🇳🇱
Arguing men shouldnt have a right to an opinion on abortion because they can only be the victim of abortion and never the executor is like arguing women shouldnt have an opinion on rape because they are typically the victim and not the executor.
We all started our lives as fetuses and would have been effected by abortion laws, and as such we all should have a right to an opinion on the matter.
I'ma summarize this issue. Cause everyone has a right to an opinion.
Men should not have a choice in women-only decisions.
More broadly, any persons opinion does not specifically equate to a weighted position on any other person's choice.
Keep government small; keep decisions up to those who are directly impacted.
The further one is from impact, the more distorted the reality.
Except that abortion isnt a woman only issue
It is an issue that effects the woman and the feyus. So bases on your logic anyone who has been or is a woman or fetus has a right to an opinion, which is everyone.
@freemo @lucifargundam As a former fetus myself, I can assure you I wasn't paying my mother rent, so she should have had every right to evict me.
Fetuses don't have rights. And by women, I was referring to those who could/would be affected by pregnancy. Specific circumstances for specific judgements.
If we're going down the rabbit hole of fetus and the earliest stages of life, we might as well consider the rights of microbes. If we get to that point, it no longer becomes a gender issue.
What happens to a fetus and unborn infant is between the mother and associated caretakers. All life comes with a material cost which can potentially have dynamically drastic impacts on the environments surrounding it. These factors should be weighed on those overseeing its development.
Of course fetuses have rights. It is and has been for a long time illegal to murder a fetus 8 months into pregnancy. They jave had and clearly do have rights, the debatable part is how many rights thry have.
That said i never once argued for thrm having rights. I argued adults have the right to have an opinion on what the rules are on if someone should have been allowed to prevent my life or not.
@freemo @lucifargundam @louis Good discussion here so far. Everyone can have opinions, but which should have weight? Mainly with lucifar here, personal impact should determine this.
I'd like to add that fetuses "rights", be they legal or ethical rights, are usually viewed a bit short sighted.
A mere right to live does not reflect what the ethical consequences are, and a legal right without considering the actual consequences (after birth) runs afoul of the same ethical problem.
So i see two possibilities:
- guaranteeing a right to live and putting actual work behind the contextual issues: access to birth control (prevent unwanted pregnancy), timely access to abortion (important especially in case of rape), providing care for the birthed baby (not an unwilling mothers job), securing the ability of the growing human to actually lead a good life and not just subsist.
This i can take seriously as an opinion (even if i might disagree, depending on details).
- guaranteeing only the right to live, but just some hand waving at most for the rest of the issues.
In this case, i would have to assume the fetus rights are not the actual issue.
To summarize, if anyone who may or may not be up to the task is forced to do anything, the process is surely an unethical one. Claiming to act in stead of someone who does not have a voice needs diligence and foresight, or it is a false claim.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
Viagra isnt a drug that effects is a woman will live tonsee adulthood... abortion is an act which does kill men and prevent them from reaching adulthood. It very much is a male issue.
@bonifartius @freemo One could argue that a lack of it does. Ultimately it just depends on when you think life starts and whether or not you're willing to use violence to enforce that belief.
To be clear the argument isnt against or for abortion, while i agree it can be murder (for example a day before birth) it also can save life and depends for sure.
That argument here is men are effected strongly as it decides if we can be killed early on. So it is very much an issue for everyone to discuss.
@freemo @bonifartius On the issue of whether one can be killed or not before being born, men and women are equally involved. But when it comes to being an unwilling incubator for a parasite (especially in the case of rape), women are infinitely more involved than men. So, on balance, women have more of a say.
It's like the toilet seat. We use it down like 25% of the time, but women use it down 100% of the time, so the average is 62.5% which means the correct position is down.
From a scientific perspective life undoubtly starta before birth. That aaid bacteria is also life... the definition of where life starts as much as it matters for killing a bacteria. The fact is someone had the oppertunity at some point in the past to prevent my current life from existing, so i should have a say in matters where we discuss how much right i have to my life. We are discussing if someone haf a right to prevent my life, so clearly i should have a say in that.
@freemo @bonifartius Couldn't you use the same logic to outlaw masturbation and periods, if you only believed that sperm and eggs counted as human life before fertilization?
