OK, if people can't afford health care then we should just let them die....what a shithole country would do. BUT abortion deals with a person's right to their own body (not the right to eat a hamburger...you seem confused).....but you don't think women should have the right to their own body. No, you never gave a good, logical , factual reason why women having sexual freedom is bad for them. And YOU used a woman's period as an insult.....a way to denigrate women as if they all start drooling and can't function as well as YOU can because they have their period. AND you ASSume all women react exactly the same when they have their periods which is sexist and ASSinine. More pouty flamebaiting....do you have your period and are now extra sensitive? Yes, you blamed them for MEN objectifying them. Hardly ! IF a fetus is ever deemed A human being , a legal person, it would still have the same restrictions all other persons have, it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life.... A human fetus is always human and I have never said otherwise. Just because you can't tell a noun (a human) from an adjective(human) isn't my problem but does show your inability to differentiate adjectives from nouns. Sounds like a 14 year old with her period... Then you are even more unfamiliar with the abortion debate then I had previously guessed. It's hard to believe you have never encountered people who want to take away women's right to their own bodies....I mean, YOU do.
If they cannot afford it, they can turn to friends, community church or family. This kind of voluntary charity happen all the time and even more so today with the Internet that allows the whole world to crowd-fund surgeries and whatnot. I live in a country where health care is "free" and that health care is lacking in both quality and supply. Yes, I do. Self-ownership is the one thing that identifies my whole political philosophy. However, owning your own body does not mean anyone owes you anything. Generally, if there is a demand for something, the free market will provide it and as long as no one else has to pay for your demands, I am totally fine. However, this still does not mean that women have "the right" to abortions. For the tenth time; Abortion is not a right. You are distorting what I said again. But, I will tell you how once again; Contraceptives and sexual liberalism has made women slaves to their own - and especially to men's - sexual passions. This encourages hedonism and puts women on a position where they are no longer virtuous, but instead "equal", "equal to everyone" which - in practise - means they are worthless. Men now expect sex - they see it as a right and this has inflated the "marriage/partner marketplace": Men can now get whatever they want, whenever they want without making any real effort at all and they do not even have to show the woman a pinch of respect to get there either. Women think this is normal and are happy because it makes them think they are pretty and wanted and also does it give them the illusion that they live in the best of times since, "unlike their great-grandmothers, they own their bodies". Then they enter the dancefloor, going "full Miley Cyrus", expecting Ricky Iglesias to approach and woo them off their feet. Especially disastrous has all this been on the lower classes - the well-beared can delay childbearing with access to contraceptives whereas the poor cannot since they don't have it. The poor are stuck in poverty and it is mostly the children of the poor that suffer from the awful heartbreak of divorce and shattered families. No, I did not do any of that. My gender is on my profile. Take another look.. Where? When? How? Aha! Finally we are getting somewhere. The eviction-argument is very reasonable and interesting, but I would argue that this one only works if the "guest" is uninvited such as in cases of rape or failing contraceptives. However, having unprotected, consensual sex is an indirect invitation and you then have the reasonsibility to take care of that "guest", you can't just walk in and kill him/her with the argument of "it is my property!" I personally do not like the evictionist argument because its logic does not hold when pushed in absurdum - even born babies are dependent on their mothers to survive for many, many years; is it justified for a mother to kill her 4 year old child? This is not at all where my remark on your argument was. It seemed as if you were justifying your Pro-Choice position by pointing at the law; "a fetus is not a human because the law says so!" So, my question was if you would still agree with the law if it changed to the opposite. If not, then your argument is not valid as not even you yourself stand behind its logic. How sexist! No. I want women and everyone else to own their own bodies to 100%. I am Anarcho-Capitalist, ffs!
Addt modest, caring, intelligent and self-respective and you have my dream girl. Sounds like the reality "sexual freedom" creates as I explained it above.
