The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Think this is a matter of opinion. 

 

Yes, you are correct.  

 

It is my opinion that I do not have the moral right to demand that you donate your body to be my life support system.  Even if I'd die without it.  

 

Now, if you'd seriously like to assert that your opinion differs, I'd love to see how far you're willing to bend, to try to express that opinion.   

 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

No one demanded they support another life.

 

Every single person who is arguing that "well, it's a person, therefore she must function as a life support system for as long as it needs it" is demanding it.  

 

(I'm pretty sure that you're in that group.)

 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Their actions led to them being in that situation.

 

And now we move the goalposts from "she has to be a life support system because it's a person" to "she has to be a life support system because she consented to it."  

 

Unfortunately, no, she didn't.  Last I saw was that half the pregnancies in the US were not intentional.  

 

Any more than arguing that every person who gets in a car consents to being rammed by a drunk driver.  I mean, after all, the person knew there was a chance that would happen, when he got in the car.  

 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

The question is what the rules should be once you’re in that situation, where you’ve now created a life that’s dependent on you (at least short term)

 

This, I agree with.  

Edited May 17, 2019 by Larry

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, MartinC said:

A thing I have learned (the hard way) is there ARE some things in life that are just none of my business. However strongly I may feel about that thing or want my view to be heard - it's not my decision.

 

I agree. I usually do a good job of minding my own business in that regard. Me punting on abortion is part of that. 

 

But when an issue this serious, and one that is a societal issue, comes up I don’t tell others they have punt just because I punted. 

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Yea, is that all you got? Do you understand how weak that joke was? Do you understand how people who may have wives or daughter or sisters who have been raped would react when they hear **** like that?

 

Then perhaps you could, I don't know, direct your anger at the person who asserted that impregnating women without their consent is legal?  (And who later, actually went further, and tried to argue that it's currently legal for men, but criminal for women?)  

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

I agree. I usually do a good job of minding my own business in that regard. Me punting on abortion is part of that. 

 

But when an issue this serious, and one that is a societal issue, comes up I don’t tell others they have punt just because I punted. 

 

The rest of my post explains why I think it’s vital on this issue especially that people do punt.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Larry, it certainly seems like you equated raping women with fun as long as rape isn't a crime.  Now, I took it as a bad joke, but rather than get defensive, it might be useful to either clarify yourself or apologize.

 

13 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Yea, is that all you got? Do you understand how weak that joke was? Do you understand how people who may have wives or daughter or sisters who have been raped would react when they hear **** like that? My wife was raped at 19 and had an abortion, this is real life and people don't think that **** is funny.

It says something about a person, when they make a joke like that. It says something about the relationship they have with women in general and what kind of heart they have. You need to really take a second and put yourself in someones shoes who has been raped and then ask yourself was that **** funny?

Jesus Christ, what in the **** is wrong with people?

 

Thank you both.

When I was the only one that called him out on that last night I had honestly lost a lot of faith in the people on this forum.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

I would ignore anyone that brings up the father requesting an abortion because if they didnt want a kid they should've wore a condom.

 

I really don't get how this is a valid arguement to use against the father but expecting the women to say "wrap it up or you aren't sticking that thing in me" is too much.

[visionary]

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

This is ultimately an incredibly weak argument (not in a general sense, but on a individual basis).  Abusers have opportunity to abuse whether they have children or not.  She is making a better argument for assisted suicide.  “I’m a complete peice of **** who can’t be trusted with my own kids, i might do awful things to them”.

 

Great argument. Not going to get help, go to counciling, ect... nope, content to be a peice of ****... meanwhile the rest of us have to worry what you’re going to do to our kids.

 

 

That is such a stupid argument.

What a terrible thing to say.  Wow.  You have no idea what you’re talking about at all.  Just way off base.  

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

It is my opinion that I do not have the moral right to demand that you donate your body to be my life support system.  Even if I'd die without it.  

 

Now, if you'd seriously like to assert that your opinion differs, I'd love to see how far you're willing to bend, to try to express that opinion.   

 

 

No i agree. 

 

Where we disagree is that there is a demand on anyone's part. No one demanded she have sex, no one demanded she do it the way she did it (and contraception isn't 100%, some it could be an accident despite best efforts anyways.)

 

She chose to have sex. She understand the consequences. This is a potential consequence. And when we reach the point where there is now another life involved, she's no longer the only one impacted, therefore her 'bodily autonomy' argument falls to pieces because it's no longer just about her body.

 

Where it gets muddy for me is that point from conception to where 'life' begins. I don't know the best way to measure it. I know the different arguments for different times, but I'm not currently capable of taking an educated stance on where that line should be drawn.

 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

Every single person who is arguing that "well, it's a person, therefore she must function as a life support system for as long as it needs it" is demanding it.  

 

(I'm pretty sure that you're in that group.)

 

 

This is why i've mostly stopped engaging with you. And it's unfortunate that the one time I have in the recent months, it didn't take long to wind up back here.

