Resolved: Legal Access to Abortion is Necessary for the Freedom and Equality of Women"

FoxHastings said: ↑
.
No, women are not stupid when it comes to sexual activity, they are just human when it comes to sexual activity.

Humans make mistakes in ALL aspects of their lives, it doesn't make them irresponsible nor should every aspect of their lives be controlled to punish those who make mistakes.

Same freedoms everyone else, including you, enjoy.

And where did you get the crap about "no consequences"?

Actions have consequences ( abortion or gestation)....who are YOU to decide what they should be?

Ever had to decide "abortion or gestation"? Then I guess it isn't very equal...
Women do "suffer " the consequences, abortion or gestation.

No "violently ending of a human life " in sight....hyperbole isn't facts...

 

What is the "mistake" you are talking about, mistakes have consequences.

A member of the human race and our society.

Ever had to face being drafted into war, guess you don't get to have an opinion about it then.

Of course it violently ends a human life, what do you think happens in an abortion, facts are facts. That is one of the consequences you are desperate to avoid for this "freedom and equality" it is claimed killing an unborn baby brings, it comes with a price.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
.
No, women are not stupid when it comes to sexual activity, they are just human when it comes to sexual activity.

Humans make mistakes in ALL aspects of their lives, it doesn't make them irresponsible nor should every aspect of their lives be controlled to punish those who make mistakes.

Ya, so?
Same freedoms everyone else, including you, enjoy.

And where did you get the crap about "no consequences"?

Actions have consequences ( abortion or gestation)....who are YOU to decide what they should be?

YOU have no authority to decide what other's consequences should be....

Why don't I get an opinion? YOU GAVE YOURS...

And IF you had been drafted YOU could decide to serve or not ....and being drafted is not a "mistake"...you're reaching and stretching

Ever had to decide "abortion or gestation"? Then I guess it isn't very equal...
Women do "suffer " the consequences, abortion or gestation.

Only what the doctor charges

 

that was exactly what the debate is about

 

Her "freedom" and "equality" comes at the cost of someone else's freedom and equality.

She wants the freedom to kill, and equality with men who don't have to gestate a baby after engaging in procreation.

 

It is not for you or anyone else to tell a woman how she feels about her unborn baby. That fetus is her's not yours and no one gets to tell her how she feels about that, her future or her relationships.
In no other health matter does the government and most of all other people assume the right to applaud or wag fingers of moral authority over the person whose body they are discussing. Nor do you have the right to decide who lives and who dies. That too belongs to the one who is carrying it.
A woman's decision is NOT your business. There should be access and support for whatever she decides and that is a private matter. It is difficult enough without people like you and the state getting in the way to make it more difficult.

 

She can feel however she wants. It is what she DOES that is important.

The fetus is not "hers" anymore than a regular baby (outside of the womb) is hers.

 

Conjoined twins might be one other rare example. Although so far there is no record of conjoined twins disagreeing about a medical procedure.

Other situations that we might draw an analogy to are fights over patients who are in comas and unable to make their own decisions.

 

Rare example of what?
It is perfectly possible to separate them under almostcall circumstances.
Under no circumstances does anyone, especially strangers, have a voice in someone else's so private a life.
You cannot play God and pretend you are saving society or whatever you think you are doing.

 

Sorry, that's not true at all. You must not be familiar with all the laws that exist.

I would love it if what you said were true, but it's definitely not.

If you know about Julian Assange, he allegedly slipped off his condom in the midst of intercourse with a lady, which ended up causing all sorts of terrible legal problems for him.
There's another thread about a man who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for having sexual abuse pictures on his phone that he had collected from off the internet.
I could list many more examples.

 

I am and I don't think laws are necessary. They are the outcome of meddling authoritative state diktat that should never interfere with a woman's right to make her own decisions.

I am getting a tad worried about how easily the political class thinks it can allow or outlaw what people do in their private lives. Who is some political body to shape someone's decisions about such personal things? The whole idea is dangerously close to some huge state machinery telling you how to live your life.
Get out of peoples lives. They are private. Don't hide behind laws when there should be no laws.
And I include laws about gender issues too. Unless personal practise endangers life, stay out of it. I have opinions about gender but I would never forbid someone from doing what they think is right for them.
What happened to your personal freedoms? I thought Western society thrives on it and you want the state to dictate what you do to your own body.
How dare you?

 

Are you only going to defend abortion, or are you going to defend everything else too?

Interesting, it seems like at about the same time sexual freedoms appeared is when many other freedoms started on the course of being rapidly taken away.

