Sex strike

[Stevicus]

Yeah! It couldn't be because she's ticked off about women's rights being taken away from them all over the country.

I wasn't referring to why she's doing it; I was just wondering whether the strategy was working.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wasn't referring to why she's doing it; I was just wondering whether the strategy was working.

Ah, I see. Apologies then.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sex as a bargaining tool is a sign of weakness as they have no convincing argument.

Because anti-choicers don't want to be convinced. They want to be right. They want to be so right they can force their beliefs on people who disagree otherwise. The pro-choice argument is sound logically & morally, and is the reasonable middle ground (because if you don't want an abortion you don't have to have one) but that doesn't mean a thing if anti-choicers just won't listen and press on with legislation without due discourse. If pro-choice movements had no convincing arguments Roe v Wade would not have lasted as long as it has.

A sex strike isn't a lack of a convincing argument. This is a lack of any other options. This is an act of desperation.

Hence why the point was made a public statement rather than remaining a private choice.

Anti-choicers have made what happens with a woman's body a public statement rather than allowing it to remain a private choice. This is a natural consequence of that.

It is effective?

Indeed. As an example, in September 2006 in Colombia, the wives & girlfriends of gang member started a sex strike to convince their lovers to give up guns & gang violence. The result was that the murder rate fell by 26.5%.

There are other examples of it working.

You do not understand the irony of endorsing the view the opposition has been using for decades unwittingly.

You don't need to endorse or agree with something to consider it is likely. It's called playing the Devil's Advocate. Anti-choicers, by removing effective & affordable access to contraception, de-funding organisations like Planned Parenthood etc and now outlawing abortions and removing a women's' bodily autonomy have ensured that sex is now too risky to be enjoyed if pregnancy is an undesired outcome.

Anti-choicers want to hold all the power over what happens in a woman's body but want to force her to accept all the responsibility.

This is a sexist position because
a) the ones seizing power over a woman's body through the vehicle of legislation are almost uniformly men;
b) their justifications for doing so are almost uniformly religious dogmas & beliefs created by (often celibate) men;
c) this sort of thing never ever happens to a man's body;
d) every single pregnancy is the result of a man's ejaculation yet anti-choicers do not try to seize control of a man's body the way they do with women's' bodies.

See above was the reference that the opposition wouldn't care as the women they are with do not follow the ideology of Milano.

Thank you for clarifying. However, it's unlikely these anti-choice families will live in a vacuum. Almost certainly they will have a family member, friend, work colleague or acquaintance who will be affected by this.

It is sufficient. You just disagree, nothing more.

I don't "just" disagree. I've expanded on that; I've explained why. I've offered you another example (organ donation) of why "being a human life" is not sufficient to warrant violating a person's bodily autonomy - this sets the precedent. I notice that you've not bothered to even try to address that.

Except for the baby people want to kill or any group for that matter.

Nobody is talking about killing babies, Shad. You abort a foetus, not a baby. A baby is the crying thing you hold in your arms after the birth.

History has great examples of being determining what is and what is not a human so they can just kill it and feel justified.

The anti-choice cause is the latest in such a line. Women aren't entitled to personhood in states like Georgia. They're effectively walking incubators, their rights subsumed by those of the foetus growing inside them.

You are not a result of my actions.

My death would be. Perhaps a charge along the lines of murder and the commensurate prison sentence would be enough to convince you I'm right?

The link is between the two parties that make the point.

Indeed it is. And here's where the comparison between pregnancy and voluntary organ donation comes back into play.

Because when a person becomes an organ donor pregnant they consent for their body to be used to benefit a recipient of an organ foetus. However, this consent can be withdrawn at any time until after transplantation birth because it's their donated organ womb.

The interesting thing is if you're donating a spare kidney to someone, even if that someone is your own child, you can still withdraw your consent at any stage. Even if that results in your living, breathing, thinking, independent child, dying. You wouldn't be charged for murder or gross negligence. Nor can (or should) the state compel you to donate that organ at any stage.

