Abortion Rights On the Chopping Block
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
aghogday wrote:
'Those' Are Obviously Socio-Economic
Issues You've Dealt With Now
In Life That Have Impacted
Your Ability to Function
in Life, including
Your Mental Health
And Well-Being;
Yet Those Are Apples
Compared to Women's Oranges,
You Still Don't Seem to See From A View
Point of How this Impacts Women Now
Nope, again. It’s apples to apples, unjustifiable homicide to unjustifiable homicide, murder to murder. You don’t tell a school shooter “awe, you poor thing. Chads keep getting your girls, everyone bullies you, teachers don’t listen. Bless your heart, here. Take my gun. Go enjoy yourself!”
Let’s not be hypocrites.
As to whether we have a democracy—technically, we are a republic, not a democracy. We share some compromises between a classic republic and European style parliament. But there is a HUGE difference between us and Europe, and that is many European nations HAVE settled the question of abortion through legislation by reps they elected or through popular vote outright. Roe is an example of “legislation from the bench,” something that isn’t supposed to happen in the United States but sometimes does. The difference is that Americans never got a chance to decide abortion in the usual way. Rather, it was…argh, can’t remember if it was 14th amendment or what…well, one argument was right to privacy. It’s a poor argument, as most of them in favor of abortion were, because it basically says you’re allowed to kill people just as long as you do it in private. The court decisions were unusually absurd, and they’ve set up a steady stream of challenges to Roe. And that’s why we’re even having this conversation at all.
All a state would have to do is pass legislation explicitly stating that no woman of majority age shall be denied an abortion, and then maybe set some specific parameters defining when exactly a baby is legally recognized as having the civil right to life. It would be wise to specify that pregnancy can be terminated at any stage for the sake of saving a woman’s life in the event of an emergency with preference of saving both the mother and baby. Tweak to make less vague, of course. But at the end of the day if elected representatives vote on it or it passes a popular vote, it becomes a less controversial issue.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Irrelevant. People don’t get to decide whether oxygen, food, and water are necessary.
No one is planning is planning to make eating, drinking or breathing illegal.AngelRho wrote:
It’s not about me telling women what they can or can’t do.
That's precisely what this is about. It's literally telling women they're not allowed to do something.AngelRho wrote:
It’s about what anyone depends on for survival
You're the only one here who's saying that's what it's about.Entirely irrelevant. All of it.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Fnord wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
This is about giving women back control of their own bodies and not telling them what they need. If you think that's irrelevant than there's no place for you in the modern world.
In a perfect world, women own their bodies, including their reproductive systems.I think AngelRho has no idea how demeaning it is for women not be believed when they say they need something. He has no idea what it's like for them to have their needs belittled with some short simple phrase like "you don't need that to live". A phrase that's designed to shut down conversation rather than actually help them get what they need.
AngelRho wrote:
My point is in response to abortion as a life necessity, as something women MUST have in order to live.
This "you don't need it to live" thing is just a way of dismissing women's concerns as unimportant.AngelRho wrote:
The plain fact is women can survive without ever getting an abortion.
Women can survive without ever experiencing freedom. That doesn't make slavery right. Women can survive without their labia. That doesn't make female circumcision right.AngelRho wrote:
I’m questioning what needs actually are versus perceived needs
They're needs are not for you to question. You haven't lived their lives. If they determine they need something they don't need to answer your questions before they're allowed to get the thing that they need.AngelRho wrote:
...in so doing, challenging the absurd notion that people cannot in all reason and fairness say what another person’s needs are.
It's not an absurd notion. It's actually a pretty solid notion.AngelRho wrote:
And ordinarily, NO, abortions are not a vital necessity.
This isn't a challenge, this is a sweeping judgement. AngelRho wrote:
It has nothing to with anything I presume to tell any woman or any other person.
Telling women what they can and can't do is exactly what the abortion debate is about.AngelRho wrote:
Are abortions requirements for life in the same sense as food, air, and water?
So? Should women have to prove they need an abortion by your criteria, that they need it in the same way they need food, water and air? Nope. Women don't have to prove a god damned thing to you and they don't need to concern themselves with your arbitrary criteria.AngelRho wrote:
I’m not even saying I think all abortion should be banned.
Which abortions should be banned. Ones that don't meet your criteria? Should termination of pregnancies be banned when the pregnancy/birth isn't going to kill the mother? Is that the only time they need it?AngelRho wrote:
Do I have the ability to tell someone what their needs are?
You don't have the right to tell someone what their needs are. They can work that out for themselves.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
AngelRho wrote:
Nope, again. It’s apples to apples,
Unless You Are A Woman, It's
Not Apples to Apples,
End oF A Story; A Never
Ending Story So Far Indeed;
And Yes, the
United States is
A Representative
Democracy; the
'Republic' Label
Is Another 'Republican
Talking Head Point' While
Trump Was Slowly Raping the Constitution
And Inciting A Deadly Attempt At Insurrection
to Attempt to Overthrow our Representative Democracy Process...
And Like it or Not, Roe Vs Wade Has Been the Law of the Land Since 1973.
