Birth Control

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by flagrant_foul, Nov 23, 2016.

  1. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,923
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree that the question of when life begins is not really the main dispute. The real question is whether women control their own bodies. That is threatening to many men and women alike. Women have had abortions for centuries, not just the last 50 years. There really is no advantage to society for a development of an artificial womb, and unless a shortage of population develops, there will not be an advantage. So far, women have been willing to gestate sufficient people to maintain and even grow the population.
     
  2. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Abortion and discarding of unwanted or malformed babies has indeed also been around for eternity.

    I think if one says it is a woman's right to control her body and not up to society invites unintended consequences due to the medical advancements I've cited. If a woman has a "right" to a wanted fetus born early in week 24 and a hippocratic oath requires effort to save life, how could society ever express that there is no need for an artificial womb? For some of us to just proclaim it is a "woman's right" ensures artificial wombs to be developed and employed. It is up to society to set boundaries...the more specific the better, hence personhood discussions.

    Most of the discussion revolves around the concept of personhood but it's human centric using that term. I prefer the term moral status. My view on moral status is that moral consideration should be given on a gradient based on biological complexity. This view minimizes the philosophical and bases the discussion on science. This view also incorporates all living beings and provides a hierarchy of status given to all living things. It therefore also establishes a hierarchy of moral interest. Living beings with higher biological complexity would possess a greater interest in their treatment. It would indeed affect abortion. As biological complexity develops in fetal development, it would increase the immorality of abortion as a fetus develops greater biological complexity. At some point, a fetus surpasses all living things to be as developed as a born person. I think that occurs around week 28 when the physiology is there that could be most accurately described as similar to a born infant. Some would argue later than that. But either way, it puts it in the third trimester. Roe v Wade established a timing system of the morality of abortion that I approve of. I also think that moral consideration based on biological complexity is a much more innate and natural view. It would be more immoral to cause harm to an ape than it would to a slug, for example.

    My view on Roe v. Wade is that it was an effort nearly 50 years ago to resolve a conflict surrounding one issue and it is long past due for an update by society to define the legality of all the complex issues surrounding medical advancements and abilities to affect reproductive processes. But society is stuck rehashing Roe v Wade over and over using concepts and terminology that are a century old. No further questions of medical advancement can be genuinely advanced because of it. For example, if it is legal to abort a fetus, why is it not okay to use its cells for other medical purposes and research? Greater moral questions continue to arise, as well as questions of how to integrate them all as one cohesive moral construct.

    And one has to also take in to consideration the behavior of a woman when pregnant. Drug use among pregnant women is 20% according to some studies. How might society "encourage" women to not use substances known to cause fetal harm? How does drug use affect the development of a fetus so as to not cause it developmental issues like difficulty learning. And what is the answer? It's a women's right? I honestly don't know the answers. I think society isn't sure what the answers are either.
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's an answer: Women have NO obligation to use birth control, NO obligation to have kids, NO obligation to live under someone else's morals, NO obligation to behave anyway but how they choose any more than anyone else.
     
  4. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is indeed an answer. Then society has no obligation to a woman or any infant. Problem solved, eh?
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Vindictive floundering, not logical.
     
  6. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. You can't subscribe to Libertarian philosophy when it serves you and then discard it when it doesn't.

    You're asking that citizens who disagree with the morality of abortion shall pay for abortions through public funding.

    You can't have things both ways.
     
  7. juanvaldez

    juanvaldez Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if I don't believe in war I can reduce my IRS payment by 25%?
     
  8. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not sure what war has to do with it.

    I think my point went over your head.

    FoxHastings suggested abortion should strictly be a woman's choice without having to fulfill anyone else's moral expectations. Therefore, I would expect he would agree with the Republican Libertarian view that those who morally oppose abortion should work to fulfill their own efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

    Except I expect he would rather pick and choose when he subscribes to the Libertarian philosophy only when it serves his own views.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm not sure what war has to do with it.

    I think my point went over your head.

    FoxHastings suggested abortion should strictly be a woman's choice without having to fulfill anyone else's moral expectations. Therefore, I would expect he would agree with the Republican Libertarian view that those who morally oppose abortion should work to fulfill their own efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

    Except I expect he would rather pick and choose when he subscribes to the Libertarian philosophy only when it serves his own views.
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTH are you blabbering about? Follow the posts ..see mine bolded ?

    WHERE in that do you see all your crap about Libertarians and public funding or me asking anyone to pay for abortions???!

    WHERE? NO where....

    But YOU did say that all women must be broodmares or they, and their children, don't deserve anything from society like others do when you posted :""Then society has no obligation to a woman or any infant"""

    Proving once again that even with all that high falutin talk
    It ALWAYS boils down to punishing women for having sex and getting pregnant ...ALWAYS ...
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh my! Don't you have trouble if you can't LABEL people, put them in tidy boxes..........anything else confuses you???
     
  11. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The person who decries "no obligation" expects societal obligations?