Killing a child on a whim is nothing comparable.

Good thing nobody is talking about doing that. I can't help but wonder if you have any reason beyond deliberately conflating a foetus/embryo with a born baby or child beyond appeal to emotional outrage, that's all.

See above



See above

Non-applicable since your above reasoning is flawed by being based on emotional responses & double standards.

It is a great example of people acting differently when they have an interest in doing thus corpse's rights are situational and expire over time.

It's a great example of a flawed comparison. Mummies were never American citizens, thus have never benefited from legal protections corresponding to the use of their bodies post-mortem.

Deceased American citizens retain their right to bodily autonomy as laid out in their wills or down to existing legal protections where no will was left. The government cannot ride in and plant a flag in the corpse for organ-harvesting purposes. But they can now do that in Georgia with a woman's uterus to force her to carry a pregnancy to term irrespective of what she wants or decides. Effectively they've made Georgian womens' bodies the property of the State. Ergo women now have less bodily autonomy than a cadaver.

Nope.

Yes and I've explained why above.

 

[Shad]

Because anti-choicers don't want to be convinced. They want to be right.

Same could be said of the other side.

They want to be so right they can force their beliefs on people who disagree otherwise.

Like the other side

The pro-choice argument is sound logically & morally,

Dehumanizing something is immoral.

and is the reasonable middle ground (because if you don't want an abortion you don't have to have one) but that doesn't mean a thing if anti-choicers just won't listen and press on with legislation without due discourse. If pro-choice movements had no convincing arguments Roe v Wade would not have lasted as long as it has.

Which only creates a subjective standard.

A sex strike isn't a lack of a convincing argument. This is a lack of any other options. This is an act of desperation.

No it isn't. It is one of the options people avoided

Anti-choicers have made what happens with a woman's body a public statement rather than allowing it to remain a private choice. This is a natural consequence of that.

You have your history backwards.

Indeed. As an example, in September 2006 in Colombia, the wives & girlfriends of gang member started a sex strike to convince their lovers to give up guns & gang violence. The result was that the murder rate fell by 26.5%.

There are other examples of it working.

Weak men being conned is not impressive

You don't need to endorse or agree with something to consider it is likely. It's called playing the Devil's Advocate. Anti-choicers, by removing effective & affordable access to contraception, de-funding organisations like Planned Parenthood etc and now outlawing abortions and removing a women's' bodily autonomy have ensured that sex is now too risky to be enjoyed if pregnancy is an undesired outcome.

No. It means having sex on a whim is risky while planned relationships are safer. Which existed before. The only change is the high risk group no longer gets an out.

Anti-choicers want to hold all the power over what happens in a woman's body but want to force her to accept all the responsibility.

As it was her act thus her responsibility.

This is a sexist position because
a) the ones seizing power over a woman's body through the vehicle of legislation are almost uniformly men;

Irrelevant and not an argument. More so Roe vs Wade was decided by men.

b) their justifications for doing so are almost uniformly religious dogmas & beliefs created by (often celibate) men;

For many no doubt.

c) this sort of thing never ever happens to a man's body;

Biology is a *****.

d) every single pregnancy is the result of a man's ejaculation yet anti-choicers do not try to seize control of a man's body the way they do with women's' bodies.

You are ignoring the women in this as woman are required for pregnancy. Ergo woman are gatekeepers thus have a large share of responsibility than men

Thank you for clarifying. However, it's unlikely these anti-choice families will live in a vacuum. Almost certainly they will have a family member, friend, work colleague or acquaintance who will be affected by this.

The context is a sex strike remember. Unless incest become really popular you have failed to consider my point in context.

I don't "just" disagree. I've expanded on that; I've explained why. I've offered you another example (organ donation) of why "being a human life" is not sufficient to warrant violating a person's bodily autonomy - this sets the precedent. I notice that you've not bothered to even try to address that.

