sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not.

---

Why is abortion framed as a 'woman's rights' issue? It's a human rights issue.

---

When's the last time you saw a man give birth?

---

Perhaps he's knows of or into "anal birth allegory"

The sex of the birther isn't relevant to the moral arguments for/against abortion.

The question is what point during gestation (if any) does the child's have a right not to die.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not.

---

Why is abortion framed as a 'woman's rights' issue? It's a human rights issue.

---

When's the last time you saw a man give birth?

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The sex of the birther isn't relevant to the moral arguments for/against abortion.

---

For people who frame it as a women's rights issue, obviously it is. You asked why they do so, and the answer is obvious: because only women give birth. It's not the first time you've opened a line of argument with a disingenuous question like that.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The sex of the birther isn't relevant to the moral arguments for/against abortion.

---

For people who frame it as a women's rights issue, obviously it is. You asked why they do so, and the answer is obvious: because only women give birth. It's not the first time you've opened a line of argument with a disingenuous question like that.

---

You need a man's seed to get pregnant. That doesn't matter. Nobody has a 'right' to end someone else's life, so the question's central premise isn't the birther (even though of course only women give birth). I get why it's framed that way, it's just faulty IMO.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The sex of the birther isn't relevant to the moral arguments for/against abortion.

---

For people who frame it as a women's rights issue, obviously it is. You asked why they do so, and the answer is obvious: because only women give birth. It's not the first time you've opened a line of argument with a disingenuous question like that.

---

You need a man's seed to get pregnant. That doesn't matter. Nobody has a 'right' to end someone else's life, so the question's central premise isn't the birther (even though of course only women give birth). I get why it's framed that way, it's just faulty IMO.

---

And people who support abortion rights generally don't think an unborn fetus is entitled to its own rights above and beyond those of the woman carrying it. There's nothing logically faulty about that premise, it depends on your subjective take on where "human life" begins.

GBear4Life said:

---

You need a man's seed to get pregnant. That doesn't matter. Nobody has a 'right' to end someone else's life, so the question's central premise isn't the birther (even though of course only women give birth). I get why it's framed that way, it's just faulty IMO.

---

And the majority of people in this country think it's faulty for anti-choice people to mandate that women carry unwanted pregnancies to term. There are competing interests here and most freedom loving people agree that women have a right to make their own healthcare decisions.

If you as the potential father have a problem with an abortion of your offspring you have plenty of options available. One of which is having a planned pregnancy with a willing partner. I have more sympathy for the dude who wants an abortion when his partner doesn't, but the republicans have shown us the answer here: pay them off.

But let's be honest with ourselves. There is no point to having a discussion like this. No one is going to change their mind based on what am anonymous person says on an internet message board nor should they. You are free to hold anti-choice views and make choices accordingly. Unless Christian Sharia law takes over the US, we will be free to espouse pro-choice views and choose accordingly.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

And the majority of people in this country think it's faulty for anti-choice people to mandate that women carry unwanted pregnancies to term. There are competing interests here and most freedom loving people agree that women have a right to make their own healthcare decisions.

---

These are misguided tropes. "Unwanted" is a faulty term here. That's like me saying my debt is unwanted even though I signed the loan papers. Aside from rape cases, men and women have full control over whether they get pregnant. It's not a healthcare decision in an overwhelming majority of cases. It is a conscious choice to eliminate an inconvenient pregnancy and 18 years of financial and physical responsibility, not out of health concerns.

Quote:

---

If you as the potential father have a problem with an abortion of your offspring you have plenty of options available. One of which is having a planned pregnancy with a willing partner.

---

I agree. This is duly the case for women. Nobody is forced to be pregnant (excl rape). If you don't want to get pregnant, close your legs/put away your D. Wear a raincoat Etc etc.

Quote:

---

But let's be honest with ourselves. There is no point to having a discussion like this.

---

Why is that the case but it's not for other issues? Unlike many other issues, there are a lot of objective facts to be considered and weighted here within the framework of the discussion. Problem is both "camps" tend to make dubious argument (or none at all). That's in part why people don't like discussing it. They have a position for a multitude of reasons that often don't stand up to scrutiny or consistency. Positions lay on a spectrum. I don't think there's an objective determination of when government should defend the rights of the unborn, but you can eliminate a lot of dubious ones, like 'starts at conception' and 'on-demand to the point of birth.'

When does the a child warrant protection against the mother's convenience and bodily autonomy? That's the question. I'm not saying I have the answer. I am saying a lot of the answers/defenses professed are wrong.