 

You don't get it do you?
I don't support the simplistic war between those who defend abortion or not.
I defend the fundamental right of every woman to make HER own decision because only SHE knows the real context, the back story of her own issue. Neither you nor the state should interfere with such private health matters.
I defend her human right to define her own life and the state should support whatever she decides. And that is ALL either the state or others should do.

 

But will you concede there are actually some cases of abortion that are really terrible and awful, that probably deserve to be illegal, even if you don't believe we can reliably identify which of those cases those actually are?

 

If you're familiar with the Libertarian position, abortion is one of the two major issues that splits Libertarians down the middle, into two separate factions.
One the one hand, Libertarians believe in individual freedom, but on the other hand they believe your rights stop where someone else's rights begin. (The Non-Aggression Principle)

 

I have told you clearly what I think.
I am not interested in what label you wish to apply to me or what divides libertarians in some socio political world.
The issue is more about what role you think the state should fill in its relationship with the electorate.
IMO it does not include denying them the right to make such personal decisions which do not affect anyone else.

 

Well, it does affect someone else...

Or two, in the case of twins.

 

That is YOUR opinion.
It should not speak for every other person who has the basic right to have their own.

 

It's my opinion that murder is wrong, but I guess who am I to impose that opinion onto anyone else.

Abortion has so much in common with the issue of Slavery. The slave-owning South was also complaining that Slavery was essential for their Freedom and to maintain economic equality with the North.
The slave-owning South told the North it was none of their business.

The irony of course was that, while the South was complaining about the North trying to take away their rights, those "rights" were actually about the right to take rights away from other people (the slaves).
Just like the slave owner was not actually "minding his own business" by keeping slaves, a woman who gets an abortion is not actually "only minding her own business" either.

It would have been so interesting to see what the debates would have looked like if online internet political forums had existed during the time right before the US Civil War. I bet many of those types of arguments would have been very familiar to us today.

 

That is IMO correct.

 

Okay, then who are you to impose your values on someone else who wants to impose their values on women?

See that is an inherent problem with your position. It ends up being self-contradictory.

 

I am not imposing anything of my opinion.
I am not demanding my representatives reflect my opinion, am not standing holding placards in relevant places, writing to my representatives or to the media, or even discussing this with others in real time.
Nor do I have any interest in imposing anything on anyone. Instead I want LESS imposition of opinion by EVERYONE.
I am seriously fed up, not with people having opinions, but that they want everyone else to behave accordingly.
I would never support any law which affects people to behave against their opinion.
There is an issue right now in the UK involving conversion therapy. The govt promised to ban it but now has said it won't ban it for those with gender dysphoria.
I detest the idea of conversion therapy but feel that it is not the role of govt to remove the choice for those who want it.

 

Doesn't a law that bans vigilantism "affect people to behave against their opinion"?
Well then, obviously you do oppose people taking the law into their own hands, it is fair to say.
But what does that really fundamentally mean? Because if abortion were illegal, isn't it true that women would be "taking the law into their own hands" when they got abortions?

Look, your last post was very well worded, I will credit you with that, but actually I think you are (very cleverly) deflecting from the actual issue I tried to point out.

Could it be said that a woman might be "imposing her opinion" when she gets an abortion?

Look, we don't allow female circumcision on a small child, even if the 5 year old child claims "she wants it".

The child is too young to decide. And we don't trust the parent to make that particular choice for the child either.

 

Red herring.
Five year old cannot make such decisions in law. And five year old children are not circumcised.
As for FGM I think you will find that, legal or illegal, it will be done if the adults involved insist.
I would rather the child be brought to a clinic where the issue is discussed with parents and children and where if it were done, it were done in sterile conditions by proper doctors.
Instead of on a kitchen table by Uncle Ali who uses a dirty knife.
Making it illegal is pointless. If necessary the child will be taken to a country where it is legal.
Of course I hate the practise but imposing law will not stop it. As proven in reality. And that is The Real World.
Instead a loud propaganda exercise explaining to Imams, ADULTS and children the dangers and results in the future not only works but treats people like respected adults.l
And then allow them the human right of choice which is enjoyed by everyone as an EQUAL member of the land of the free.
I couldn't live in the USA because the law allows private ownership and use of guns. The idea IMO is abhorrent, so I don't put myself in that position. That choice to live where you feel comfortable is open to everyone.
NO ONE should be forced to do what they want in their private lives by the mechanics of the state. There are other ways to achieve the same result. Making laws is crude and a huge overreach by those who most usually have no idea of the circumstances or results of their laws. What they want is to be reelected and maximising their income and influence, not beneficial social engineering.

 

Those who want to ban abortion are NOT just imposing an opinion, they are destroying other's RIGHTS.....that's a big difference and one you don't want to acknowledge