[moved from American Politics] Ohio House approves abortion ban after heartbeat

[drstevej]

Then just as a person who has a potential to recover from the state they are in has the right to live, why would you think that an unborn child does not have that same right when they will also "gain consciousness" at birth? They are not in a permanent vegetative state.

IN Christ, GB

Yep a womb-dweller is not a veggie.

 

[m9lc]

Much of sexism throughout history is based on physical attributes.

Okay. You didn't answer the question. How is the belief that a fetus has a right to life misogynistic when the root of the belief would also logically lead to men being unable to have abortions if they could get pregnant?

 

[drstevej]

Okay. You didn't answer the question. How is the belief that a fetus has a right to life misogynistic when the root of the belief would also logically lead to men being unable to have abortions if they could get pregnant?

And why are there pro-life women? I know, they're masochists.

 

[The Paul]

Okay. You didn't answer the question. How is the belief that a fetus has a right to life misogynistic when the root of the belief would also logically lead to men being unable to have abortions if they could get pregnant?

Here's the thing: In the real world men can't get pregnant.

There is only one scenario we even contemplate in which a person would be legally obligated to make a sacrifice in terms of their own physical health and well-being in order to ensure the survival of another human.

It is impossible for a man to find himself in that situation.

 

[m9lc]

Granting for a moment that there's any such thing as sin, and that premarital sex is a sin, you've got a couple of problems there.

The first is that sin exists. It can not be prevented. Statistics and Christian doctrine agree on this point. There is no preventing this sin.

Kids have sex.

Given that that's the state of affairs and there's nothing that can be done about it, we can respond a couple of different ways. One reduces the frequency of abortion. One increases it. "Pro-life" goes the second route.

Not all people adhere to utilitarianism as their moral compass.

I'm not sure, off the top of my head, how to falsify that claim, but do I really need to demonstrated it? Can we accept an obvious fact we've all witnessed, that formally organized pro-life organization oppose sex ed. and availability of birth control, or do I need to cite some research supporting the blue-sky hypothesis?

"Their viewpoint doesn't make sense to me, therefore misogyny." I really don't know how you're convincing yourself that this is a blue-sky hypothesis.

Now if you're going to insist I really must take these people at their word, and accept their goal is something we all agree is impossible anyway...

...well hold on now. The goal you attributed to them isn't the prevention of abortions at all, is it? It's the prevention of behavior in conflict with the moral dictates of their religion.

Err, I really don't know how you worked out that those two things are somehow mutually exclusive.

So they're still a bunch of liars. The difference is just a matter of what truth they're trying to conceal.

What a broad brush you have there.

 

[m9lc]

And why are there pro-life women? I know, they're masochists.

Wrong. They are have been subconciously influenced by the omnipotent patriarchy which exerts mind control on all people to make them secretly think of themselves as inferior but nonetheless deny it and think of many fantastical arguments to justify their secretly misogynistic beliefs.

Wait, you think that most of them just believe what they say they believe? Naw, that's ridiculous.

 

[Gishin]

Then just as a person who has a potential to recover from the state they are in has the right to live, why would you think that an unborn child does not have that same right when they will also "gain consciousness" at birth? They are not in a permanent vegetative state.

IN Christ, GB

Well we were talking about someone who was already a fully functioning human being before whatever happened, not something that never was.

 

[mpok1519]

What is in an eagle egg?

Yolk and egg white.

 

[m9lc]

Here's the thing: In the real world men can't get pregnant.

There is only one scenario we even contemplate in which a person would be legally obligated to make a sacrifice in terms of their own physical health and well-being in order to ensure the survival of another human.

It is impossible for a man to find himself in that situation.

That is true, and I haven't thought about that before. Unfortunately for the sake of our debate, there are no directly analogous situations for men.

You could bring up an kidney donation as an example where we don't legally obligate people to but their own neck out for the sake of another person's life, but we could just as easily attribute the difference between the scenarios to the fact that abortion requires the active and intentional killing of the fetus. Again, there are ways other than misogyny that pro-lifers believe the things they do, and it is ridiculously dogmatic and closed-minded to assume otherwise.

 

[mpok1519]

Okay. You didn't answer the question. How is the belief that a fetus has a right to life misogynistic when the root of the belief would also logically lead to men being unable to have abortions if they could get pregnant?

Yes I did; the belief in inequality between the sexes is often rooted in differences of physical characteristics.

 

[good brother]

Well we were talking about someone who was already a fully functioning human being before whatever happened, not something that never was.

Yet the question remains. The child is not in a permanent vegetative state, why allow someone to kill a person who will "recover"?


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Yolk and egg white.

So the yolk is what breaks the egg and climbs out?

Just curious.