And Yes, The Supreme Court Will Determine the Direction of it Once Again,
Like It or Not,
Live Here or Go
Move to Another
Country Perhaps
Where Women Don't Have Reproductive
Rights In Your Kinda Place Ya Wanna Live...
Hehe, or Maybe Texas When it Attempts to Succeed From the Union....
Or Mississippi, Yes, Largely a Similar Kind of 'Striving Republic' Indeed
of 'Confederacy' Again...
Keeping in Mind,
HAha, i LiVE iN the
Ignorance of the
"Subdivision" of
DeSATaNiS; Yes,
Mini-Me Trump
And the Orange
Wanna Be Dictator Himself...
And Yes, It's True i Have the Resources
to Live Wherever i Wanna Live in the World;
However, i Rather Be on A RaMPaGE Dancing Spree
And Free Verse Writing Spree Loaded Solidly in the Tip of
the Barrel of the State of Florida PaNHaNDLE That Says it's the Flower
State; Yet Never the Less, IT iS Shaped Like A Frigging Gun,
Instead of Roses, So Ironically And Appropriately 'These Days';
Love a Challenge; Yet Unlike You, i Get to Create my Own Just for Fun
'These Days'
Indeed Now For Real..
PS: You are Welcome to
Disagree Again... Yet You
Are Not Going to Change What
Justice And Freedom And LoVE iN
my EYes Is For Liberty
For All Breathing Life,
Even Affording Women
Similar Rights As Men
According to A More
Natural Free World Now For Real.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
This is about giving women back control of their own bodies and not telling them what they need. If you think that's irrelevant than there's no place for you in the modern world.
In a perfect world, women own their bodies, including their reproductive systems.I think AngelRho has no idea how demeaning it is for women not be believed when they say they need something. He has no idea what it's like for them to have their needs belittled with some short simple phrase like "you don't need that to live". A phrase that's designed to shut down conversation rather than actually help them get what they need.
AngelRho wrote:
My point is in response to abortion as a life necessity, as something women MUST have in order to live.
This "you don't need it to live" thing is just a way of dismissing women's concerns as unimportant.AngelRho wrote:
The plain fact is women can survive without ever getting an abortion.
Women can survive without ever experiencing freedom. That doesn't make slavery right. Women can survive without their labia. That doesn't make female circumcision right.AngelRho wrote:
I’m questioning what needs actually are versus perceived needs
They're needs are not for you to question. You haven't lived their lives. If they determine they need something they don't need to answer your questions before they're allowed to get the thing that they need.AngelRho wrote:
...in so doing, challenging the absurd notion that people cannot in all reason and fairness say what another person’s needs are.
It's not an absurd notion. It's actually a pretty solid notion.AngelRho wrote:
And ordinarily, NO, abortions are not a vital necessity.
This isn't a challenge, this is a sweeping judgement. AngelRho wrote:
It has nothing to with anything I presume to tell any woman or any other person.
Telling women what they can and can't do is exactly what the abortion debate is about.AngelRho wrote:
Are abortions requirements for life in the same sense as food, air, and water?
So? Should women have to prove they need an abortion by your criteria, that they need it in the same way they need food, water and air? Nope. Women don't have to prove a god damned thing to you and they don't need to concern themselves with your arbitrary criteria.AngelRho wrote:
I’m not even saying I think all abortion should be banned.
Which abortions should be banned. Ones that don't meet your criteria? Should termination of pregnancies be banned when the pregnancy/birth isn't going to kill the mother? Is that the only time they need it?AngelRho wrote:
Do I have the ability to tell someone what their needs are?
You don't have the right to tell someone what their needs are. They can work that out for themselves.All of this is irrelevant and beside the point. I most certainly can say that women need air, water, and food. Those things sustain life and constitute absolute necessities for life. Abortion does not sustain life. It is not a necessity in the same sense as things that are necessary for life. So claiming that abortion is necessity is making a false statement.
Of course women can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Making a true, factual statement that something is or is not a necessity has no bearing on that. But the argument that I cannot state a simple fact is absurd. Of course people can tell others what they need. Sometimes it’s a matter of facts.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
aghogday wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Nope, again. It’s apples to apples,
Unless You Are A Woman, It's
Not Apples to Apples,
End oF A Story; A Never
Ending Story So Far Indeed;
And Yes, the
United States is
A Representative
Democracy; the
'Republic' Label
Is Another 'Republican
Talking Head Point' While
Trump Was Slowly Raping the Constitution
And Inciting A Deadly Attempt At Insurrection
to Attempt to Overthrow our Representative Democracy Process...
And Like it or Not, Roe Vs Wade Has Been the Law of the Land Since 1973.
And Yes, The Supreme Court Will Determine the Direction of it Once Again,
Like It or Not,
Live Here or Go
Move to Another
Country Perhaps
Where Women Don't Have Reproductive
Rights In Your Kinda Place Ya Wanna Live...
Hehe, or Maybe Texas When it Attempts to Succeed From the Union....
Or Mississippi, Yes, Largely a Similar Kind of 'Striving Republic' Indeed
of 'Confederacy' Again...
