each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Curious George]

I understand, but find it important to note that all of our rights are limited because our rights end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others.​

No. This is you having a very one-dimensional understanding of rights.

You don't think that children have the right to be taken care of?

If a mother exits without making preparations for her children she would be infringing upon their rights.

Exactly, as is appropriate. No one has the absolute right to do whatever they want.

This is the moment where you have conceded and agreed that your effort to enforce what you see as the fetus' right to life is infringing on the mothers right to bodily autonomy.

For example, we all have the freedom of speech, but calls to action (like shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater when there is no fire), or calls to violence, or cases of slander - are not protected speech and are argued not to be speech at all.

We all have the right to receive what is owed us.

Exiting before fulfilling that responsibility would be infringing on that right.

Nope. The not-yet-born have the right to be born.

Relevance?

That murder is a legal term is relevant because using it begs the question.

Are you making the claim that a mother does have the right to murder her unborn children?

Nope not even that.

Claiming that someone has the right to murder another is saying that the victim has no rights.

False

That's very plain.

There should be no legal difference between a born and a not-yet-born child.

There is.

Any difference you'd want to enforce would lead to inconsistencies and double-standards.

What you think are contradictions are in fact not contradictions.

When?

Your child's existence is inconvenient to you so you can murder him?

Whenever there is a balancing of rights we make a distinction where one's rights are superseded.

Nope. You can't silence someone with your speech.

To do so would require a call to action, which would not be protected.

Calls to action are not protected because one's rights are not unfettered. In otherwords they are superseded. Moreover your freedom of speech is only protected with regard to government action.

The First Amendment guarantees that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech.

It can never be taken away from any citizen ever.

That is naive

This discussion has shown that you have a very limited and one-sided understanding of "rights".

In fact it has shown the opposite. You just choose not to understand my point of view because it does not fit your narrative. So, I can only assume it is easier for you to write off my statements as you have done.

 

[Prestor John]

Call me ProLife if you must.
I wear that one proudly. Similarly, opposed to slavery and irrational racism.
Also Capital Punishment and pre-emptive war and fiscal policies that result in the degradation of the Human Situation.

You might think that my moral principles are arrogant and tonedeaf. Do you also think I am arrogant and tonedeaf when I stand up for the rights of transfolk? Some people think I am. I stopped caring about what other people think, if they can't back up their opinions with evidence and reason, a long time ago.

I believe that feeling entitled to fertile sex, and also to killing your progeny if you wish you hadn't chosen the sex, degrades the Human Situation in a variety of ways. It contributes to irresponsible parenting and rape culture, by separating potentially fertile sex from parenthood.
Tom

Well said.

 

[Prestor John]

I do view it as arrogant and tonedeaf to comparing wanting to police women's reproductive choices and shame them to freeing slaves and civil rights for black people. That's a very rude comparison to make.

No one should have the choice to murder someone else.

Sometimes abortion is for the best. I'd rather someone who is irresponsible get an abortion than subject a child to a life of hardship. Obviously it would be best if they used a condom, the pill, were sterilized, etc. But this isn't a perfect world.

You make it seem like there are no other options for the unborn child. Death or a life of hardship.

Why does everyone conveniently forget the possibility of adoption?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You make it seem like there are no other options for the unborn child. Death or a life of hardship.

Why does everyone conveniently forget the possibility of adoption?

I'm more interested in why the anti-choicers forget another set of possibilities: any measures that would make a pregnant person happier or better off.

The reasons people seek abortions are easy to find; here's one list. What is the anti-choice movement - what are you specifically - doing about any of them?

Here are the top 3 from that study:

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Address these three concerns and you'll dramatically reduce the number of abortions. Have you? The anti-choice movement as a whole certainly hasn't.

If the anti-choice movement really wanted to address the reasons for abortion, they could do it easily. There are lots of measures that would directly address those concerns and would get plenty of pro-choice support as well. Some of them don't even cost any money; for instance, it would go a long way to addressing that third reason for abortion (not wanting to be a single parent) if the religious organizations that created the stigma that single mothers endure started combatting that stigma instead.

But here's the thing: if a measure would have the side effect of making women who currently seek abortions happier or better off, the anti-choice movement just isn't interested... no matter how many abortions it would prevent. If a measure doesn't hurt or shame the women they disapprove of, they don't support it.