 

You've made it abundantly clear what your opinion of me is. You've outright insulted me in threads. I've made many attempts, speaking directly to you, that your opinion of me does not match reality when it comes to my political opinions.

 

And despite me having a post early today, to MartinC, about how I basically refuse to take a stance on this issue... here you are, again, telling me you know all about what stance I take and which one it is. 

 

So since we're here, I'll correct you. For the umpteenth time. No, you don't know what my stance on this is. I'm not demanding anything other than I wish people would be less political-dog-fight driven on the debate.  I think it's absurd to categorize the discussion of abortion as society demanding anything of the woman in regards to her body. The issue doesn't exist until the women gets pregnant, through her own actions, knowing full well the possible consequences.

 

For society and the legal system to get involved once a situation graduates to involving more than one life is quite a normal thing. Pretending it's anything else is silly.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

And now we move the goalposts from "she has to be a life support system because it's a person" to "she has to be a life support system because she consented to it."  

 

I didn't say she consented to getting pregnant.

 

I said she took actions knowing that becoming pregnant is a possible consequence, even when using contraception.  And that once that consequence was realized, there is now an additional life in the equation. And that, at a minimum, that makes the conversation significantly more complex. It also makes claims of it only being about a woman and her body silly. Because it stopped being only about a woman and her body, when she took actions that led to there being another person inside of her.

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

And now we move the goalposts from "she has to be a life support system because it's a person" to "she has to be a life support system because she consented to it."  

 

Unfortunately, no, she didn't.  Last I saw was that half the pregnancies in the US were not intentional.  

 

@tshile said their actions lead them to that point.  He didn't say it was intentional or wanted.  There is a difference.

 

Just because the consequences are unintended or unwanted doesn't mean they had no cause.

 

(Now, I'll point out that in the case of rape, I'd reject that argument.  But in most cases, I think it is true.  You don't get pregnant because you were doing nothing.)

15 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Then perhaps you could, I don't know, direct your anger at the person who asserted that impregnating women without their consent is legal?  (And who later, actually went further, and tried to argue that it's currently legal for men, but criminal for women?)  

 

You've done a good job attacking her argument, but somebody else making bad/illogical arguments doesn't really excuse a joke centered around raping women being fun.

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

(Now, I'll point out that in the case of rape, I'd reject that argument.  But in most cases, I think it is true.  You don't get pregnant because you were doing nothing.)

 

Yes i'm not specifically adding exceptions for rape, incest, and teen pregnancy (where I think 'knowing the consequences' is silly for the same reason suggesting preaching abstinence as a solution is silly) into every one of my posts because i'm lazy and it seems tedious and unnecessary.

 

But it would be best to assume that those are my exceptions. Also health of the mother issues. I'm sure there are more i'm forgetting.

 

Generally speaking, i'm referring to when two consenting adults have sex without the intent of pregnancy, but the woman winds up pregnant (for whatever reason...)

Edited May 17, 2019 by tshile

[Fresh8686]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Then perhaps you could, I don't know, direct your anger at the person who asserted that impregnating women without their consent is legal?  (And who later, actually went further, and tried to argue that it's currently legal for men, but criminal for women?)  

Why are you deflecting? Why can't you take responsibility for saying something that is ****ing stupid and apologize for it so we know you're better than that? Are you not better than that?

I hate weak men, because they are the ones most likely to be rapists and child molestors. Don't be weak, step up and just ****ing say I understand that rape is not a joke and there is nothing that is in the least bit fun about bringing violence, damage, and trauma to a person for your own pleasure.

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

The rest of my post explains why I think it’s vital on this issue especially that people do punt.

 

That's silly and if I were to suggest that about any other group you'd refuse to accept it.

 

This is a society issue. Two lives are involved (three if you count the father, which pretty much no one does, which is also a huge issue), and one has no say (well, two, if you count the father because most people seem to think the father has no say at all). Cutting out a large portion of society from the discussion because of their gender (and race, since you keep bringing up whiteness) is absurd. 

 

Absurd.

Edited May 17, 2019 by tshile

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

That's silly and if I were to suggest that about any other group you'd refuse to accept it.

 

This is a society issue. Two lives are involved (three if you count the father, which pretty much no one does, which is also a huge issue), and one has no say (well, two, if you count the father because most people seem to think the father has no say at all). Cutting out a large portion of society from the discussion because of their gender (and race, since you keep bringing up whiteness) is absurd. 

 

Absurd.

 

I'm not sure why - it may be my fault - but you are just not getting my point.

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I really don't get how this is a valid arguement to use against the father but expecting the women to say "wrap it up or you aren't sticking that thing in me" is too much.

 

I never said it's too much for women to do that it takes two to tango, been saying that.  Its birds and bees, dudes know you dont wrap up that's the risk, women know you dont wrap up, that's the risk.  Both should know better then go raw then get upset when the woman gets pregnant, that I never understood. 