@bonifartius @louis @freemo That guy is saying that cutting a body to pieces and sucking it through a straw isn't violence.
Maybe it's just an industrial incident.
@bonifartius @louis @freemo Abortion is never illegal for the wealthy. Abortion bans are class warfare.
I agree with this given the current situation where a person can just go get the procedure in some other state.
Though if it were a total ban, and even illegal to go out of your area to get one, then even the wealthy wouldnt be able to get an abortion. But thats not the case, so what we have right now what you are saying is certainly true, and a bit issue IMO.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis A wealthy woman would simply call her personal physician for the procedure or go to "visit the Blarneystone" in Ireland. The wealthy do what they want. Middle class and poor girls pay the price economically, socially, and physically.
You mean int he current system, in which case I agree. Obviously if it is blanket outlawed than those scenarios would still mean jail time, so in that scenario your point isnt valid, but with the current state it is entirely valid.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis I'm sure you'd agree there's a 2-tierd justice system. The weathy would likely $$$ their way out of prosecution. I don't see any changes or improvements in the near future.
@freemo @Ponygirl @bonifartius Strong disagree. The rich can always offer enough of a bonus to override some doctor's fear of jail, especially if they're fresh off their residency and riddled with debt. The rich can even offer to buy them the best lawyer if they somehow do get caught. The incentives outweigh the risks. But only if you can afford it.
@bonifartius @louis @freemo I found I enjoy debating freemo because the debate is cordial, and it gets my brain juices flowing. We've not attacked each other. I'm sorry, but dismissing class warfare is ignoring millenia of human history. And your enforcing bans with violence comment made me a bit sick in my tummy.
I too have enjoyed the respectful debate and so long as it remains respectful you are always welcome on my feed.
In Boni's defense im not sure she is ignoring class warfare so much as agreeing with you to an extent. At least thats how I read it. Like anything solved via threat of arrest is violence and cant solve this problem, so seems she at least agrees with you that outlawing abortion under threat of arrest is not the answer (though if i had to guess I suspect she might be against abortion morally).
@freemo @Ponygirl @louis
> In Boni's defense im not sure she is ignoring class warfare so much as agreeing with you to an extent. At least thats how I read it. Like anything solved via threat of arrest is violence and cant solve this problem, so seems she at least agrees with you that outlawing abortion under threat of arrest is not the answer (though if i had to guess I suspect she might be against abortion morally).
yes.
i think it's wrong to use violence to keep people from doing things and arrest (or even fines because not paying leads to arrest) is violence.
i am morally against abortion except in very few cases. people use it as contraceptive now and that's wrong. i don't think a ban will solve this because violence doesn't solve anything in the long run.
wealthy people having options to work around this threat doesn't make wealthy people your enemy. those who get abortions are on the same side with this, after all.
@Ponygirl @louis @freemo
well, you replied to my post!
> I'm sorry, but dismissing class warfare is ignoring millenia of human history.
still pushing for collectivist ideas and concepts like class warfare is.
> And your enforcing bans with violence comment made me a bit sick in my tummy.
sorry. violence is how states work. if something is the law it is backed by violence. a fine not paid will end with property being taken away by force and people being put in jail. the ideology behind the concept of class warfare is the embodiment of state violence.
Just to be clear he is more than welcome on my threads. He has been nothing but polite and if he wants to look through my threads and jump in, so long as he remains respectful, it is more than welcome.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis I am a she 😊
Oh so sorry. I should have checked. I have a very bad habit of defaulting to "he" online for some reason, particularly if i dont know someone. IT can be very rude and not intentional though, my apologies. Ill try not to make that mistake again.
@freemo @Ponygirl @louis i was just teasing (hence the smiley) because this thread is a bit old and i read the atheism thread earlier.
i don't like two sentence drive by with communist rethorics though. of course "the wealthy" can do more things than others, but why is this wrong? why is it warfare? in states that follow these ideas we wouldn't be able to have this exchange we have here.
I think you may just be particularly senative to anti-capitalist discussion because so often it devolves into nonsense, and I do get that. Might I suggest we give ponygirl the benefit of the doubt here that it wont go that far based on how reasonable she has been in debate so far?
