🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Arguing men shouldnt have a right to an opinion on abortion because they can only be the victim of abortion and never the executor is like arguing women shouldnt have an opinion on rape because they are typically the victim and not the executor.
We all started our lives as fetuses and would have been effected by abortion laws, and as such we all should have a right to an opinion on the matter.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Except that abortion isnt a woman only issue
It is an issue that effects the woman and the feyus. So bases on your logic anyone who has been or is a woman or fetus has a right to an opinion, which is everyone.
LucifarGundam
I'ma summarize this issue. Cause everyone has a right to an opinion.
Men should not have a choice in women-only decisions.
More broadly, any persons opinion does not specifically equate to a weighted position on any other person's choice.
Keep government small; keep decisions up to those who are directly impacted.
The further one is from impact, the more distorted the reality.
Louis Ingenthron
@freemo Of course everyone has a right to their opinion on any subject.
But it does seem clear that while men are not unaffected, women *are* disproportionately affected and their voices should therefore hold more weight on the subject.
And the inverse holds true as well. Men's voices carry more weight when it comes to men's issues, such as the legality and ease of access to Viagra.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Viagra isnt a drug that effects is a woman will live tonsee adulthood... abortion is an act which does kill men and prevent them from reaching adulthood. It very much is a male issue.
:gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@louis @freemo
> And the inverse holds true as well. Men's voices carry more weight when it comes to men's issues, such as the legality and ease of access to Viagra.
access to viagra isn't killing small humans.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
To be clear the argument isnt against or for abortion, while i agree it can be murder (for example a day before birth) it also can save life and depends for sure.
That argument here is men are effected strongly as it decides if we can be killed early on. So it is very much an issue for everyone to discuss.
Louis Ingenthron
@bonifartius @freemo One could argue that a lack of it does. Ultimately it just depends on when you think life starts and whether or not you're willing to use violence to enforce that belief.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Lol i habe poa blocked. Now im curious though.
Louis Ingenthron
@brimshae @freemo Why stop there? Let's give individual sperms and eggs a say too.
brimshae
@louis @freemo I feel like the baby is more affected by abortion than the woman and should probably be given a say as well.
:gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@louis @freemo life starts at inception. that many fetuses die in the first weeks doesn't change this.
i don't think violence solves anything, it just shifts problems.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
From a scientific perspective life undoubtly starta before birth. That aaid bacteria is also life... the definition of where life starts as much as it matters for killing a bacteria. The fact is someone had the oppertunity at some point in the past to prevent my current life from existing, so i should have a say in matters where we discuss how much right i have to my life. We are discussing if someone haf a right to prevent my life, so clearly i should have a say in that.
Louis Ingenthron
@freemo @bonifartius On the issue of whether one can be killed or not before being born, men and women are equally involved. But when it comes to being an unwilling incubator for a parasite (especially in the case of rape), women are infinitely more involved than men. So, on balance, women have more of a say.
It's like the toilet seat. We use it down like 25% of the time, but women use it down 100% of the time, so the average is 62.5% which means the correct position is down.
LucifarGundam
Fetuses don't have rights. And by women, I was referring to those who could/would be affected by pregnancy. Specific circumstances for specific judgements.
If we're going down the rabbit hole of fetus and the earliest stages of life, we might as well consider the rights of microbes. If we get to that point, it no longer becomes a gender issue.
What happens to a fetus and unborn infant is between the mother and associated caretakers. All life comes with a material cost which can potentially have dynamically drastic impacts on the environments surrounding it. These factors should be weighed on those overseeing its development.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Of course fetuses have rights. It is and has been for a long time illegal to murder a fetus 8 months into pregnancy. They jave had and clearly do have rights, the debatable part is how many rights thry have.
That said i never once argued for thrm having rights. I argued adults have the right to have an opinion on what the rules are on if someone should have been allowed to prevent my life or not.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Lawl, shocker.
brimshae
@louis @freemo I'm sure that was a great argument. Just promise me you won't have kids.
Louis Ingenthron
brimshae
@louis @freemo Challenge unlocked: Tell me you're upset at what I said without saying you're upset at what I said.
Louis Ingenthron
@brimshae @freemo Lol, what? I extended your own logic to point out its absurd conclusions. Whatever undertone of malice or frustration you think you read were entirely in your head.
Try reading my toots as intended: detached, emotionless, and vaguely condescending; like a has-been Shakespearean actor who's now recording audiobooks for printer manuals.
NOS :facebook: 🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
@freemo @lucifargundam @louis Good discussion here so far. Everyone can have opinions, but which should have weight? Mainly with lucifar here, personal impact should determine this.
I'd like to add that fetuses "rights", be they legal or ethical rights, are usually viewed a bit short sighted.
A mere right to live does not reflect what the ethical consequences are, and a legal right without considering the actual consequences (after birth) runs afoul of the same ethical problem.
So i see two possibilities:
- guaranteeing a right to live and putting actual work behind the contextual issues: access to birth control (prevent unwanted pregnancy), timely access to abortion (important especially in case of rape), providing care for the birthed baby (not an unwilling mothers job), securing the ability of the growing human to actually lead a good life and not just subsist.
This i can take seriously as an opinion (even if i might disagree, depending on details).
- guaranteeing only the right to live, but just some hand waving at most for the rest of the issues.
In this case, i would have to assume the fetus rights are not the actual issue.
To summarize, if anyone who may or may not be up to the task is forced to do anything, the process is surely an unethical one. Claiming to act in stead of someone who does not have a voice needs diligence and foresight, or it is a false claim.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I agree with this given the current situation where a person can just go get the procedure in some other state.