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not.

---

Why is abortion framed as a 'woman's rights' issue? It's a human rights issue.

---

When's the last time you saw a man give birth?

---

Perhaps he's knows of or into "anal birth allegory"

---

Perhaps he speaks from direct experience

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.

---

I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.

As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.

---

It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.

---

We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?

How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?

The difference is not as big as people imagine.

---

Abortion legalized by the Federal government is going away. The Trump Justices are the last pieces of that puzzle.

Due to Obama tax hikes on the 1% they paid higher taxes than since before Reagan. He allowed the Bush tax cuts for the 1% to expire while keeping the cuts for the middle class. Obamacare also had tax increases on the 1%.

Obama tried very hard to pass gun legislation, particularly after Sandy Hook. Bill Clinton also raised taxes on the wealthy and he did pass gun legislation.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the far left. The difference is stark.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

When does the a child warrant protection against the mother's convenience and bodily autonomy? That's the question. I'm not saying I have the answer. I am saying a lot of the answers/defenses professed are wrong.

---

Calling it a "child" already biases that question from the start. Is it actually a child when it hasn't been born yet?

---

Semantics. Everything that threatens your point of view is "bias". We can use whatever phrase you'd like (unborn?). Given the unborn is typically viable outside the womb at 6 months, that's a start.

dajo9 said:

---

Abortion legalized by the Federal government is going away. The Trump Justices are the last pieces of that puzzle.

---

Kicked back to the states, which already restrict abortions beyond certain number of weeks of gestation. Don't worry, when the Mississipian wants an abortion, she can go to Cali or NC

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Abortion legalized by the Federal government is going away. The Trump Justices are the last pieces of that puzzle.

---

Kicked back to the states, which already restrict abortions beyond certain number of weeks of gestation. Don't worry, when the Mississipian wants an abortion, she can go to Cali or NC

---

Safe abortions for the wealthy only. The poor have to take their chances. That's quite the moral code you've got there.

Since the rich can find ways to do something, everybody should be able to do it! That's a great justification for everything.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

When does the a child warrant protection against the mother's convenience and bodily autonomy? That's the question. I'm not saying I have the answer. I am saying a lot of the answers/defenses professed are wrong.

---

Calling it a "child" already biases that question from the start. Is it actually a child when it hasn't been born yet?

---

Semantics. Everything that threatens your point of view is "bias". We can use whatever phrase you'd like (unborn?). Given the unborn is typically viable outside the womb at 6 months, that's a start.

---

I have no issue with the word "unborn."

It's not just semantics. I think you know full well that the word you choose affects how people read the discussion.

oski003 said:

---

Since the rich can find ways to do something, everybody should be able to do it! That's a great justification for everything.

---

My justification is that a woman can do with her body as she pleases.

GBear4Life is the one arguing for a different moral standard for the rich vs. poor.

GBear4Life said:

---

Semantics. Everything that threatens your point of view is "bias". We can use whatever phrase you'd like (unborn?). Given the unborn is typically viable outside the womb at 6 months, that's a start.

---

Quote:

---

Kicked back to the states, which already restrict abortions beyond certain number of weeks of gestation. Don't worry, when the Mississipian wants an abortion, she can go to Cali or NC

---

You should be pretty happy then. Only 6 states (+DC) allow abortions after viability (other than for medical reasons). You've talked about what you claim are misguided tropes and said that a lot of the answers/defenses are wrong, but what exactly is your point?

I'm with Sycasey - people control their own bodies.

If we're going to start making medical and health decisions for other people, I sure as heck wouldn't start at abortion. There are a lot of terrible choices that people make (starting with diet) but it's a free country.

There are other rights involved as well. If a woman can do whatever she wants with her body, why can't she have sex on the sidewalk?

Anyway, I believe that Roe and Casey are good compromises, so I side with you on this issue . Personal responsibility requires that individuals take responsibility (raising a baby) for their actions (having unprotected sex). However, I do believe that the process of abortion itself is enough of a deterrent. I don't necessarily mind that abortion has a stigma. However, people that need to have abortions prior to viability should be able to do so in a healthy, accessible manner.

oski003 said:

---

There are other rights involved as well. If a woman can do whatever she wants with her body, why can't she have sex on the sidewalk?

---

Why even bother with such a strawman comment?

I've heard every freakin' "pro-life" argument in the book from the "science" (finger prints on fetuses to heart beats) to the morality of it all.

None of this matter when it's still about a person's right to control their own body.

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.

---

I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.

As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.