 

I made it this far without a kid because I'm fine wearing a condom and dont want a kid yet, it's not rocket science, I dont even need the woman to ask up to this point because I could risk getting STD as well, pulling out early doesnt protect against that.  My girl isnt using birth control so she doesnt have to tell me because I know we arent ready yet.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

As laws currently stand a women does have a right to consent to being pregnant and to consent to not being pregnant (be it contraception or abortion).

 

So yes consenting to sex and conception/birth are in fact two separate things. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

I'm not sure why - it may be my fault - but you are just not getting my point.

 

I feel like we're just talking past each other, like you're focusing on one part and i'm focusing on the other. 

 

So, to end it, I understand the issue with our government being largely controlled by white males. I get it. I'm agree that it's likely better for society if that changes.

 

I don't agree with extending that to the idea that men should punt on the issue. I don't agree that the problem with those specific opinions is that they are the opinions of white males. And I think it's easy to demonstrate by showing there are females with those same opinions, and their opinions are not treated with anymore respect than when it comes from a white male. You could argue it's worse, because some will go as far as to declare them traitors to their gender because they share those opinions (which is just the epitome of being a simpleton.)

 

You want to attack the idea? Fine. Attacking their race/gender, and declaring they don't have a say because of their race/gender? Not fine. (even if a majority of the reason I punt, is because I'm a male and so it doesn't happen to me, doesn't mean I should turn to other males and demand they punt.)

 

[Fresh8686]

18 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

 

Thank you both.

When I was the only one that called him out on that last night I had honestly lost a lot of faith in the people on this forum.

I've lost a lot of that faith myself, for guys and most people in general. Most guys say they are allies for women, but a lot of it is lip service and they won't stand up or speak out in the moment when it's really needed from my experience. Or they won't do the hard and long work of helping women heal. Some don't even have the barest bit of courage to open themselves up to the pain of a woman's trauma, just enough to give them the smallest bit of empathy and understanding/recognition.

If a guy hasn't walked that walk with an abuse survivor, I'm not relying on them. They've disappointed me too much in the past.

[TheGreatBuzz]

We could probably cut down a lot on the need for this discussion if there were a campaign to promote anal sex.

 

/sarcasm

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

I Attacking their race/gender, and declaring they don't have a say because of their race/gender? Not fine. 

 

 

I'm not attacking their race/gender (which I share by the way). I'm attacking a minority (defined by their race and gender) using a position of power to impose their morality on a majority.

[Fresh8686]

2 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

As laws currently stand a women does have a right to consent to being pregnant and to consent to not being pregnant (be it contraception or abortion).

 

So yes consenting to sex and conception/birth are in fact two separate things. 

I know a girl in Georgia right now, who is pregnant with a dude who purposefully got her pregnant so she would stay with him. Guys are nasty, this one pulled the condom off in the middle of the act, without her consent.

There is definitely examples in real life where people have mutual consent for sex, but not consent for attempted impregnation.

In my view, consent is a second to second thing that can be given or taken away at any time and must be respected by all parties involved. There is no grandfather clause for consent in my view.

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

As laws currently stand a women does have a right to consent to being pregnant and to consent to not being pregnant (be it contraception or abortion).

 

So yes consenting to sex and conception/birth are in fact two separate things. 

 

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up like nobody cares, people do.  I recommened civil because you'll need a burden of proof that may be impossible to get.  Itll be he said she said with no rape kit because it was consensual sex, jus not consentual conception.  You want to throw people in jail for that, how?

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

In my view, consent is a second to second thing that can be given or taken away at any time and must be respected by all parties involved. There is no grandfather clause for consent in my view.

 

Agree with you.  

 

Although there are limits.  You can't kill your two year old when the first word she learns is "No".  

 

What we're discussing (OK, what I'm discussing), is where that point should be, for maximum benefit for society.  

 

[Renegade7]

45 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

 

Thank you both.

When I was the only one that called him out on that last night I had honestly lost a lot of faith in the people on this forum.

 

You shouldn't, it's good some people went ahead, but if everyone piled on it would've derailed the thread and missed some of the other points you and others have tried to bring up.

[Fresh8686]

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Agree with you.  

 

Although there are limits.  You can't kill your two year old when the first word she learns is "No".  

 

What we're discussing (OK, what I'm discussing), is where that point should be, for maximum benefit for society.  

 

What are you doing? Are you really going the whole ignore and hope it goes away route? You know damn well what you and me were "discussing".

Are you really that weak, that you can't apologize for saying some terrible ****?

 

[visionary]

1 hour ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

 

Thank you both.

When I was the only one that called him out on that last night I had honestly lost a lot of faith in the people on this forum.

I didn’t notice the “fun” part of his post until this morning when someone quoted it.  Actually this thread is a bit chaotic and confusing right now in any case.

Edited May 17, 2019 by visionary