 

[james dixon]

If you are not a women, you have no voice in this matter. But if you are the male that got 15 minutes of enjoyment then skipped out the back door, you be the one we should really be talking about.

My bet is that most who visit this site are from that category.

Maybe its a guilt trip or something ?

 

[columbus]

If you are not a women, you have no voice in this matter.

I consider rape a horrible crime.
Does the fact that I am very male mean that I have "no voice in the matter"?

But if you are the male that got 15 minutes of enjoyment then skipped out the back door, you be the one we should really be talking about.

I totally believe that fathers need to be held more accountable for choosing to create children. The USA could do a lot more to hold irresponsible fathers accountable for the Choices they make. I would support that in a heartbeat.
We are terrible at that.

But, irresponsible fathers are rather the flip side of irresponsible mothers.

If the female half of a pregnant couple is legally entitled to kill the baby, why would the male half be forced by the government to send money to be a "father"?. Why can't the male half of the pregnant couple refuse to take legal responsibility like the female half can?
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the female half of a pregnant couple is legally entitled to kill the baby, why would the male half be forced by the government to send money to be a "father"?. Why can't the male half of the pregnant couple refuse to take legal responsibility like the female half can?
Tom

"If we can't have debtor's prisons, why have debt at all?"

The right isn't "to kill the baby;" the right is to refuse use of a person's body by another. The male partner has this right, too: for instance, nobody has the right to do medical testing on them without consent.

And after birth, the rights and obligations are also the same: both parents are responsible for the upbringing of the child.

 

[james dixon]

I consider rape a horrible crime.
Does the fact that I am very male mean that I have "no voice in the matter"?

I may have implied that but being a male myself who am I to say -

 

[columbus]

The right isn't "to kill the baby;"

Yes it is.
Dance around this all you want, but that's exactly what it is.
Female parents have the right to choose against being parents, even after they chose fertile sex. Male parents don't have that right.

Because "feminism". Feminism is not about equal rights, it's about women having equality when it suits them, and special rights when that's what they prefer.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I may have implied that but being a male myself who am I to say -

Being a male you don't think that your opinions about morality matter?

What a feminist.
Yuck.
Tom

 

[james dixon]

What a feminist.
Yuck.
Tom

I wear a bra too -

 

[james dixon]

just kidding -

 

[columbus]

Why does everyone conveniently forget the possibility of adoption?

Also,
There is a 100% effective, safe, and available method for birth control.
It's not even abstinence. It's not Choosing potentially fertile sex.

It's really that simple. If getting pregnant would be such a personal disaster that you would Choose killing your progeny rather than taking responsibility for your Choice, then don't have that kind of sex.

Simple.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Prestor John - it's gratifying to see you find my post funny, but I'd appreciate it if you would actually answer my question: do you support any anti-abortion measures that make the pregnant person happier or better off?

 

[Spiderman]

Ugh. Why not?

Because it was started Mar 2, 2017... it's still alive and kicking...that will suck if it ever ends!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Because "feminism". Feminism is not about equal rights, it's about women having equality when it suits them, and special rights when that's what they prefer.

When men have uteruses or an artificial equivalent, we can talk "equal." So far, the ones with uteruses are the ones who have to deal with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Prestor John - it's gratifying to see you find my post funny, but I'd appreciate it if you would actually answer my question: do you support any anti-abortion measures that make the pregnant person happier or better off?

Any other anti-choicers want to try? Just one.

 

[Prestor John]

Any other anti-choicers want to try? Just one.

I would normally take time to address everything you said, but you seem to be impatient.

Giving an unwanted newborn to a couple who desperately want it creates joy for all involved.

They will also avoid the grief and regret that can follow those who decided to murder their unborn children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would normally take time to address everything you said, but you seem to be impatient.

Giving an unwanted newborn to a couple who desperately want it creates joy for all involved.

They will also avoid the grief and regret that can follow those who decided to murder their unborn children.

No, giving a baby up for adoption is often very difficult. Try again.

An example of a measure that would actually fit the bill: a long, job-protected, paid pregnancy and parental leave. That would directly address the concerns of people who say that they seek an abortion because of worries about their job. Free or subsidized daycare would also address this concern.

The second most-common concern ("I can't afford a baby right now") is purely financial. You could directly address it by giving low-income new parents money directly, or by programs that significantly reduce the cost of pregnancy and child care (e.g. universal health care).

Do you support any measures like this?