I like how pointing out that the pro-life position is not consistent with a general regard for individual rights is being repeatedly met with variations on “well, you see, the law is an arbitrary construct, so consistency isn’t really required…”
And this would change things, how??
That’s the big difference. Abortion access in most of the U.S. is distressingly vulnerable. There’s something like three abortion providers in Alabama, and one in Mississippi. Even without the new laws, or a potential Supreme Court decision, abortion access has been hanging by a thread for decades in much of this land. A relatively small number of persons could have limited abortion access to the Northeast and a handful of large cities elsewhere pretty quickly via assassinations and firebombings.
Neither the U.S. nor the Israeli military machines are similarly vulnerable.
Didn’t Unreconstructed Man already respond to this nonsense?
Why yes, he did:
Giving examples of what we can’t do with our bodies fails to rebut his point that there are “few, if any [laws], saying what we must do.”
And Vietnam? Please. The Vietnam-era draft ceased before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. (My birth year was the first year they didn’t draft anyone from.) There hasn’t been a draft since, despite our having been in two major conflicts since. Having people register with the Selective Service is nowhere close to the same thing.
The ‘meat is murder’ analogy isn’t the current majority opinion, it’s true. But it one day could be. The point is that you wouldn’t be happy letting someone else’s conviction meat is murder, should shape your actions. But you know that, of course, and are just being evasive.
Let’s hear your myriad of reasons where people’s body autonomy is breached then. Your soldier point is nonsense as a person can conscientiously object, and thereby avoid service. I don’t see any provision for women to object to this breach of their autonomy and obtain an abortion. So, yeah, not AT ALL the same.
And this is like the third time you’ve evaded addressing why a clump of cells is worth breaching my body autonomy, but not for a grown man who will dies without a kidney (wife, family, kids, home, employees!). It seems pretty clear it’s worth it for a ‘potential’ human being, but it’s NOT for a grown adult. Why aren’t you fighting for that life? Why isn’t it worth breaching his twin brother’s body autonomy? Surely if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
The bolded section appears to be very close to an accusation of lying by any pro-life poster on the SDMB. Do this again and it will be a Warning.
[ /Moderating ]
There are exceptions in Georgia’s abortion law too. That you didn’t see them is no one’s fault but your own. As far as a draftee who declares himself a conscientious objector, that’s not quite the get-out-of-jail-free card and a pass back to a place where he enjoys full body autonomy again that you seem to imagine it is. Here is what the Selective Service says on the subject:
I have limits on how much time, money, and energy I can spend fighting to protect innocent lives. ISTM that my expenditure of time, money, and energy will likely result in more innocent lives saved if I focus on abortion, which occurs many hundreds of thousands of times each year and for which there’s already a substantial political movement, rather than the relatively rare edge case you’ve outlined above.
Apparently, so will anti-fascists.
Not you, but I have seen all kinds of lies posted by both sides. It would by nice to drop the extremists on both sides into a hole until some sort of resolution is reached, but until then, in a discussion forum, calls for violence, even if only emotional violence, are not going to be appropriate.
I am aware of your passion for having the world be changed to the way you like it to be. Meeting abuse with abuse simply leads to physical violence.
And dividing the world into the good guys and the bad guys and then claiming that all the people you regard a “bad” engage in the same despicable behavior simply means that you are looking for a way to prolong the dispute and avoid any sort of resolution. There are people who claim to be pro-life who appear to have no concern for a child after birth. However, they are not the entirety of the pro-life movement, many of whom are deeply committed to children’s health and development. And while most of the pro-choice comments, here, have focused on “clusters of cells,” we have had posters on the SDMB argue that there is no problem with terminating life in a pregnancy as late as when contractions for birth have begun. Following your example describing people who are pro-life, pro-life people would be well within their rights to describe the pro-choice movement as wishing to kill babies.
Neither position is accurate for the overwhelming majority of people holding either view. If one chooses to demonize and slander or libel one’s opponents, one’s opponents are free to demonize, slander, and libel one. No good results from such activity.
Meaning, the six-week cutoff, raised to 20 weeks in cases of rape or incest?
