Sounds a little like something Dick Cheney would say…
To all the people, not just women, who feel as Curtis does I would say, please, follow your heart, do as you believe is right.
And allow me to do the same. It sucks to be part of the 49% instead of the 51% in a democracy. No one is more aware of that than women, I assure you.
I live in a multicultural country. Hindus don’t get to tell me to not eat beef, they get to choose not to eat beef themselves. Jews don’t get to tell me not to eat port, they do get to choose not to eat pork themselves. If Christians want their morality to dictate law then they need to create a Christian state.
My country is secular, by the choice of the majority. Your moral stance is not the law and won’t be any time soon. I know it sucks but in the end you only get to choose your own morality, not impose it on me.
omigod, then i take it back you are so right omigod and all of those periods afterward really made your point…
If so, it would be one of those moments when Cheney was correct about something. Defending the rights of people who, given the chance, would take those rights away from everyone is an important aspect of democracy. Similiarly, don’t lock up racists even if their utopia is racist. Don’t lock up Muslims who believe everyone should be forcibly converted to Islam. Don’t deny free speech to people who argue for censorship. Only act when THEY act.
Is there something wrong with this? The alternative is a lot worse; it would be the “PC gone amuck” that Fox commentators endlessly moan about (and should be free to continue to do so).
Highlighting mine
You’re right, just simply myopic.
Defending the rights of unborn children who, given the chance, would be killed and disposed of, is an important aspect of democracy.
Then, while I disagree with your view, I have to say it does seem consistent on that point.
But your point was one of something inevitably becoming something else. A fertilised egg, at the moment of conception, is not inevitably going to become an adult human.
That’s exactly the correct implication, and indeed, by that logic, that would be the natural result. But it is not my logic; I do not base my opinion as to how to treat beings based on what they will, in the future, be. That’s your argument, and it is your logic. You must come up with a reason why it is reasonable to treat a fertilised egg as a fully grown human on the basis that it will one day be that thing, and yet unreasonable to treat a fertilised egg or fully grown human as a corpse, on the same basis.
Myopic seems like the wrong term. It’s not as though we do not recognise or see your point; we just disagree.
If these unborn children were passively growing on vines, I’d agree that it would be wrong to capriciously stomp on them, but if we’re going to use ophthalmological metaphors, I’d say you have a fairly significant blind spot that keeps you from seeing that there is a woman involved. Her rights and the rights of the unborn child (if you prefer that term) are in conflict, and it is better overall to give her rights the priority, because the alternative is worse.
Don’t confuse me with the people who are arguing “a fetus is just a lump of tissue that can be disposed of at will”. My position is that “a person has a right to control their own body.” The nature of the fetus doesn’t really matter to me; its location does.
Doesn’t it come down to your morality doesn’t trump my morality?
If you’re a Hindu you’re entitled to think it’s wrong of me to eat beef, you’re just not allowed to force your morality on me.
No one is stopping you from living according to your beliefs, why should you have the right to stop others from living according to theirs?
And how is it that you think it’s untenable to live by the current moral mindset that thinks abortion is acceptable, but think nothing of making the rest of us live under your untenable morality? Isn’t one just as bad as the other?
And isn’t the obvious solution to let each live according to their own creed as long as they are not in conflict with the laws of the land?
And why should such a thing have any more rights than a tumor? And why should the “rights” of such a thing trump the right of a woman to control her own body?
And calling it an “unborn child” is again nothing more than word games. It IS nothing more than a mindless mass of tissue. Calling it anything else won’t change what it is.
When they seek abortions? ‘You’re lucky you didn’t get your way when you assumed this kind of thing only happened to other people.’
Well, we’ve had an exhaustive list over the years of just what those “alternatives” are, have we not?
Let me see if I can remember some of them:
The birth control failed.
“We’re not ready.”
The child will live in poverty.
“I’ll have an unwanted baby on my hands.”
“They’re too young.”
“It will mess up my plans/ life/ schooling.”