That said while, as you know, I have no issues with capitalism, and even think its good when implemented properly, I kinda agree with ponygirl on this one. While you are right that it is perfectly ok for the wealthy to do more or have more than the poor, I dont think that should carry over to the law. The law is one place everyone should be equal, and being wealthy should not make you immune to some laws while the poor not. Laws should be about morality, and enforcing it. Something doesnt become right just because you have more money to get around the rules. Now I wouldnt blame the wealthy person, they are just working within the system. But it certainly is an indication that there is a failure in the law when that happens.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now- a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago. Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?
@freemo @bonifartius @louis Also, I know we've been engaging for some time so if you don't respond, I understand. Thank you for your time just in case.
> I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now-
I assume you mean USA's capitalist government, as opposed to europe, which is also capitalist of course but with their own take?
> a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago.
We certainly have quite a few economic issues that could be address. I'd imagine the devil is in the details so im not sure if we agree on the points (since we didnt dig that deep) but i certainly agree on the principle that there are economic issues that need addressing, many of which revolve around poverty and prosperity.
> Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?
My view is that law should enforce the "objective morality" as a guiding principle. When I saw objective morality I mean "That which reduces suffering to its utmost" which to me is really all morality is, a societal agreement on some rules designed to minimize the overall suffering of society, to effectively minimize unhappiness and maximize happiness. So I think all laws should be designed with that principle in mind.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis OMG we could go so much deeper on the objective morality, but I get your gist, and am on board with the alleviation of suffering. Thank you for your thoughtful responses and giving me a run for my money 😊 For now, I bid you good night sir.
The objective morality bit seems to be a hot topic anytime i bring it up with anyone... most people seem to have an almost visceral reaction and disagreement to the notion that morality can be objective rather than a pure cultural construct.
I argue its both, while on the one hand the measure of morality is objective (quantity of suffering) ont he other hand what will cause suffering is very much influenced by culture. If a culture covers women up (like muslim cultures) then forcing a woman to wear very little would cause most women to suffer more so than forcing them not to. In a society where women usually expose more like west societies the opposite is true, most women would suffer more to have to cover up. Basically, whatever feels normal for your culture, usually there will be some degree of suffering to depart from that. But my whole argument is that the suffering needs to be measured in aggregate and not just the emotional component.
Anyway im rambling, have a good night, it was a pleasure.
@freemo @Ponygirl @bonifartius I think another big problem with 'objective morality' is the question of who deserves not to suffer. Personally, I ascribe to the "all humans" view, but there are folks who believe it should only be white people and there are other people who believe it should extend to dolphins and trees.
That inherent subjectivity, I think, is why we we cannot have objective morality.
While there would need to be a conversation around that, for me the bigger challenge is just quantifying suffering.
Imagine some future world where we can scan someones brain and objectively measure and quantify their happiness. I would simply take the average over each persons lifetime, using the geometric average, and then would take the average across society as a RMS average.
Obviously when you dont have sci-fi type brain scan devices it becomes a far less precise process to actually quantify it, and therein lies the real problem IMO.
@freemo @Ponygirl @louis
it's late here so i'll be terse :)
> Might I suggest we give ponygirl the benefit of the doubt here that it wont go that far based on how reasonable she has been in debate so far?
certainly!
like i wrote in the other post, why see the wealthy as enemies if you think the law is what is wrong. i think this is why i reacted this strongly: it's the state implementing a law removing individual rights of everyone, poor and rich. the rich might have resources to work around it, but how does this make them enemies? it just doesn't make much sense.
@brimshae @freemo Lol, what? I extended your own logic to point out its absurd conclusions. Whatever undertone of malice or frustration you think you read were entirely in your head.
Try reading my toots as intended: detached, emotionless, and vaguely condescending; like a has-been Shakespearean actor who's now recording audiobooks for printer manuals.
@freemo Of course everyone has a right to their opinion on any subject.
But it does seem clear that while men are not unaffected, women *are* disproportionately affected and their voices should therefore hold more weight on the subject.
And the inverse holds true as well. Men's voices carry more weight when it comes to men's issues, such as the legality and ease of access to Viagra.