    Incohesive thought and describing moral opposition to abortion as simply wanting brood mares. Is that seriously your only line of argument? It's silly but whatever you wish to think. As I've said before, your mind is as clear as mud with rude and personal attacks to boot.
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you have to resort to putting words in other poster's mouths as you did in the above post and lying about what they said or believe, you have lost what little credibility you had.


    You" As I've said before, your mind is as clear as mud with rude and personal attacks to boot. ""

    Yes, you posted that before and it was deleted :)


    The following post stands ( you might want to actually answer those inconvenient questions) :)
     
  13. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well then, I accept that you don't feel that there are societal obligations like funding Planned Parenthood.

    You'll have to remind me of the questions that you say are inconvenient for me to answer. I've posted my views on abortion a few different places. I've also read your views in a few different places.
     
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You can accept anything you care to (and do frequently without any facts to get in your way :) )
     
  15. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're very welcome to enlighten me. I always enjoy discussing points of view. Your statement that a woman has "NO obligation to live under someone elses's morals", most definitely lead me to conclude that you believe a woman has "no obligation to live under anyone else's morals". Therefore, if a woman's morality dictates to them that they oppose funding for planned parenthood because they morally oppose their tax dollars going to pay for abortions, you would 100% fully support them because of course you feel very strongly that women have "no obligation to live under anyone else's morals". You're more than welcome to enlighten me on how these complex issues should be addressed that doesn't require accusations towards other people that they simply wish women to be "broodmares". Or perhaps I didn't "get it" because you didn't use the more "high falutin" term "ole sow" in your techniques of persuasion. Or perhaps it's because your only methods of discussion is blood sport style attacks that involve the use of zero data and zero reasoning skills.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted: """"Here's an answer: Women have NO obligation to use birth control, NO obligation to have kids, NO obligation to live under someone else's morals, NO obligation to behave anyway but how they choose any more than anyone else. "

    You wanted an answer and you got one you couldn't face :) (nor refute without ""misrepresenting"" what was said)

    You have a sexist, misogynistic, illogical idea that women must live under a certain set of obligations that no one else has.


    If my morals said YOU need to have a total body tattoo are you obligated to have one?

    If my morals said it was wrong to be fat should you be forced to be thin?

    If my morals said murder was acceptable would you start shooting?
     
  17. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I quoted your own words and then applied them.

    The best you can come up with in response is that your words are sexist and misogynistic. I will absolutely say with full confidence that your mind is as clear as mud and your only resort is to employ personal attacks.

    If you continue to want to change the subject to things like how many tattoos you have or how skinny you are or if you want murder to be acceptable, I'm not sure how to continue the discussion of birth control.
     
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that like YOU taking my statement """""""Here's an answer: Women have NO obligation to use birth control, NO obligation to have kids, NO obligation to live under someone else's morals, NO obligation to behave anyway but how they choose any more than anyone else. """



    and twisting it to mean funding Planned Parenthood when the topic was abortion or childbirth and women's obligation to those things ? YES, it is. How does it feel? :)
     
  19. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll reword the post that was deleted. I can't remember precisely what I said. I would have preferred that the specific part that was inflammatory was removed only. That part referenced your statement about "how does it feel?". I don't really feel anything to be honest. I don't think the issue of applying your words as policy requires the type of feelings as you describe. I think it would be odd if someone does.

    The gyst of my response was that I didn't take your statement and twist it. What I did was very different. I said "I didn't know the answer" to these complex questions. You said with very clear certainty that you had the answer. You said a woman has "NO obligation to live under someone else's morals". That would have to also include you supporting a woman who has "NO obligation to live under some else's morals" with regards to defunding planned parenthood. Unless "NO obligation to live under someone else's morals" is only "morals you support".
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO, it was NOT in regards to defunding Planned Parenthood.

    Y O U twisted it to mean that.

    I was referring to abortion and pregnancy....as I have told you several times.

    If you want to "misrepresent" what other posters say that is up to you and shows you have no real argument.

    It does destroy any credibility you may have.


    Now, go ahead and "misrepresent" all you want......I'm done with your silly "argument".

    Besides you have never PROVEN that women DO have an obligation to use Birth Control or have kids :)

    ...and never will :)
     
  21. flagrant_foul

    flagrant_foul New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You entered in to a conversation I was having that was interesting where okgrannie was providing insight and thought on issues that could have lead to me learning broader points of view....and you took the damn thing over when you said you knew the answer. Then when I further inquire, you ask me to "prove it" ??

    You have little to offer other than disruption, drive-by commenting, not staying on topic, and lack of respect. Anyone that could ever be persuaded to join in on the idea that abortion has merit in society ends up being so angry with your behavior and attitude they leave. I'm a Pro-Choice Atheist and I have done nothing but try to inquire deeper in to your thoughts but your attitudes cause you to attack. It's very strange.
     
  22. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,923
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A woman has a "right" to decide whether her body is to be used to gestate a fetus. She has a "right" to decide whether or not extreme medical measures which are available should be taken to save the life of a fetus or newborn. She has no "right" to medical services which are not available, she has no
    "right" to a fetus which cannot be saved. Society has no obligation to make sure a woman gets a baby even if she desperately wants one.
     

Share This Page