More horse puckey...good thing YOU don't decide what is feminine and what is not....and I see you didn't deny ""which is docile, obedient, having no sex drive, only having sex when a man wants sex, having kid after kid like cattle, accepting low pay and crappy jobs so the Real Important People, MEN, can have the jobs and the money.....and all the sex THEY want""
How would that work when those entities say , sorry, you have no right to health care. . I live in a country where health care is the most expensive in the world and is lacking in quality and supply .. What right do you have to free health care ? For the eleventh time no, abortion is not a right....but there IS a right to our own body. Utter unprovable BS. The "blame the women" thing you deny you say !!!!!!! (Sarcasm alert) OH, I didn't know YOU knew what every woman on earth thought and did and felt....WOW! How do you do that ? Magic ? Crystal ball? or , more likely, wishful thinking I do not know what "well-beared" means. But in response to your concern about poor children ...it's a GOOD thing many can be aborted and don't have to suffer poverty. People against abortion seem to want MORE poor children born to suffer poverty. You most certainly did when you attempted to insult me by saying I was like a fourteen year old on her period....you used it as an INSULT. So YOU don't need a period to be all emotional....LOL!!!! Well, in this post for one... Sorry, no "aha" for you! If YOU invite a guest into your house and he starts beating you you may stop the beating anyway you can, even using deadly force......or do you allow your guests to treat you anyway they choose? A four year old child has been born and has rights. A fetus hasn't been born so has no rights. There is a difference between born and unborn, look it up if you are confused. WHERE are the fetuses right to health care that you say no one has....a fetus has no right to "health care " either, the woman is under no obligation to sustain it's life... A human fetus is always human and I have never said otherwise. Just because you can't tell a noun (a human) from an adjective(human) isn't my problem but does show your inability to differentiate adjectives from nouns. I pointed out clearly that even IF the fetus was deemed A human being( legal person) the woman it's in would STILL have the right to expel it from her body. NO one has the right to use another person's body to sustain their life. Oh, so when I say ""Sounds like a 14 year old with her period..."" it's sexist but you deny it's sexist when YOU say it. OK, now I know why you think your thoughts and ideas should rule the earth...LOL! Then how do you justify being against abortion and women's sexual freedom......you sound quite hypocritical...
Finally! Where are your arguments? Not at all. I am actually pointing out that women are the victims, not the perpetrators. Now, tnere is that eye-rolling, pretentious little, bubblegum-chewing 14 year old. Knock it off! No one likes an attitude like that. Sorry, that was probably a "Swinglish-ism". What I inteded to say was "well off"/"upper class" (my native language's välbärgad' confused me). No, I just explained where the sad truth in this lies - contraceptives and abortions were presented as great inventions that would help the poor, but - quite frankly - it has done the opposite; upper class have fewer children because they can access contraceptives and the poor, the crackheads and the irresponsible have more children. Children that are born into awful conditions. Okay....... Oh, a pro gun rights Liberal! How rare! Jokes aside. If you invite someone, you have the responsibility to take care of them. If you pay for a room at the hotel, the owner can't step in and shoot you for no reason. The self-defense argument you are making only works if the woman has been raped or if her life is in danger. So, exactly how does a 9 month old baby inside the womb differ from one that has come out of it? What exactly is it that makes the latter a life? The issue is not "right to health care", but rather is it that of "right to life" - it is a question of self-ownership. This is the first time you make that clear. I think your perspective is rather problematic because the person (a fetus) in question is trapped in a hostage-like situation inside the womb. It is not about a simple "get out of here"-expulsion. The woman has to use far greater force than the "invader" can and has ever used against her and the harm done by the woman is miles worse than the potential harm the "invader" can cause the woman. If the sex was cionsensual, she invited the guest and thus it is not an invader. Ever heard of sarcasm? No, clearly not. In accordance with my philosophy, I believe in private laws and many different societies within society with their very own laws. You clearly know nothing about me, my perspectives or about Libertarianism. What do you mean? I am nor against abortion neither against sexual freedom. I have never said I was- and nothing I have written implies that I am. I have asked you to share the posts where I show this side of myself, but you have either failed or just ignored the requests and continued to accuse me of supporting the most horrible stuff I would never support in a trillion years.
