southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:16 PM) Sure it does. A baby is going to be named, a funeral will likely be held. It is unquestionably a human being. A miscarried fetus, on the other hand, is not viewed as a dead human. There's no name, no death certificate, no funeral rites. Some people treat stillborns that way, but that's significantly later in development, when there's actually a functional brain. That doesn't mean miscarriages can't be traumatic; they often are if you've being trying to get pregnant and you're far enough along to realize it. This isn't about guilt or blame or responsibility or causes. It's simply pointing out that culturally we view a miscarried embryo or fetus and a still-born or a dead 1-day old baby as very different entities. Only when it comes to abortion does a fetus suddenly gain personhood and rights and domain over the mother's body. We also view murder and accidental death as two different things culturally as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) So why is the father held responsible for it after its birth? That is contradictory. What is contradictory? When does the father lose the right to control his own body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) What is contradictory? When does the father lose the right to control his own body? Apparently at climax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) We also view murder and accidental death as two different things culturally as well. We don't view the dead person differently or claim that they are a different entity, which has been pointed out several times in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Apparently at climax. Paying childsupport=losing the ability to make choices regarding your own body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) We don't view the dead person differently or claim that they are a different entity, which has been pointed out several times in this thread. Yes we do. We don't go after a person for an accidental death, versus an intentional one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) Paying childsupport=losing the ability to make choices regarding your own body? If a woman can abort a pregnancy and a man can't, apparently so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) Yes we do. We don't go after a person for an accidental death, versus an intentional one. That doesn't change the status of the dead person, which is the correct comparison to our views of a dead fetus. They don't become a person or not a person or lose or gain any other traits based on why they died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 The other reason I dont get into controlling your own body is the govt already has laws that prevent us from controlling our body. Cant use certain drugs, etc. Northside, Im kind of the same way. I usually have strong opinions, this is one where I just dont see a great answer. Which is why I go with the answer that makes the most sense based on all of our other laws and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) If a woman can abort a pregnancy and a man can't, apparently so. Men can make whatever decisions they desire regarding their own bodies. Men cannot make decisions for women regarding the woman's body, and women cannot make decisions for men. Seems fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Strangsox, Thats just not true. If I want to go out and smoke a bunch of marijuana and top it off with a few rails of cocaine, I cant. So the govt doesnt let me do whatever I want regarding my body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Fair point, though I do not support those laws and thus there's no contradiction. There's no sex-based discrimination in those laws, however, and it doesn't bolster any sort of arguments that men should have the ability to force women into medical procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I agree and do not support those rules as well. And the sex based argument is a fair point, which is what I wanted to clarify. The obvious argument is it cant apply to men, but thats circular just like half of this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) Strangsox, Thats just not true. If I want to go out and smoke a bunch of marijuana and top it off with a few rails of cocaine, I cant. So the govt doesnt let me do whatever I want regarding my body. And they are even more regimented when your actions endanger the life of another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:23 PM) Men can make whatever decisions they desire regarding their own bodies. Men cannot make decisions for women regarding the woman's body, and women cannot make decisions for men. Seems fair? In the logic you are using, they are. They are allowing their sperm to either make a kid, or abort it. Without the mans sperm, there is no decision to make. Thus they are making a decision over their body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) And they are even more regimented when your actions endanger the life of another. You've expanded the scope of the argument from rights over your own body and personal medical decisions which aren't going to endanger the lives of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) You've expanded the scope of the argument from rights over your own body and personal medical decisions which aren't going to endanger the lives of others. Abortion doesn't endanger anyone else? the fetus would beg to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) In the logic you are using, they are. They are allowing their sperm to either make a kid, or abort it. Without the mans sperm, there is no decision to make. Thus they are making a decision over their body. The sperm is not your body any more than your urine is, or the scab from your arm. The man has free will to engage in sex or not, after that his role in reproduction is over. He does not have to go through pregnancy and childbirth, bearing the stress it places on the body. No one, at any point, is restricting him from making choices regarding his own body. Your bizarre claim that a woman retaining choice over going through pregnancy or not is, somehow, exerting control over a man's body is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) Abortion doesn't endanger anyone else? the fetus would beg to differ. No it probably wouldn't because it's a non-sentient thing inside of a woman's body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) The sperm is not your body any more than your urine is, or the scab from your arm. The man has free will to engage in sex or not, after that his role in reproduction is over. He does not have to go through pregnancy and childbirth, bearing the stress it places on the body. No one, at any point, is restricting him from making choices regarding his own body. Your bizarre claim that a woman retaining choice over going through pregnancy or not is, somehow, exerting control over a man's body is ridiculous. It is not any more bizarre than this somehow being sexist. That is whole point. That is some crazy left wing stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:57 PM) That is some crazy left wing stuff there. Why do crazy right wingers want to abort life on a grand scale? They don't mind polluting air, water, etc. These are the foundation of life on our planet. By destroying these things they are destroying potential life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Well as I said earlier, that there are sexist elements to anti-abortion arguments doesn't mean all anti-abortion arguments are sexist. However, there's undeniably a sexist element to some anti-abortion arguments and movements. I'll outsource to Chait: I object to the automatic equation of opposition to legalized abortion with sexism. Opposition to abortion rights can reflect a desire to control women, but it can also simply reflect a belief that a fetus is a human being. That's not a belief I share, but it's a values question and I can't say that those on the other side are wrong. The notion of letting women decide whether or not to have an abortion only comes into play if you think the fetus does not have human rights, or if the question is murky. If you do believe that the fetus is human, then you don't have to harbor any desire to control women's reproductive choices to oppose letting them choose to take that life away. (Very few feminists would support abortion at 8 months and 29 days, which shows that the question of the fetus's rights, not one's disposition to trust or distrust female sexual autonomy, is the crucial question.) I'm not denying that sexism plays a role in the politics of abortion rights. But the common tendency to assume sexist motives among abortion rights opponents is unfair. That the results are inherently sex-based does not make the motivation sexist. Edited August 25, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Why do crazy right wingers want to abort life on a grand scale? They don't mind polluting air, water, etc. These are the foundation of life on our planet. By destroying these things they are destroying potential life. Where's the eye roll emoticon when you need it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) Where's the eye roll emoticon when you need it? Logically speaking, what's the difference between some non-sentient cells in a woman's body and the building blocks of life (amino acids, water, oxygen, etc) on a planet? It just takes a shorter amount of time for those non-sentient cells to turn into something sentient when comparing it to the long term processes involved in creating life on a planet. EDIT: And there's no guarantee that in either case a living being will ultimately be created. Edited August 25, 2011 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:09 PM) Logically speaking, what's the difference between some non-sentient cells in a woman's body and the building blocks of life (amino acids, water, oxygen, etc) on a planet? It just takes a shorter amount of time for those non-sentient cells to turn into something sentient when comparing it to the long term processes involved in creating life on a planet. EDIT: And there's no guarantee that in either case a living being will ultimately be created. Um, the human element? And no, there's not. But I'd say the chance of creating life after becoming pregnant is pretty damn high. Edit: and the rolling eyes comment was more for making this a partisan issue when for 10 pages it hasn't been really. Edited August 25, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts