Sex strike

[crossfire]

So? You made a generalized statement about rights and conditions. A parent can be in an institution due to pregnancy and a mental condition as she is a risk to herself and child. There are also negligence laws. Competency laws.

A person does not lose their right to bodily simply due to pregnancy.

 

[Shad]

You need to refute the issue of bodily autonomy trumping the right to life, which you have not done.

No as you extended the right to life outside the context I used it and was replying to. I do not need to refute a fiction in your head.

 

[Shad]

A person does not lose their right to bodily simply due to pregnancy.

Yes they do in my view as they have no right to kill a fetus on a whim. More so I believe the mother has an obligation to protect not kill that life.

 

[crossfire]

Yes they do in my view as they have no right to kill a fetus on a whim. More so I believe the mother has an obligation to protect not kill that life.

Who are you to say pregnant women do not retain their rights?

 

[Shad]

Who are you to say pregnant women do not retain their rights?

That is the point I am arguing.

Do you need some sort of authority figure to legitimize a view otherwise no one can speak it?

 

[crossfire]

The word does not need to be there. The context is about abortion. Reread it and look at the comment it was direct at.

Here's a screenshot for reference. Nothing about sex there.

 

[Shad]

Here's a screenshot for reference. Nothing about sex there. View attachment 29157

What do you think act means.......

You assumed instead of asking and made a blunder. Try again. Also read post 322 and 333.....

 

[crossfire]

Being a human. That's what makes it Human rights not Person Rights or Sentient Rights or Awareness Rights. Passing through the birth canal does not make something a human

A pregnant woman is a human ,then, entitiled to her rights, by your definition.

Nope. The mothers reproduction system functions as normal otherwise any fetus would be targeted by the mother's immune system. The fetus isn't a parasite. Your dehumanization has been noted and expected.

Nope. You need some serious education in this regard. Pregnancy suspends the normal reproductive cycle. And yes, sometimes the mother's immune system does target the fetus. Look up Rh incompatibility and ABo incompatibility in regards to pregnancy.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Even with birth control pregnancy is a possibility. There is only a single 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy.

Castrating men.

 

[crossfire]

What do you think act means.......

You assumed instead of asking and made a blunder. Try again. Also read post 322 and 333.....

Ahh, I get your point. Penis trumps all, according to your logic. Duly noted.

 

[Shad]

A pregnant woman is a human ,then, entitiled to her rights, by your definition.

As is a fetus by my views. Ergo there is a conflict. In my view the fetus' wins unless the mother is going to die as a result of pregnancy or if a secondary condition like the aftermath of rape causes risks to the mother.

Nope. You need some serious education in this regard. Pregnancy suspends the normal reproductive cycle.

I am including gestation as part of the reproduction system as it is required to produce offspring ergo reproduction, the word itself. Try again.

And yes, sometimes the mother's immune system does target the fetus. Look up Rh incompatibility and ABo incompatibility in regards to pregnancy.

Which is abnormal. You proved my point.

 

[Shad]

Ahh, I get your point. Penis trumps all, according to your logic. Duly noted.

Nope. The fetus trumps the mother's whims.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Milano only demonstrated she is a weak woman due the power she places on sex as a bargaining tool. This is the difference between a sexual revolution feminist and an equality feminist. The former act irresponsible and whines while the latter acts responsible and accepts the results of their own actions.

Also ironic as she just used a pro-life argument of having sex when one is prepared to have children. Amusing when someone freaks out to the point they advocate what the opposition has been saying for years.

I disagree. People who think that Milano's position flies in the face of sexual empowerment for women seem to be forgetting that said empowerment to have sex when they want includes the power to refuse to have sex. Especially when conservatives are steadily taking away all other options which would allow a woman to retain control of her body.

I wouldn't say she's implicitly agreeing that sex is primarily or only for procreation; I believe she's saying that if Republicans are so determined to ensure sex has to be used primarily for procreation then this is a natural consequence. Besides, nobody seriously believes Republicans would actually be okay with women who don't want any (more) children refusing to have sex with them.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Nope. The fetus trumps the mother's whims.

Can you explain why we should grant a greater right to bodily autonomy to a still-developing cluster of cells than to the fully grown woman whose body it is inside; without whom it could not survive? Can you explain why a woman should have a weaker right to bodily autonomy than a cadaver?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So, liberal women are not going to have sex with men and thus remove any chance of having an unwanted pregnancy and thereby having any abortions?

This is the biggest win the pro-life crowd could have possibly asked for.

Until it comes back to bite them when their own women, out of a desire to not have any (more) kids, refuse to have sex with them.

 

[Shad]

I disagree. People who think that Milano's position flies in the face of sexual empowerment for women seem to be forgetting that said empowerment to have sex when they want includes the power to refuse to have sex. Especially when conservatives are steadily taking away all other options which would allow a woman to retain control of her body.

Expect sex is being used as a bargaining tool, an ineffective one. Weak women use sex in such a manner typically against weak men.

I wouldn't say she's implicitly agreeing that sex is primarily or only for procreation; I believe she's saying that if Republicans are so determined to ensure sex has to be used primarily for procreation then this is a natural consequence.

A consequence which the Bill's supporters agree with.

Besides, nobody seriously believes Republicans would actually be okay with women who don't want any (more) children refusing to have sex with them.

See the above.

 

[Shad]

Can you explain why we should grant a greater right to bodily autonomy to a still-developing cluster of cells than to the fully grown woman whose body it is inside; without whom it could not survive?

As I consider it a human life. Size is irrelevant.

Can you explain why a woman should have a weaker right to bodily autonomy than a cadaver?

They have more rights than corpses.

See: Egyptian mummy exhibits

 

[crossfire]

As is a fetus by my views. Ergo there is a conflict. In my view the fetus' wins unless the mother is going to die as a result of pregnancy or if a secondary condition like the aftermath of rape causes risks to the mother.

Like I said, who are you to decide?

I am including gestation as part of the reproduction system as it is required to produce offspring ergo reproduction, the word itself. Try again.

Alright. You still have not disproven that pregnancy is not a parasitical scenario.

Which is abnormal. You proved my point.

Actually it is normal. Medical interventions can minimize these affects, however.

 

[Enoch07]

Castrating men.

Nah you'd have to catch em first!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there is no such right to kill another human for no reason or on a whim.

You keep repeating that, but you are clearly in error. There is a right in some jurisdictions, America being one for now, to get a legal abortion without having to provide a reason. Her reasons are nobody's business but her own and those she chooses to welcome into the decision making process.

That isn't a right. That is killing, nothing more.

It's both. Nothing less.

I don't think that you know what a right is. It's not what you prefer to be a right. It's what a society agrees explicitly among itself should be a right, with a mechanism for enforcing it. If it's less than that, you can shout about your rights all you want, but nobody's listening, and others are free to disregard what you proclaim on no authority to be a right.

the latter are morally acceptable while the former isn't nearly so much.

Not by my standards, which are the ones I apply.

You make your moral proclamations like they're objective reality. Others are free to disregard your preferences. I for one don't care what others believe, but rather, what they can convincingly argue or demonstrate. You just keep repeating your claims and preferences, which have no persuasive power.

Doesn't say much about you if you do not value human life above a dogs.

I am well satisfied with my moral philosophy. It has guided me well. I have no need or desire to borrow from yours. It's not that I don't value people enough. It's that you don't value dogs enough.

We are special as we are higher life-forms capable of thoughts and acts normal animals can not. This is not religious, this is science.

Yes, that is religious. My view, which differs from yours, is scientific. Man is one of the products of evolution, a branch of the animal kingdom which produced apes that stand upright, have big brains with speech and a reasoning capacity, are relatively hairless, and are hunters. We're still animals.

The idea that humanity is not a part of the process that produced the other animals, or that that process produced something that transcends the rest of the animal kingdom, is a religious conceit. I don't take my ideas or values from such sources. They're unevolved.

The general disregard for animals is right out of the Christian Bible. I can think of no reason not to treat animals with as much regard and respect as they can use. The ethics of secular humanism derive from the process called rational ethics, or the application of reason and empathy to the problem of appropriate conduct.

Moral theory has advanced considerably since the days when people thought that thunder was the anger of the gods who needing appeasing. Women are no longer considered property, Even in my lifetime, just a few decades ago, adult American women often could not get a credit card, nor check into a motel room with any man but her husband, get a car loan without a co-signer, might not get hired if they were fertile and were considering getting pregnant.

These are also leftover religious sensibilities that are irrational and destructive. We can do better than turn to these ancient precepts, but only by rethinking these matters and removing the ideas that aren't working toward maximizing opportunity and well-being for the greatest number, including the beasts.

Just because something is a law does not make it right.

But it does make it a right, which was the topic. The pregnant woman has the right to have a legal abortion for any reason, even what you call whim. That's what a right is - not what you wish was a right. It's in writing, and the government will enforce that right if need be. If that changes, then the right may be lost.