You're blaming the women, and their sexual habits, for becoming victims. You asked for it with your assumption that you know what every woman thinks..... Yup, so it's good to keep abortion legal and accessible to the poor.... Uh, maybe it's that "you don't know English " thing but W H E R E did I mention a gun in the following: """""Sorry, no "aha" for you! If YOU invite a guest into your house and he starts beating you you may stop the beating anyway you can, even using deadly force......or do you allow your guests to treat you anyway they choose?""""" NO where....so your attempt to segue off onto another topic and NOT answer the question isn't going to work So why can't you answer the question ? """Sorry, no "aha" for you! If YOU invite a guest into your house and he starts beating you you may stop the beating anyway you can, even using deadly force......or do you allow your guests to treat you anyway they choose?""""" I have no idea what owning a hotel has to do with self defense but if you start to harm the hotel owner they can fight back and even shoot you. Hotel owners have a right to self defense.....in this country everyone does.... NO, if you invite someone into your home and they start to harm you you have every right to stop the harm anyway you can. There is only one way a woman can stop the harm a fetus is causing her. And it has NOTHING to do with rape or if her life is in danger. It's always life but being born seperates it from the woman. Didn't you know that? A fetus is connected to , and depends on, the woman's body to sustain it. Once it's born it doesn't..... Yes, and even mere women have the right to self-ownership. A fetus is not a person. The "invader" has the ability to kill the woman. There is no other way to stop the fetus harming her but to expel it. If the only way to stop someone attacking you is to shoot them , you can. . The "invader" ( I don't know why you call it an invader when you insist that it was "invited ", a hilarious concept), is capable of killing the woman and causing serious bodily harm...all reasons to use self defense. It was YOU who called it an "invader", YOU not me.... ...and getting pregnant is NOT done by invitation...there is nothing to "invite"...and it's impossible anyway. A woman could do a million "invitations" and still not get a reply.. It still was a sexist statement. If you're not against abortion why are you saying it's wrong? Why are you saying if a woman invites pregnancy she shouldn't be able to abort???? I have seen your posts where you claim that the Pill, contraceptives, and the sexual revolution hurt women...that leads me to believe you do NOT want women to be free to have sex just like men....you want them contained and rationed for their own protection....and that's weird..
Imagine a guest prepays a hotel room for 6 nights. On the second night, the hotel proprietor wants to kick them out, despite the guest having done nothing really bad or anything that isn't unusual for a typical hotel guest. But there's a terrible snowstorm outside, all the cars are stuck and can't get anywhere, and if anyone tried to sleep in their car outside they'd freeze to death.
FoxHastings said: ↑ ...that leads me to believe you do NOT want women to be free to have sex just like men....you want them contained and rationed for their own protection....and that's weird.. Yes, being Anti-Choice is all about certain people trying to contain, ration, and punish women for having sex...
I realize I am jumping into a long discussion here but, Abortion is a right - at least according to the main principle on which this nation was founded. "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" Banning abortion infringes on one's right to individual liberty and their pursuit of happiness. The founding principle puts individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. It is the Gov't then that has no legitimate right to force a woman not to have an abortion through threat of physical violence (Law).
This is an unfair analogy as the fetus/baby is not be compared with a violent guest or a crazy intruder. A pregnant woman is in full control of the situation and can, whenever she pleases, end the fetuses/baby's life or cause it damage in other ways such as with an unhealthy diet or by engaging in risky behaviours. The fetus/baby is more like a hostage than an invader. The maximum amount of damage the fetus/baby can cause the woman is, what, move inside the womb? Mess up her hormones? This does not compare one bit to what the harm the woman can cause. Now, if some little rascal steps on your lawn or steals your roses from your backyard, it is not fully justified to shoot him on the spot. You start by telling them to f- off and maybe threaten them with your gun. We have to note that we are talking about pregnancy resulting from consensual sex where a more suiting analogy is one where x invites y for a helicopter ride and as they touch the sky, x changes his mind and kicks y out without a parachute. Can this act be justified with reference to Property Rights? I would say it can't.
