I didn't think it was a conspiracy? Just drifting into "why"-ish questions.
Advertisement
by Quantipapa » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:24 am
by Godular » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:24 am
Lost Memories wrote:"pro-choice" = "pro-self" ≈ self-ishLimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof than "choice?"
That Is the point, but the whole discourse is often carried on so dishonestly that that's gets easily overlooked.
by Estanglia » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:24 am
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
by The Free Joy State » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:25 am
by Unstoppable Empire of Doom » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:26 am
by Quantipapa » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:28 am
by Communaccord » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:30 am
The Free Joy State wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:It's plainly obvious that "pro-life" is a vague platitude, but even as someone who supports abortion access, I've always felt comparably uncomfortable with the phrase "pro-choice," which seems more often to be off the hook. The whole damn point of anti-abortion laws is to treat a fetus as a person. In that context, is abortion not imposing the choice on the fetus? Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof than "choice?"
And does this make opposition to abortion "anti-choice?" Suppose some individual advocate of abortion criminalization supports more choice in what food to eat, what to do in one's personal time, than some individual advocate of abortion rights. Who of the two would be more "pro-choice?"
The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.
A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.
And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?
EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:30 am
by Godular » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:32 am
Communaccord wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.
A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.
And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?
EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?
It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.
by The Free Joy State » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:33 am
Communaccord wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.
A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.
And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?
EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?
It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.
by Ifreann » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:35 am
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:37 am
Ifreann wrote:Sure isn't taking long for this thread to become an abortion thread.
by Godular » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:38 am
by Communaccord » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:41 am
Godular wrote:Communaccord wrote:
It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.
Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.
by Crockerland » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:43 am
Godular wrote:Communaccord wrote:
It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.
Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.
by Northern Poland » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:43 am
Kawaii Seals wrote:SWEET NECTAR OF THE GODS
by Communaccord » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:44 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Communaccord wrote:
It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.
I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.
The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.
She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.
by Ifreann » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:46 am
Northern Poland wrote:pro choice is a misleading term
by Godular » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:46 am
Communaccord wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.
The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.
She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.
foetus feel pain at twenty weeks, WELL before third trimester.
by Godular » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:47 am
Crockerland wrote:Godular wrote:
Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.
Like a taxpayer?
by The Free Joy State » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:48 am
Communaccord wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.
The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.
She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.
foetus feel pain at twenty weeks, WELL before third trimester.
The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy[…]
[T]he neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.
Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."
Davis noted that while these time frames aren't exact — some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later — "there isn't any science to suggest that those pathways [for pain] are complete around the 20th week" of pregnancy.
by Crockerland » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:48 am
by Godular » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:50 am
Communaccord wrote:Godular wrote:
Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.
Um...Nooo...
In the case of Rape you would be correct, as a child was forcibly conceived, but if you consider consensual sexual activity, which results in pregnancy, by consenting to sex you are consenting to any resulting consequences of said behavior.
So yes, in non rape cases, the mother has consented to having child as an extent of engaging in sex.
by Crockerland » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:51 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Czechostan, Eahland, Ethel mermania, Fachumonn, Freezerville, Infected Mushroom, Jewish Partisan Division, Sarolandia, Temple of the computer2, The Holy Therns, USHALLNOTPASS
Advertisement