national vote as a prelude to diving ourselves to war.

In this instance, my point was not so much to garner support for a particular view, but rather to highlight the inherent frailties in playing a particular creed as owning the sole rights for advocacy.

I mean, by the same pretext, one could just as easily employ Gianna Jessen, and other abortion survivors, as the sole contributors to the abortion debate. Of course such demands won't finalize the debate, merely raise suspicions arising from tilting windmills and the like .... employing victimhood as an automatic qualifier for the moral (or legislative) high ground automatically writes itself as brilliant political satire.

 

[Bowser]

... employing victimhood as an automatic qualifier for the moral (or legislative) high ground automatically writes itself as brilliant political satire.

Agreed, but there is value in preserving life. And I believe that is the core message of the pro-life movement.

 

[Musika]

Agreed, but there is value in preserving life. And I believe that is the core message of the pro-life movement.

.... which explains why it is at odds with contemporary society.

 

[Jeeves]

Really? So the value of your life is up for debate?

Constantly!
I have no idea what planet you're living on. On this one, every life is always under negotiation. If you were a housewife in Tehran right now, or a schoolteacher in Sudan, you would have not the slightest clue as to what your life is worth from one minute to the next, and no control whatever in the outcome of the "debate".

As for "pro-lifers" I'll believe they're interested in the value of human life when they
1. abolish the death penalty
2. stop supporting hawkish administrations
3. set up social agencies to help every sick, injured and addicted citizen,
4. insure adequate sex education and perinatal services for all,
5. protect girls and women from sexual assault and
6. insure a loving home for every baby, including those with severe birth defects.
In the meantime, I remain convinced that they only care about imaginary lives, not real ones; they only protect children who don't exist and abuse the ones who do.

 

[Musika]

Constantly!
I have no idea what planet you're living on. On this one, every life is always under negotiation. If you were a housewife in Tehran right now, or a schoolteacher in Sudan, you would have not the slightest clue as to what your life is worth from one minute to the next, and no control whatever in the outcome of the "debate".

As for "pro-lifers" I'll believe they're interested in the value of human life when they 1. abolish the death penalty 2. stop supporting hawkish administrations 3. set up social agencies to help every sick, injured and addicted member of their communities, 4. insure adequate sex education and perinatal services for all, 5. protect girls and women from sexual assault and 6. insure a loving home for every baby, including those with severe birth defects.
In the meantime, I will remain convinced that they only care about imaginary lives, not real ones.

You essentially just established an impossible set of directives that are required to be fulfilled in order for you to accept their credibility.

 

[Jeeves]

You essentially just established an impossible set of directives that are required to be fulfilled in order for you to accept their credibility.

You mean they're never going to be credible?
That could be because they're fundamentally and terminally dishonest.

 

[Musika]

You mean they're never going to be credible?
That could be because they're fundamentally and terminally dishonest.

It means you are being dishonest since you know very well your demands are beyond any human capacity to implement. It doesn't make your essential argument stronger. It makes it weaker.

 

[Jeeves]

It means you are being dishonest since you know very well your demands are beyond any human capacity to implement. It doesn't make your essential argument stronger. It makes it weaker.

Do you believe in the inherent value of human life - YES or NO ?

I don't have "and argument". I made a charge. Defend your positio0n.

 

[Musika]

Do you believe in the inherent value of human life - YES or NO ?

Sure.
And furthermore, it appears that vast numbers of other humans also think so (even if they express it in a self destructive manner, such as diving head first into the anthropocene age).

I don't have "and argument". I made a charge. Defend your positio0n.

Yes you do.
You just provided an argument for what the prolife movement has to perform in order to be credible.
You just wrote it a few posts before, so I assume there is no requirement to copy/paste it again.
I pointed out how your forays into the absurd/impossible delegitimize whatever substance might otherwise be legitimate.

When people say such things, regardless of which camp they identify with, it just gives the appearance that their animosity towards the opposing party is more important to them than any possible avenue that might solve or de-escalate the problem.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you believe in the inherent value of human life - YES or NO ?

I don't have "and argument". I made a charge. Defend your positio0n.

As I've said elsewhere, I used to shoot people for $8.47/day before deductions. I have no reason to believe everybody is worth that much.

 

[Musika]

As I've said elsewhere, I used to shoot people for $8.47/day before deductions. I have no reason to believe everybody is worth that much.

Shopping mall/school campus psychopaths don't require a stipend.

 

[Jeeves]

You just provided an argument for what the prolife movement has to perform in order to be credible.

I made a factual statement regarding my own perception.
I do not believe that you value life, because I do not see you preserving and protecting the life that demonstrably exists,
while pretending to defend life that does not yet, and may never exist.
I do not for single second expect any hypocrite to start demonstrating any sincerity,
because you maintain that it's

absurd/impossible

-to oppose wars and executions,
- support decent living conditions for your fellow citizens and
- elect representatives who want to help people rather than politicians who want to attack people.

delegitimize whatever substance might otherwise be legitimate.

Exactly!!

 

[wegs]

Whenever it comes to this debate, it seems like (on average) the men who are not pro-choice, are sexist and/or misogynistic. So, they have an opinion of women in a general sense, that we are to be submissive, and under their authority. It's going on in the workplace, it's going on in Hollywood, it's going on in the government, it's going on when it comes to healthcare, etc. Of course, there are outliers, but if you pay attention to many pro-life men, they usually are against women in the military, women working at the same types of jobs as men, and women in leadership. The abortion ''debate'' is just another place for these types of men to exercise their authority over women. It's called patriarchy for a reason.

 

[Musika]

I made a factual statement regarding my own perception.

I'm not doubting that.
I am just saying it is dishonest because you know very well that you are asking your opposition for something untenable by any human endeavour or party.

I do not believe that you value life, because I do not see you preserving and protecting the life that demonstrably exists,
while pretending to defend life that does not yet, and may never exist.

Your ideas about what life is and isn't demonstratable aside (which is, after all, the very essence of the question being posed by this sort of topic, and thus amounts to you begging the q), who is there existing in this world that fulfills your before mentioned criteria for protecting life ( and thus, by your standard, earns the right to be credible in offering an opinion on the subject)?

I do not for single second expect any hypocrite to start demonstrating any sincerity,
because you maintain that it's

-to oppose wars and executions,
- support decent living conditions for your fellow citizens and
- elect representatives who want to help people rather than politicians who want to attack people.

Even to accept this abridged and some what dramatically less utopian and absurd summary of your criteria for credibility, who, in your mind fulfills these demands?

Exactly!!

I'm not sure why you are so excited by the prospect of you delegitimizing what ever legitimate substance you may have to offer.

 

[sideshowbob]

Does your life have value and is it worth saving?

Anybody who pays taxes has value and is worth saving. If you advocate for the fetus paying taxes from the moment of conception, I will acknowledge its value.

 

[Musika]

Anybody who pays taxes has value and is worth saving. If you advocate for the fetus paying taxes from the moment of conception, I will acknowledge its value.

By the standard of somewhat developed industrial countries, people don't even start earning money until they are a teenager. Some people, due to illness or poor life choices, might go through their entire life of many years without paying taxes.
....it appears there are a whole bevy of creeds and classes, besides fetuses, that we can lump in with this social Darwinism of yours.

 

[sideshowbob]

....it appears there are a whole bevy of creeds and classes, besides fetuses, that we can lump in with this social Darwinism of yours.

The question was about the value of life. How do we value life? How do we compare the value of a person who spends millions of dollars on himself to a person who devotes her whole life to helping others? What is the metric? How is it applied? And when?