I realize that. The point of bringing up a ban via legislation is to illustrate the fact that abortion is a right. What makes something a right is simply the lack of legitimate authority of the Gov't to ban that something. Free speech is not a "right" in China. The reason is not a right is because the Gov't has the ability to punish you for exercising free speech. The reason it is a right in the USA is because the Gov't is not supposed to have the ability to punish you for that action.
Right to abortion is a positive right that indicates someone else has to provide you an abortion. Since I am onky a believer of negative rights, I do not consider abortion a right.
FoxHastings said: ↑ So why can't you answer the question ? """Sorry, no "aha" for you! If YOU invite a guest into your house and he starts beating you you may stop the beating anyway you can, even using deadly force......or do you allow your guests to treat you anyway they choose?""""" It's ACTIONS can be, and are. Or the more common sense approach, have a safe abortion. Oh brother! Another one who argues about pregnancy without knowing one thing about it! Here is your science lesson for the day : Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) altered appetite and senses of taste and smell nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) heartburn and indigestion constipation weight gain dizziness and light-headedness bloating, swelling, fluid retention hemmorhoids abdominal cramps yeast infections congested, bloody nose acne and mild skin disorders skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) mild to severe backache and strain increased headaches difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping increased urination and incontinence bleeding gums pica breast pain and discharge swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint paininfection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) extreme pain on delivery hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover) Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: stretch marks (worse in younger women) loose skin permanent weight gain or redistribution abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) changes to breasts increased foot size varicose veins scarring from episiotomy or c-section other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) increased proclivity for hemmorhoids loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Occasional complications and side effects: complications of episiotomy spousal/partner abuse hyperemesis gravidarum temporary and permanent injury to back severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) gestational diabetes placenta previa anemia (which can be life-threatening) thrombocytopenic purpura severe cramping embolism (blood clots) medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) hormonal imbalance ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) severe post-partum depression and psychosis research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Less common (but serious) complications: peripartum cardiomyopathy cardiopulmonary arrest magnesium toxicity severe hypoxemia/acidosis massive embolism increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) malignant arrhythmia circulatory collapse placental abruption obstetric fistula More permanent side effects: future infertility permanent disability death. ALL OF WHICH are reasons for stopping the harm......with DEADLY FORCE. No, you aren't justified in shooting a person who isn't harming you and so that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. It makes no difference if the sex was consensual or not....a woman may consent to sex but that is NOT consenting to be pregnant. Consenting to one act does not mean you consented to any other act. Uh, that's gibberish....but I'll try to sort it out... If the person invited to go on a helicopter ride is not harming the one who invited him then it would be murder if the one who invited him threw him out of the helicopter. A fetus is NOT "invited" because a woman has sex....... AND a person does NOT have to do any "inviting" to be able to use self defense...
I now understand what you meant .. you were talking about the state being forced to provide abortions rather than the right of a woman to go have an abortion or the right for abortion providers to provide said service. That is a different convo all together. Just as an aside though ... surely you must believe in some positive rights ? Do you not think think that if the Gov't is taxing you that you have the right to expect roads and so on ?
Taxation is theft and the only right that should ever be associated with such cruelity is the negative right of not having to pay it. But, this is for another topic.
Homicide is a term. Terms are concepts most of which are subjective. The only difference between murder, state sponsored execution, or say war combatant kills is essentially the way we think about them, conceptually. The categories we put them in don't negate the commonality of one person ending the life of another. Most people have decided that abortion differs from homicide categorically. It's OK to disagree. Neither or is objectively true. One is customarily accepted in most states for I would say logically sound reasons. So it's futile trying to argue whether abortion is homicide, you're better off convincing people that it's logically or ethically preferable, given all the implications, to have it abolished. And good luck with that.
That would be the consensus fallacy. and that would be the fallacy of moral relativism. (more argument against the notion of moral relativism here)