I rejected that argument ergo I address it. Just not in the way you wanted as your point is flawed.

Nobody is talking about killing babies, Shad. You abort a foetus, not a baby. A baby is the crying thing you hold in your arms after the birth.

Look up the entomology of fetus. More so the definition of baby does not include your criteria.

The anti-choice cause is the latest in such a line. Women aren't entitled to personhood in states like Georgia.

Wrong

They're effectively walking incubators, their rights subsumed by those of the foetus growing inside them.

Nope

My death would be.

Nope.

Perhaps a charge along the lines of murder and the commensurate prison sentence would be enough to convince you I'm right?

Nope

Indeed it is. And here's where the comparison between pregnancy and voluntary organ donation comes back into play.

Let me know when the donor demands their kidney back.

Because when a person becomes an organ donor pregnant they consent for their body to be used to benefit a recipient of an organ foetus. However, this consent can be withdrawn at any time until after transplantation birth because it's their donated organ womb.

See above.

The interesting thing is if you're donating a spare kidney to someone, even if that someone is your own child, you can still withdraw your consent at any stage. Even if that results in your living, breathing, thinking, independent child, dying. You wouldn't be charged for murder or gross negligence. Nor can (or should) the state compel you to donate that organ at any stage.

See above... above

Good thing nobody is talking about doing that. I can't help but wonder if you have any reason beyond deliberately conflating a foetus/embryo with a born baby or child beyond appeal to emotional outrage, that's all.

I know the meaning of the words and you do not.

Non-applicable since your above reasoning is flawed by being based on emotional responses & double standards.

Assertion

It's a great example of a flawed comparison. Mummies were never American citizens, thus have never benefited from legal protections corresponding to the use of their bodies post-mortem.

No it is an accurate example of an interest overriding so-called rights. I proved my point. You have nothing to counter it beside assertions. Next!

Deceased American citizens retain their right to bodily autonomy as laid out in their wills or down to existing legal protections where no will was left. The government cannot ride in and plant a flag in the corpse for organ-harvesting purposes. But they can now do that in Georgia with a woman's uterus to force her to carry a pregnancy to term irrespective of what she wants or decides. Effectively they've made Georgian womens' bodies the property of the State. Ergo women now have less bodily autonomy than a cadaver.

It is a law not a right. Next!

Yes and I've explained why above.

Nope as you can not figure out the difference between a law and a right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because anti-choicers don't want to be convinced. They want to be right. They want to be so right they can force their beliefs on people who disagree otherwise. The pro-choice argument is sound logically & morally, and is the reasonable middle ground (because if you don't want an abortion you don't have to have one) but that doesn't mean a thing if anti-choicers just won't listen and press on with legislation without due discourse. If pro-choice movements had no convincing arguments Roe v Wade would not have lasted as long as it has.

Like the other side

No, it's not the same as "the other side," because "the other side" isn't forcing their beliefs on anyone else, nor are they forcing anyone to get abortions. “The other side” says “you are in control of decisions regarding your own body and I am in control of decisions regarding my own body.” “The other side” offers choice and bodily autonomy, which your side does not offer.

 

[Shad]

No, it's not the same as "the other side," because "the other side" isn't forcing their beliefs on anyone else, nor are they forcing anyone to get abortions.

Wrong as abortion is promoted in public school ergo state mandated views being imposed on the public.

“The other side” says “you are in control of decisions regarding your own body and I am in control of decisions regarding my own body.” “The other side” offers choice and bodily autonomy, which your side does not offer.

Nope. All it does is establish subjective ideas are accepted on a whim such as dehumanization.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong as abortion is promoted in public school ergo state mandated views being imposed on the public.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Nope. All it does is establish subjective ideas are accepted on a whim such as dehumanization.

Everybody makes their own determination as to what they're going to do with their own bodies. That's it.