The attack on women continues

[dust1n]

I'm namby pamby about it....I just say I disagree with such policies.
And sometimes I'm lucky to have a constitutional argument against'm.

A constitutional argument doesn't really apply for most the world. Can't really talk about the pope and condoms for poor people and those highest at risk from STDs and overpopulation in an eighteenth century colonial dialect.

 

[Revoltingest]

A constitutional argument doesn't really apply for most the world. Can't really talk about the pope and condoms for poor people and those highest at risk from STDs and overpopulation in an eighteenth century colonial dialect.

True dat.
I'm often at odds with pontiffs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a fetus is legally distinct, then I'd need to know the extent of this distinction in order to comment on it.
The distinction I make is this.
The future of the fetus is up to mom, whose body the fetus is part of.
If mom wants to abort it, this her prerogative.

But at the same time, regardless of whether the fetus is part of her or not, her uterus is unquestionably part of her, and it's her prerogative to do what she wants with *that*. The status of the fetus is irrelevant.

Are you channeling Ronald Reagan?
Do you imagine that I'm Mondale?
Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!

My "involuntary servitude" argument is shared by few. But let's consider this.
Many favor reviving the military draft (including Democrats).
Of course, only men have to register for it. Would you call them anti-man?

Yes, I suppose I would... though since I think that any slavery, including a draft, is an affront to human dignity, I wouldn't try to remedy that by getting women drafted as well. I'd try to get the draft abolished for everyone.

Edit: clarification: I would consider a male-only draft to be an anti-man policy. Whether the people arguing for it are anti-man themselves would depend on their actions in general... though advocating for a draft like that would be a pretty big item on one side of the balance.

 

[dust1n]

True dat.
I'm often at odds with pontiffs.

Rarely do I agree with them...

But it isn't too wrong to say anti-abortion is kinda anti-womanish, cause pro-draft is kinda anti-manish, well, if you think it should remain how it is, or it is just the result of a patriarchal attitude about what dudes should do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't really argue about that. But it would also apply to abortion rights, since men suffer when their wimin are forced to carry an unwanted
fetus to term or suffer from a back alley abortion. But the lefties don't consider limiting abortion & contraception rights to be a "war on people".

I would... along with being a war on women.

Pregnant women are people, so when someone argues that pregnant women don't have some right (e.g. bodily security), they're implying that it isn't a universal right generally. This means that if I want this right, I have to argue for it on the merits of some characteristic that I have but pregnant women don't.

In addition to being anti-woman, the anti-abortion campaign is anti-human generally.

 

[Reverend Rick]

My personal position on abortion is allowing it during the first trimester only with exceptions of the mothers health.

While a woman should have a right to make her own choices she should not have 9 months to make up her mind IMHO.

When a child becomes a child may be in debate, but I would hardly call a viable baby a bunch of cells either.

To say I hate women would be to say I hate my Mother, Sister, Wife, and Daughter. I don't want to attack them and subjugate them. Being pro life should not be considered anti woman.

Somewhere this all or nothing positions are going to have to soften.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's the part that kills me. How the hell did Republicans successfully brand themselves as the party of freedom (from big government)? They propose more intrusions into the most private parts of our lives than the Democrats could even dream of.

Damn good point.

 

[dust1n]

My personal position on abortion is allowing it during the first trimester only with exceptions of the mothers health.

While a woman should have a right to make her own choices she should not have 9 months to make up her mind IMHO.

When a child becomes a child may be in debate, but I would hardly call a viable baby a bunch of cells either.

To say I hate women would be to say I hate my Mother, Sister, Wife, and Daughter. I don't want to attack them and subjugate them. Being pro life should not be considered anti woman.

Somewhere this all or nothing positions are going to have to soften.

What is your reasoning for limiting to the first trimester? Fetuses don't have developed brains, and don't have an active hypothalamus, and cannot feel pain in any form before 24-28 weeks.

 

[Pastadamus]

What should we call it? A war on fetuses? An attack on women's rights? A war on women's rights? Let's get down to what it really is. Bible holding preference over the Constitution.


New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

I don't think conservatives actually respect the constitution. The Christian right in America has declared war on freedom, equality, and justice for over 50 years now, and quite frankly it sickens me.

They don't think men should ever have any responsibility; oh sure, men are allowed to rape women or keep their wives barefoot and pregnant at home but at the end of the day the Repukes blame women. Disgusting.

 

[Apex]

They don't think men should ever have any responsibility; oh sure, men are allowed to rape women or keep their wives barefoot and pregnant at home but at the end of the day the Repukes blame women. Disgusting.