---

It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.

---

We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?

How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?

The difference is not as big as people imagine.

---

6 weeks after conception. My wife and I have 2 kids and good healthcare. I don't think we knew she was pregnant at 6 weeks either time.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-heartbeat-abortion-bill-signed_n_5c9953eae4b0f7bfa1b576c5

Dajo please explain why my comment is a strawman. That word is overused on this board.

I absolutely addressed your argument that "A woman can do with her body what she pleases."

It is the specific example of a women's right to control one's body competing with another right. It is not a strawman at all.

dajo9 said:

---

Safe abortions for the wealthy only. The poor have to take their chances. That's quite the moral code you've got there.

---

And the dumb (il)logic games begin (and more strawmen). Abortion always tends to bring them out. You don't have to carry out this logic much further to see its absurdity.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You should be pretty happy then. Only 6 states (+DC) allow abortions after viability (other than for medical reasons). You've talked about what you claim are misguided tropes and said that a lot of the answers/defenses are wrong, but what exactly is your point?

I'm with Sycasey - people control their own bodies.

If we're going to start making medical and health decisions for other people, I sure as heck wouldn't start at abortion. There are a lot of terrible choices that people make (starting with diet) but it's a free country.

---

More absurd illogic games.

The "control your own body" trope with no parameters is one of the worst. One, it's vague (by design). Surely there are limits to bodily autonomy, no? What are they? Your diet analogy is pretty bad because it doesn't reflect life vs life (or potential life, whatever you want to call it). I can do whatever I want with my body so long as it doesn't result in my fist entering your face. Because you're a human with protected rights against being caused injury or death.

If you lived in my stomach fully grown as you are now until birth, which I created through my conscious choices, should I be able to kill you? The body autonomy trope as this sort of end-all hammer is simply a result of a lack of wanting to actually grapple with the issue. The question is, as always, at what point of gestation (if any) should an unborn's life warrant government protection. States vary on this. Moral or intrinsic value is not dependent on geography or possession, no? Nor does that vaginal canal confer personhood, right? At some point between conception and birth, the unborn is sentient/viable etc etc develops a hearbeat, nervous system, brain, etc etc.

Over 40, including liberal run states, disagree with you. 'Bodily autonomy' has limits that don't supersede an unborn's 'right to life' past certain markers of gestation. Liberal and conservative apologists for abortion point out that most states don't allow non-health related 3rd trimester abortions (true, and they are rare), but they're unmoved by the fact that some states STILL do. This is not a coincidence.

I understand why people employ this kind of all-encompassing ambiguity ('people control their own bodies'). It's safe, and it sounds virtuous (it sounds like you support women and their autonomy, what's not to like). But it doesn't stand up to even their own moral values.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Abortion is like the wall: a necessary perpetual political struggle whose main purpose is to ensure that voters are bamboozled into voting against the economic interests of a majority of its members.

---

This is so weak.

It's like, wow, political parties manipulate constituents by exploiting hot button issues? Hold the phone!

Congrats, you're a philosopher now.

oski003 said:

---

It is the specific example of a women's right to control one's body competing with another right. It is not a strawman at all.

---

The "woman's right to control one's own body" is the stupidest pro-abortion argument out there. It's used because it's effective framing. It's like, nobody cares about other people's body, or has interest in "controlling" it. Their interest lies in the growing life inside of it.

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.

---

I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.

As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.

---

It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.

---

We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?

How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?

The difference is not as big as people imagine.

---

6 weeks after conception. My wife and I have 2 kids and good healthcare. I don't think we knew she was pregnant at 6 weeks either time.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-heartbeat-abortion-bill-signed_n_5c9953eae4b0f7bfa1b576c5

---

What does Georgia have to do with the office of the president?

GBearAg8nstChoice, without using Google, name five African Americans, living or dead, who you greatly admire. One caveat: no athletes, actors, or musicians.

GB4L - do you have a point? What are you trying to accomplish? Unless you are trying to establish that you are a tone-deaf, argumentative Steven Miller lite, it's not working. If that is your aim - kudos to a job well done.

dajo9 said:

---

For the record, I'm against abortion's being performed on the sidewalk.

---

lol rec'd

Unit2Sucks said:

---

GB4L - do you have a point? What are you trying to accomplish? Unless you are trying to establish that you are a tone-deaf, argumentative Steven Miller lite, it's not working. If that is your aim - kudos to a job well done.

---

Seems like his goal is to accuse liberals of dastardly political framing on abortion while also making his own arguments with conservative political framing.