Both, of course, point up the complete hypocrisy of anti-abortion claims to support the position that full personhood is acquired at the moment of conception. If you believe that a fertilized ovum is just as much a person as you are with the same right to life that you have, then it makes no sense to declare that that personhood can be arbitrarily suspended for the first six weeks after fertilization. Or that the circumstances of the fertilization (e.g., rape or incest) make the least bit of difference as far as the rights of the ovum in question are concerned.
:mad: WHOA. So you’re saying that you do in principle support such actions as legally forcing a relative of someone who needs an organ donation to donate said organ, even against their will? And that the only reason you’re not out there marching for the cause of forced organ donation is that you think your “time, money and energy” will generate greater ROI when allocated to the cause of prohibiting abortion instead?
Golly. For someone who apparently thinks that even most gun regulation is an unacceptable infringement of your personal autonomy, you don’t seem to be batting an eyelash at the far, far more invasive and drastic infringement of personal autonomy involved in legally demanding organ donations against the donor’s will.
Properly caring for an infant requires some loss of freedom/bodily autonomy. Paying taxes is a loss of freedom. In society there will always be some form of obligation or restrictions on freedom and that may vary from person to person.
In a democracy we vote on those obligations either directly or indirectly via representatives. The populace won’t be in 100% agreement and some will be unhappy. Do you have a better mechanism?
I actually had the medical emergency exception in mind when I typed that, but as you’ve noted here, there are others as well.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s a rare enough edge case that, even if I did think it was a good idea, it’s not very common and therefore doesn’t merit as much attention as the far more common abortions.
I don’t really want to see this thread side-tracked into a discussion about forced organ donation. If you want to start another thread to debate it, go right ahead. I might even join in, but I’ll tell you that it’s not a subject I’ve spent much time fleshing out a firm position on.
The position you’re arguing utterly depends on that “opinion you’re not espousing”, though, so you either HAVE to “espouse” it or your argument immediately implodes due to absent premises.
A: This law says that clumps of cells are people and that (therefore) killing it is murder! That’s insane!
B: It’s not insane.
A: But the only way that the law wouldn’t be insane is if killing clumps of cells was murder!
B: It’s still not insane.
A: Are you saying that killing clumps of cells is murder?
B: No.
And the current reason you’re putting forward is “no reason at all whatsoever that I’m willing to “espouse” even for the sake of argument”.
But bringing up the Draft is o.k.?
At least in the US, the vast majority of abortions are not performed because of severe fetal deformity. Unless you have a cite to the contrary…
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think it does, but maybe it would help if you could clarify what the position you think I’m arguing is which requires a belief that abortion is “murder”.
ISTM that that’s a failure of consistency, or possibly outright hypocrisy, on your part. You apparently found it worth your while to “flesh out a firm position” on the acceptability of legally forcing a woman to provide the use of her blood and organs (often with very damaging physical and psychological consequences) to a fetus she doesn’t want simply because the fetus would otherwise die. In fact, your position on that topic is so firm that you devote substantial “time, money and energy” to the cause of enforcing compliance with your views on the part of everybody else, whether they agree with you or not.
That being the case, I don’t see how you can possibly justify not having an opinion on the violation of bodily autonomy of people who are not pregnant women to preserve the lives of people who are not in utero embryos or fetuses. If you’re okay with legally requiring continuation of pregnancy to preserve the life of a fetus, but not okay with legally requiring organ donation to preserve the life of a born person, on what grounds do you make that distinction? Is it that you think the lives of fetuses are somehow more valuable than the lives of adults with organ failure, or that you think the bodily autonomy of pregnant women is somehow less important than the bodily autonomy of potential organ donors, or what?
Your refusal to examine the moral consistency of your position is coming across as not wanting to look too closely at your beliefs for fear you might have to confront some hypocrisy in them.
I felt it was a relevant rebuttal to the assertion that “There are plenty of laws saying what we can’t do with our bodies, and few, if any, saying what we must do.”
Why should there be another thread about it? It’s in this thread because it’s clearly analogous to the thread topic.
If you don’t like people drawing comparisons between forced organ donation and forced carrying of a pregnancy to term, then maybe you’re in the wrong thread.
That abortion at week seven should be banned based on the thingy in the tummy being a human person that shouldn’t be murdered.
Yeah, women and men both had plenty of laws saying what we had to do with our respective bodies, back before 1973.
Not sure how that’s relevant to 2019.
It seems sort of easy to make that distinction actually.