Keeping in Mind,
HAha, i LiVE iN the
Ignorance of the
"Subdivision" of
DeSATaNiS; Yes,
Mini-Me Trump
And the Orange
Wanna Be Dictator Himself...
And Yes, It's True i Have the Resources
to Live Wherever i Wanna Live in the World;
However, i Rather Be on A RaMPaGE Dancing Spree
And Free Verse Writing Spree Loaded Solidly in the Tip of
the Barrel of the State of Florida PaNHaNDLE That Says it's the Flower
State; Yet Never the Less, IT iS Shaped Like A Frigging Gun,
Instead of Roses, So Ironically And Appropriately 'These Days';
Love a Challenge; Yet Unlike You, i Get to Create my Own Just for Fun
'These Days'
Indeed Now For Real..
PS: You are Welcome to
Disagree Again... Yet You
Are Not Going to Change What
Justice And Freedom And LoVE iN
my EYes Is For Liberty
For All Breathing Life,
Even Affording Women
Similar Rights As Men
According to A More
Natural Free World Now For Real.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/
Roe v. Wade is not a law. It’s a Supreme Court case. The long-time misunderstanding of the SCOTUS decision in RvW has led to states choosing to regulate abortion to death since the decision only meant that states could not constitutionally ban abortion outright. The Texas law is a clever exploitation of a loophole that bans abortion but shifts enforcement of the law to individuals rather than the state.
AngelRho wrote:
I most certainly can say that women need air, water, and food. Those things sustain life and constitute absolute necessities for life. Abortion does not sustain life. It is not a necessity in the same sense as things that are necessary for life. So claiming that abortion is necessity is making a false statement.
(bolding=mine)You're continuing to make the specious equivalence that something deemed "necessary" must result in life sustained and if not, then it cannot be deemed "necessary".
This is nonsense.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia
AngelRho wrote:
All of this is irrelevant and beside the point.
It's all on point. You just dismiss anything as irrelevant when you don't like what it says.AngelRho wrote:
So claiming that abortion is necessity is making a false statement.
Only after you slipped in your arbitrary requirements for what constitutes a necessity. With rhetorical sleight of hand like that you should have been a lawyer.AngelRho wrote:
Of course women can do whatever they want with their own bodies.
That's the best thing you've said in this whole threadAngelRho wrote:
As to whether we have a democracy—technically, we are a republic, not a democracy.
Another rhetorical sleight of hand. Trying to set up a false dichotomy. Saying if one, not the other. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's a phrase often used by conservatives pushing paternalistic values. Whether you live in an effective democracy is a separate question.AngelRho wrote:
Rather, it was…argh, can’t remember if it was 14th amendment or what…well, one argument was right to privacy. It’s a poor argument...
Sounds like a good argument to me. People have a right to privacy in their reproductive organs.AngelRho wrote:
...as most of them in favor of abortion were, because it basically says you’re allowed to kill people just as long as you do it in private.
Your saying the arguments are poor based on the conclusion they support rather than the quality of the argument itself. That's basically saying any argument that supports the opposing conclusion is a poor one and then dismissing the opposing conclusion because there are no good arguments for it.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
AngelRho wrote:
Roe v. Wade is not a law. It’s a Supreme Court case. The long-time misunderstanding of the SCOTUS decision in RvW has led to states choosing to regulate abortion to death since the decision only meant that states could not constitutionally ban abortion outright. The Texas law is a clever exploitation of a loophole that bans abortion but shifts enforcement of the law to individuals rather than the state.
Yawn, i Am Using "Law of the Land" As A Relative
Figure of Speech Until the Supreme Court Reviews
Whether Or Not Any State Law Meets Constitutionality
And in This Case The Review of the Texas Law that is
An Infantile Attempt at A Power Grab to Put Texas Back in
'The Gun Toting Wild West of Texas', Where Folks Upheld Their
Standards of the Law Then And Even Further Back to Theocracies
of Thousands of Years Ago Holding to Stoning Folks Who Don't
Obey the Humanly Contrived So-Called Laws of 'God', So Far Away
From the
Truths
of Nature Real;
It's True, Ever Since Trump
Got Elected, Our Representative
Democracy Has Been 'On Trial';
Either We the People And Those
Who Represent Us in this Representative
Democracy Save Our Representative Democracy
Or We Return to the Dark Ages of Ignorance
And Once Again Live Under
'Lion Scar
Rules'
of Selfish
Psychopathic
Leaning Propensities
That Are Barely Even
Human Healthy Nature At all...
Be Careful What We Wish For, Yes,
If Folks Don't Stand Up For Our Representative
Democracy, There is Surely No Guarantee of Continued
Governance...
ThiS Way...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Greta Thunberg & Others Block Entrance To Swedish Parliament |
22 Mar 2024, 7:29 pm |
OK bill would charge abortion recipients with murder |
14 Feb 2024, 12:04 pm |
French lawmakers make abortion a constitutional right |
04 Mar 2024, 7:31 pm |
SCOTUS abortion pill access hearing |
26 Mar 2024, 5:17 pm |