...slightly amusing displays of bigotry.

.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My personal position on abortion is allowing it during the first trimester only with exceptions of the mothers health.

While a woman should have a right to make her own choices she should not have 9 months to make up her mind IMHO.

After the child is born, should both parents be compelled to provide their bodies to sustain their child's life as necessary? Or does the child only have a right to life when this right only imposes obligations on the woman?

When a child becomes a child may be in debate, but I would hardly call a viable baby a bunch of cells either.

To say I hate women would be to say I hate my Mother, Sister, Wife, and Daughter. I don't want to attack them and subjugate them. Being pro life should not be considered anti woman.

But that's what you're advocating. I'm not saying that because I think that being anti-abortion means you think women should be kept barefoot and pregnant; I'm saying this because restricting abortion rights is itself a form of subjugation.

Somewhere this all or nothing positions are going to have to soften.

In my view, to soften my position would mean treating women as something less than full persons with full human rights. I couldn't do that in good conscience.

If you want me to compromise, you'll need to show me how I'm wrong... and the question of whether the fetus is a person doesn't speak to my reasons for being pro-choice, so you'll have to do it with some argument I haven't even considered yet. Do you have one?

 

[tytlyf]

It's not at all relative to the Bible. There are a lot of atheists, hell even a satanist that is pro-life.

I believe it is entirely related to christian evangelicals that have pulled the republican party so far right they're on the brink of no return. You have politicans using the bible in their political platform to reinforce their anti-abortion ambitions. They run on it, and hope to get voted in because of it. I wouldn't say a lot of atheists are pro-life, maybe 10%? I'm sure there's stats.

I smell some bigotry in painting the entire anti-abortion crowd as "anti-women" in their "war on women".

I agree there is a war on women. The war on women phrase was created by a female.

Not all Christians are fundamentalists tytlyf. :sorry1:

A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus.

Let me prove my point here that even Fundies don't follow the Bible. Do they eat shellfish or pork? Do they marry people who have been divorced?

There's a broad spectrum of christians in America. I still hold true the fact that I believe the WBC follows the bible more accurately than the majority of christians (yes, the bible is that wicked)

It's anti-people in general.

It's their way or the highway. Every time. No consideration for others that may not be christian or share the same values. What gets me is that so-called christians make up the majority of abortions in America? How does that make sense? Aren't these people afraid of god and eternal hellfire?

I don't think conservatives actually respect the constitution. The Christian right in America has declared war on freedom, equality, and justice for over 50 years now, and quite frankly it sickens me.

Respecting the secular Constitution would mean putting christianity and the bible second. For some reason the bible holds more weight.

 

[Falvlun]

To say I hate women would be to say I hate my Mother, Sister, Wife, and Daughter. I don't want to attack them and subjugate them. Being pro life should not be considered anti woman..

I think you, among others, are conflating "anti-woman" with hatred of woman. The two are not equivalent. You don't have to hate woman to support legislation or have beliefs that harm woman, which is what we're defining "anti-woman" as. After all, you could be claiming to do this for their benefit.

 

[Falvlun]

No back pedaling, you furry little critter. It's your fault that you infer too much from a question.

Do you or don't you find a group self-defining as "anti-woman" to be relevant?
Do you or don't you find a group not self-defining as "anti-woman" to be relevant?

If you do not find it relevant, than why did you bring it up in the first place?
If you do find it relevant, why? If a group doesn't self-define as anti-woman, but clearly supports practices that harm woman, what then?

I find that too limiting. You're discerning motives based upon your values without considering theirs.

I am not discerning motives at all. I am making a value call about the effects of their actions. They could have the best intentions, and I'm sure most do. But you know what they say about that road to hell.

What you call "objective" is not. Your values & agenda are not absolute truths any more than mine or theirs.
Moreover, you don't appear to address their belief that the fetus is entitled to the rights of a child or baby.

I didn't say they were objective at all. I said that self-reporting what you are is no more objective, and actually probably even less indicative, of looking at what people choose to do and the results of those actions.

I clearly stated that how we judge those actions is a value call.

And the rights of the baby has nothing to do with whether the results of these actions are anti-woman or not. If you'd like, we can define those who are against abortion rights as pro-fetus and anti-woman.

No. "Racist" is a clearly defined word (unless tytlyf is using it), & the expressed beliefs & actions of slave owners comport with the definition.

Oh really? I don't think racist is any more clearly defined than "anti-woman" is. It's all just a value judgement over how we view the effects of various viewpoints and actions.