Though if it were a total ban, and even illegal to go out of your area to get one, then even the wealthy wouldnt be able to get an abortion. But thats not the case, so what we have right now what you are saying is certainly true, and a bit issue IMO.
Ponygirl
@bonifartius @louis @freemo Abortion is never illegal for the wealthy. Abortion bans are class warfare.
:gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@Ponygirl @louis @freemo
a ban always is enforced by threat of violence. i specifically wrote that violence doesn't solve this (or any) problem.
class warfare is a bullshit collectivist concept.
did you seek out other threads of freemo because you are now agnostic? :)
Ponygirl
@freemo @bonifartius @louis A wealthy woman would simply call her personal physician for the procedure or go to "visit the Blarneystone" in Ireland. The wealthy do what they want. Middle class and poor girls pay the price economically, socially, and physically.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
You mean int he current system, in which case I agree. Obviously if it is blanket outlawed than those scenarios would still mean jail time, so in that scenario your point isnt valid, but with the current state it is entirely valid.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Just to be clear he is more than welcome on my threads. He has been nothing but polite and if he wants to look through my threads and jump in, so long as he remains respectful, it is more than welcome.
Ponygirl
@bonifartius @louis @freemo I found I enjoy debating freemo because the debate is cordial, and it gets my brain juices flowing. We've not attacked each other. I'm sorry, but dismissing class warfare is ignoring millenia of human history. And your enforcing bans with violence comment made me a bit sick in my tummy.
:gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@Ponygirl @louis @freemo
well, you replied to my post!
> I'm sorry, but dismissing class warfare is ignoring millenia of human history.
still pushing for collectivist ideas and concepts like class warfare is.
> And your enforcing bans with violence comment made me a bit sick in my tummy.
sorry. violence is how states work. if something is the law it is backed by violence. a fine not paid will end with property being taken away by force and people being put in jail. the ideology behind the concept of class warfare is the embodiment of state violence.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I too have enjoyed the respectful debate and so long as it remains respectful you are always welcome on my feed.
In Boni's defense im not sure she is ignoring class warfare so much as agreeing with you to an extent. At least thats how I read it. Like anything solved via threat of arrest is violence and cant solve this problem, so seems she at least agrees with you that outlawing abortion under threat of arrest is not the answer (though if i had to guess I suspect she might be against abortion morally).
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Oh so sorry. I should have checked. I have a very bad habit of defaulting to "he" online for some reason, particularly if i dont know someone. IT can be very rude and not intentional though, my apologies. Ill try not to make that mistake again.
Ponygirl
@freemo @bonifartius @louis I am a she 😊
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I think you may just be particularly senative to anti-capitalist discussion because so often it devolves into nonsense, and I do get that. Might I suggest we give ponygirl the benefit of the doubt here that it wont go that far based on how reasonable she has been in debate so far?
That said while, as you know, I have no issues with capitalism, and even think its good when implemented properly, I kinda agree with ponygirl on this one. While you are right that it is perfectly ok for the wealthy to do more or have more than the poor, I dont think that should carry over to the law. The law is one place everyone should be equal, and being wealthy should not make you immune to some laws while the poor not. Laws should be about morality, and enforcing it. Something doesnt become right just because you have more money to get around the rules. Now I wouldnt blame the wealthy person, they are just working within the system. But it certainly is an indication that there is a failure in the law when that happens.
:gnu:+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@freemo @Ponygirl @louis i was just teasing (hence the smiley) because this thread is a bit old and i read the atheism thread earlier.
i don't like two sentence drive by with communist rethorics though. of course "the wealthy" can do more things than others, but why is this wrong? why is it warfare? in states that follow these ideas we wouldn't be able to have this exchange we have here.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
> I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now-
I assume you mean USA's capitalist government, as opposed to europe, which is also capitalist of course but with their own take?
> a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago.
We certainly have quite a few economic issues that could be address. I'd imagine the devil is in the details so im not sure if we agree on the points (since we didnt dig that deep) but i certainly agree on the principle that there are economic issues that need addressing, many of which revolve around poverty and prosperity.
> Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?
My view is that law should enforce the "objective morality" as a guiding principle. When I saw objective morality I mean "That which reduces suffering to its utmost" which to me is really all morality is, a societal agreement on some rules designed to minimize the overall suffering of society, to effectively minimize unhappiness and maximize happiness. So I think all laws should be designed with that principle in mind.
Ponygirl
@freemo @bonifartius @louis I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now- a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago. Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?
Ponygirl
@freemo @bonifartius @louis OMG we could go so much deeper on the objective morality, but I get your gist, and am on board with the alleviation of suffering. Thank you for your thoughtful responses and giving me a run for my money 😊 For now, I bid you good night sir.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
The objective morality bit seems to be a hot topic anytime i bring it up with anyone... most people seem to have an almost visceral reaction and disagreement to the notion that morality can be objective rather than a pure cultural construct.
I argue its both, while on the one hand the measure of morality is objective (quantity of suffering) ont he other hand what will cause suffering is very much influenced by culture. If a culture covers women up (like muslim cultures) then forcing a woman to wear very little would cause most women to suffer more so than forcing them not to. In a society where women usually expose more like west societies the opposite is true, most women would suffer more to have to cover up. Basically, whatever feels normal for your culture, usually there will be some degree of suffering to depart from that. But my whole argument is that the suffering needs to be measured in aggregate and not just the emotional component.
Anyway im rambling, have a good night, it was a pleasure.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.