The right to own one's body I completely agree with. So if you want to get high, you should be able to do it without being tossed into prison for using a drug that has been deemed illegal. For it is your body, not mine, nor the gov'ts. But your rights end where the nose of the other human begins. And unborn humans at a particular stage have a nose, fairly early on. So, you are muddled in your thinking as leftists tend to be, sometimes to the point of utter incoherence. So, I do not believe there should be any right to kill another human, unless in actual and genuine self defense, and yet I also do not think we should have ever had laws against abortion. Some things are not the business of other people or a gov't and abortion is one of them. Let the gods sort that out after death. If such things exist. The intellectual consistent position is, there is no right to kill another human, except in self defense, but the gov't will not intercede in punishing women who abort their children. Killing them is still wrong except in self defense, as a principle to live by. Granting a right to kill another human, not in self defense is idiocy, at its worst. But if you want to kill yourself, and not another person, born or unborn, hell, blow your brains out, for you are taking your own life, and not that life of another.
FoxHastings said: ↑ The government upheld a right already in place, the right of women to their own bodies, the same right everyone else has... Your comparison is typical but inaccurate. Using drugs is illegal. It is illegal because it's use and sales cause chaos in society . NO one has the right to use another's body to sustain their life. THAT is what is meant by "having a right to your own body". Yup, IF a fetus had rights they would end because they would infringe on the rights of the woman. With rights comes RESTRICTIONS, (we cannot use another's body to sustain our own life.)...so IF the fetus had rights it would also have RESTRICTIONS, the same ones we all have.. Good, since pregnancy does cause a woman harm they could always kill in self defense. Of course. So you're against all war? Good thing no one has done that. Not sure what that has to do with abortion.....
What makes me think of Libertarianism? It’s not the condescending attitude, no it’s the egocentric philosophy. Some drugs are illegal because society has concluded they are damaging to society and to individuals. They tried with alcohol and found the damage done by alcohol consumption was tolerable compared to the disruption caused by its illegal status. Consider other addictive drugs; narcotics, krokodil, monkey dust and more deadly drugs yet to be thought of. Could society tolerate the death, disease and threat to the general public these drugs would entail versus your philosophy of just let me get high dude. Your other argument hangs on giving the fetus full human rights, equal to the women’s. Okay, I don’t agree, but let’s say a fetus has just as much a right to live as the woman. Suppose human A is the only one who can keep human B alive. Must human A do that?
You mean like society concluded alcohol did the same thing and we then had congress to pass Prohibition? What a grand success it was, or perhaps an exercise in idiocy? IMO, the latter. Drugs are illegal because some of us believe we have the right to own the body of another. That is at the very root of it. Or we must protect society, or all people will be hard core drug addicts. It is nonsense. Drugs have been around for as long as we can tell. And yet somehow we managed to achieve high civilization, science and technology. Before drug laws, you could go to the country store and buy medicines, cure alls, some with cocaine in them, others with opiates, legally and yet society did not implode, and come crashing down. So, you like others are spouting nonsense. Sure, those snake oils created some addicts, but americans were not addicted in tremendous numbers, only a relative few were. And people on their own, because we are intelligent, figure this out without you and others passing laws and sending people to prison for exercising the most basic right, the ownership of our bodies and minds. I see you like to force things on people, and tossing them in prison if they do not live like you do? You call it looking out for society. I will always opt for the greatest personal freedom possible, as long as that freedom is not intentionally maiming or killing another person, and taking away one of their rights. Yet the freedom to do drugs, illegal drugs, because you do not own me, only I do, is not the same as the freedom to kill an unborn child, because it is your body. You are not killing your body, but another human being. And if you cannot grasp that, that is on you, not me. It really is a rather simple principle, not rocket science.
You'd have the same result if abortion was banned. NO, that is not why drugs are illegal. Like Anti-Choicers wanting to FORCE women to gestate? Like THAT? So you believe that one person can force another person to give them their heart or liver if the first person needs one ????. That is ridiculous. NO one is obliged to use their body to sustain the life of another...not even pregnant women...
I see you are still trying to be condescending but not up to the challenge of answering my question. And as for drugs it is still **** society and its costs I got a right to get high dude. Immature and libertarian.
Wow, that sounds like abortion. (Or are you claiming women get abortions for altruistic motives, wanting to benefit society?)
It sounds like you're asking whether a woman has the right to an abortion if she intended all along for abortion to be the solution to having 'risky' sex... Despite this being abhorent, inhumane and callous behavior, I would say that yes, she does, for two reasons- 1- intentions cant be proven 2- morality shouldnt be enforced by law Additionally, it may help your future thread if this were an opinion poll.
many republicans think plan b is abortion, so yes, she has a right to take plan b even if she is not in fact Pregnant - she has a right to control her own body
yep, fascism is when they arrest people for planting plants in their garden... do they really support such a big nanny state? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/02/jacob-hornberger/conservative-fascism-in-the-war-on-drugs/ can you believe some conservatives think putting a seed in the ground and watering it and giving it life, watching it grow..... is a major crime
More libertarian BS. In an organized society intoxicants need to be regulated. We do that with alcohol and we should do it with marijuana and psychedelics. But there are other addictive drugs that need to be outlawed because the cost to society would be too great. Should you be allowed to do krokodil and let society feed and treat your rotting useless body until you die?
Alcohol is legal... this means all drug less harmful then alcohol should also be legal marijuana has valid medical uses which means in no way should it be considered a scheduled 1 drug from the DEA's own site https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling "Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:"
Yeah, I know, but doing polls from my phone is not an easy thing and the lap top is currently Tango Uniform.
With no judgement on Plan B one way or the other, I'd have to say that it fits the definition of an abortion assuming a fertilized zygote is present. And I'll admit that that aspect did occur to me. However, my focus is on the larger aspect, more on "traditional" abortion, that done after the woman finds out she's pregnant.
No one is obligated to put drugs and/or foreign objects into their bodies. I don't call that "abhorent, inhumane and callous behavior".....I call it having the right to your own body. Are men who haven't had a vasectomy but have sex anyway "abhorent, inhumane and callous" ?
True, but technically a miscarriage is also called an abortion , which means many many women have many abortions and do not even know it during their lifetimes https://www.dictionary.com/browse/miscarriage "the expulsion of a fetus before it is viable, especially between the third and seventh months of pregnancy; spontaneous abortion. Compare abortion(def 1)." a miscarriage would be a "traditional" abortion or a spontaneous abortion, I think what you mean is a medically induced abortion
I think both of your views have flaws in them. But I think this pic sums up the bodily autonomy best, with regards to abortion. It seems I have to do it as a link because I can't figure out how to upload a pic from my phone....I miss my lap top! https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10217943135471201&id=1269084013
Very true. I had ran into that not long ago looking up something for another abortion thread on another site. I admit I was sticking to the lazy English use of the term abortion. Maybe intentional abortion is most accurate.
I would go with 'medically induced abortions' vs 'natural abortions' I would guess most abortions in this country are natural abortions ... medically induced abortions are a fraction of that number
Ah, but can you think of any natural abortions that are intentional? Welcomed maybe, but intentional?
this is interesting because do we have a 'right' to heart surgery or any other medical procedure? if these are 'rights' then insurance companies couldnt deny benefits nor could doctors/hospitals refuse treatments... should they be 'rights' , perhaps but at the moment they're actually just priveleges/luxuries much akin to a driver's license...
never said natural abortions were intentional, that is what makes them natural, some would say only God chooses who lives and who dies.... as the story goes God aborted all his children but a boat load once
A right does not require a third party to pay or provide it. We have the right to bear arms, but no one is providing guns or others othe.