Rape. (an infinitesimal percentage of all pregnancies, to be sure)
It is only the result of cultural, moral, and intellectual malnourishment that anyone would advance the absurd notion that these “alternatives” are more compelling than the life of a child.
“The nature of the fetus doesn’t really matter to me; its location does.”
Malnourishment indeed.
Thanks for sharing.
Any further thoughts of the non-crack pot variety?
Perhaps.
Except I’ve ventured into too many of these abortion discussions where there seemed to be an inability to understand the underlying argument----that this is a child; a human being. (even if they disagree)
So the central question----in my mind—must always be “When does life begin?”*
If you simply skip by that question (or it’s answer) and proceed to questions about individual rights, than it should not be surprising that someone is bound to assert the rights of the other human in that equation: the fetus.
In doing so, we’ve exposed on many occasions the fact that, for many Dopers, the point at which life begins is irrelevant. (and they have been strident in making the point)
For them, even if it a human life, simple inconvenience is enough to end a life.
Yep. I don’t care about your god or your morals. I care about my body. I know that’s a bitter pill, but I also don’t care about that.
If a lump of flesh counts as a child, then yes they ARE more compelling. Calling a fetus a “child” just means that you’ve created a category of “child” that deserves no rights or consideration on it’s own.
Hardly “crackpot”. She’s simply pointing out the standard hypocrisy of the Right, who just love to restrict people’s rights according to supposed moral principles that they don’t hesitate to throw out with regards to themselves.
No, it is not. If a fetus is “life” or a “human being”, then that just means you’ve created a category of “life” or “human being” that is expendable. A fetus is just a thing, no matter what label you give it.
Actually the alternatives I was thinking of involve women being injured or killed in unsafe abortions, infanticide and abandonment, criminal enrichment of people who add mifepristone to the drugs they already traffic, not to mention the logistical infeasibility of a ban. I use Prohibition as my example of something like this, i.e. a ban on something a great many Americans very much want and will ignore laws to get. Further, I compare the U.S. (and other places where abortion is available) to countries where abortion is banned, and the latter group tends to be places where individual rights have far less respect.
Additionally, there is some evidence of a drop in crime rates 15+ years after Roe that can be attributed to fewer babies growing up unwanted and in poverty.
I’m sure you enjoyed rattling off what you perceived as a list of flimsy excuses, but if someone is exercising a right, they don’t need an excuse. A homeowner does not need to justify his desire that a trespasser leave his property, for example. If someone wants to paint a picture or write a book or make a film or post on a message board, they need not come up with a reason to do so. I don’t see why (though I get that you disagree) something as personal as deciding how many children to have, and when, should not be at the sole discretion of the individual woman.
I’m also not sure how “infinitesimal” the rape percentage is, but I predict that if it is allowed as an exception, any woman who wants an abortion will simply claim she was raped, and I couldn’t blame her for it. How will you prove she wasn’t? Will you investigate each and every claim? Are you willing to increase funding to law enforcement 1000% to do so?
Rather than make up your own list of what I think the “alternatives” are, please read the above actual list. If you still want to shrug and dismiss them, I of course can’t stop you, but I reject the “malnourished” claim as fatuous and self-serving.
You’re very flippant about the rights of others. I trust you live in a society where others are less flippant about yours and therefore can enjoy that luxury.
And what about the men who will get arrested because they resemble the imaginary rapist? And what about the general disbelief that will eventually attach itself to rape claims in that scenario? Creating a situation where women are more-or-less forced to lie about being raped isn’t likely to end well.
Maybe we could Wasilla-ize the rest of the country and make women pay for their own rape kits! It’s PERFECT!
It does kind of invoke the “better to let ten guilty men free than an innocent man in prison” idea, doesn’t it? If the principle involved is that it is better that a million woman lose their rights to “convenience” (what a thoroughly asinine stop-thought description) rather than one fetus/baby/child be aborted, a whole lotta innocent men are going to end up in jail.