In Christ, GB



P.S. And another thing... if it's just yolk and egg white, why is it illegal to steal it? Why is it different than a Rhode Island Red's eggs? (a Rhode Island Red is a type of chicken) We had RIRs growing up and all the eggs we took had egg white and yolk in them. Why, I bet if we'd have left them alone an eagle would have come out! Doggone the luck, it would have been way cooler to have bald eagles around than RIRs.

 

[MachZer0]

Here's the thing: In the real world men can't get pregnant.

There is only one scenario we even contemplate in which a person would be legally obligated to make a sacrifice in terms of their own physical health and well-being in order to ensure the survival of another human.

It is impossible for a man to find himself in that situation.

Babies are punishment, pregnancies are sacrifices.

 

[Gishin]

Yet the question remains. The child is not in a permanent vegetative state, why allow someone to kill a person who will "recover"?


In Christ, GB

Because it was never "someone".

 

[drstevej]

So the yolk is what breaks the egg and climbs out?

Just curious.

In Christ, GB

Feagle tissue?

 

[drstevej]

the omnipotent patriarchy which exerts mind control on all people to make them secretly think of themselves as inferior but nonetheless deny it and think of many fantastical arguments to justify their secretly misogynistic beliefs.

I saw that movie...

Spoiler: Stepford Wives

It was fictional

 

[The Paul]

Not all people adhere to utilitarianism as their moral compass.

People talk about moral frameworks and use words like utilitarianism, but they don't actually devote themselves to endeavors they believe to be pointless and impossible.

I'm not sure, off the top of my head, how to falsify that claim, but do I really need to demonstrated it? Can we accept an obvious fact we've all witnessed, that formally organized pro-life organization oppose sex ed. and availability of birth control, or do I need to cite some research supporting the blue-sky hypothesis?

"Their viewpoint doesn't make sense to me, therefore misogyny." I really don't know how you're convincing yourself that this is a blue-sky hypothesis.

So you're saying that you do not accept that formally organized pro-life organizations oppose sex education and birth control? You really think denying that is going to advance your position or convince me of something? For serious?

Now if you're going to insist I really must take these people at their word, and accept their goal is something we all agree is impossible anyway...

...well hold on now. The goal you attributed to them isn't the prevention of abortions at all, is it? It's the prevention of behavior in conflict with the moral dictates of their religion.

Err, I really don't know how you worked out that those two things are somehow mutually exclusive.

Well, pro-life organizations, on the cover, talk a lot about how terrible it is to abort, equate it with murder, and claim to stopping this terrible crime is their primary goal. I think they do such a poor job of it that they've got to be lying.

You just told me that they aren't willing to do what it takes to prevent abortions. You told me that taking a stance against premarital sex is more important to them than preventing abortions.

So recant if you like, but you agreed with me on the "they're lying" bit and only quibbled on what the lie is intended to hide.

What a broad brush you have there.

What can I say, I distrust dishonesty regardless of its motivation.

 

[MachZer0]

Because it was never "someone".

Right, it was fetal tissue

 

[m9lc]

People talk about moral frameworks and use words like utilitarianism, but they don't actually devote themselves to endeavors they believe to be pointless and impossible.

They don't necessarily believe it to be pointless.

So you're saying that you do not accept that formally organized pro-life organizations oppose sex education and birth control? You really think denying that is going to advance your position or convince me of something? For serious?

No, I'm saying that misogyny does not logically follow from what you have presented me with.

Well, pro-life organizations, on the cover, talk a lot about how terrible it is to abort, equate it with murder, and claim to stopping this terrible crime is their primary goal. I think they do such a poor job of it that they've got to be lying.

You just told me that they aren't willing to do what it takes to prevent abortions. You told me that taking a stance against premarital sex is more important to them than preventing abortions.

So recant if you like, but you agreed with me on the "they're lying" bit and only quibbled on what the lie is intended to hide.

No, I didn't agree with you on that point. You can simultaneously believe abortion and premarital sex are wrong and refuse to encourage either one in any way. You'll generally find that religious folk tend to be uncompromising.

 

[The Paul]

No, I didn't agree with you on that point. You can simultaneously believe abortion and premarital sex are wrong and refuse to encourage either one in any way. You'll generally find that religious folk tend to be uncompromising.

You can believe both are wrong, sure. There is absolutely no contradiction there.

But once you begin to act on what turn out to be diverging goals priorities get assigned.

I've pointed out that pro-life organizations are not pursuing the goal of preventing abortions very effectively. You have said that they are unwilling to be effective because they refuse to abandon their opposition to premarital sex.

If that's true then their stated goals are a lie. I'll grant that they probably honestly don't like abortions very much, I don't think anyone does, but according to you premarital sex is even more abhorrent to them. So if some babies have to get aborted to terrorize kids into not having sex, so be it.

If that's what it takes that's what it takes? Acceptable losses?

I don't see how that's any better than their real motivation being misogyny.